Black Lives Matter co-founder appears to label white people ‘defects’

They do.
Mainly such statements come from ignorant or totally enraged individuals that have a victimization complex response. BLM itself is anti-violence.
"The Black Lives Matter Network advocates for dignity, justice, and respect.

In the last few days, this country witnessed the recorded murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of police, the latest victims in this country’s failed policing system. As we have done for decades, we marched and protested to highlight the urgent need to transform policing in America, to call for justice, transparency and accountability, and to demand that Black Lives Matter.

In Dallas, many gathered to do the same, joining in a day of action with friends, family, and co-workers. Their efforts were cut short when a lone gunman targeted and attacked 11 police officers, killing five. This is a tragedy–both for those who have been impacted by yesterday’s attack and for our democracy. There are some who would use these events to stifle a movement for change and quicken the demise of a vibrant discourse on the human rights of Black Americans. We should reject all of this.

Black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it. Yesterday’s attack was the result of the actions of a lone gunman. To assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible. We continue our efforts to bring about a better world for all of us."
Something we can all support.

Yes & no. They have policies (which would be opposite of what a few have said- that authority, the media & the righties want to use to turn people against them & keep a divide going) which are known & published. They have mentioned that they do not have consolidated command because they have learned from the past that this just paints a target on those few peoples backs. We have seen it with a number of groups from Civil Rights, Black Panthers, Feminist movements. Hell the AIM always said they could tell who the FBI were using to infiltrate their ranks because those were the same people that would come in saying "we should go blow this up, we should go shoot that up"

I'm not saying that it's a bad call to be decentralized, but the truth of the matter is you lose control of the overall movement, inherently, by running it this way. That's why there's no official spokesman for the BLM that can state what the stances of the BLM are as a movement, and consequentially, it cannot react appropriately and in a timely manner to changing situations.

They're like feminists in a way. There are maybe a couple of overarching themes that link most, if not all, feminists together, but aside from that? Basically impossible to pin down accurately. There was, and to a certain extent still is, debate over the continued existence of the sexual entertainment industry, for starters. The BLM is just as non-committal as the feminist movement in their current iterations when it comes to specifics. Their diffuse nature makes the 'outliers' more noticeable because they are inherently more controversial. Addressing that problem, something normally left to people higher up in the chain of command, becomes next to impossible when there is no chain of command to take action in the first place.

Yes I think that's correct, it was started by three women as a grassroots movement. The different charters are not connected to each other nor is there anything that resembles a command structure .
And when someone does do something like what the OP is about, none of the charters step up to denounce those spouting off things that BLM as a WHOLE say they don't want to be known for.

I would agree & think perhaps using a more central neutral source that could be spokesperson would be beneficial.

The problem is that regardless of whether they did or not, (of which I have no clue either way), there can be no active role in which to fix that problem, because there is no command structure in which to set up, or remove, membership from a movement like this. Suppose, for instance, that all three charters came out against this. Suppose that all three denounced it. What would it matter? I'm pretty certain that BLM has stretched far and away from these three beginning charters, and as such, they would not be kept abreast of every single goings on of anyone who claimed to be a member. There is no way to keep tabs on members in an organization like this, and naturally, that will result in 'interesting' interpretations of the overarching goals.

Even if we assume a denouncement, who would hear it? Who, among an average population, would know who any of these three women are, their current significance to the movement, or even why they should care in relation to the issue at hand? It's a different spin on the same question encountered in the Muslim problem. Muslim's (currently) have no centralized authority to make statements to the world at large, so the best they can muster is regional dissent. BLM can only muster regional dissent. When your only weapon is regional dissent, your reach and your impact is going to be smaller.

As long as the beliefs the individual charters carry vary so distinctly from each other, I don't really see that happening. The logistics alone would be a nightmare. Trying to plan out how to set up a meeting between representatives from all over the country to a single location when the members are mostly poor urban African Americans who have jobs they need to be at daily sounds like a headache, and that doesn't even scratch the surface of working out actual issues between different charters in different situations.

All of this assumes that BLM even wants to move toward a more centralized route which they have shown no inclination for.

Prolly right. They should perhaps keep it local & appoint a spokesperson for the smaller collective.