In struggling to figure out what to write this week, I turned to the headlines and was surprised, but not shocked, by what I saw. Recently, the shooting of 40-year-old Terrence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina have dominated newsfeeds. And while Crutcher seemed to be almost entirely in the right in the Tulsa shooting (and charges have already been brought against the officer involved there), the Charlotte shooting is a much more convoluted scene.

While there was clear video evidence of Terrence Crutcher backing away from police in Tulsa, hands raised and all, the same can’t be delineated from the existing footage in Charlotte. While Crutcher clearly has no weapon (and the police have reported that there was no weapon present either on his person or in his vehicle) the same cannot be said of Scott (where the police have yet to say definitively whether any weapon was found on scene). In short, the Crutcher case seems to be “solved”. The Scott case not so much.

Which is why it boggles my mind as to why massive protests have erupted in Charlotte, but not in Tulsa. Why is there protest in the case where it’s unclear whether the shooting was justified or not, while in the case where there seems definitively that there was white-on-black violence, not a peep?

In this rare case of side-by-side comparison, I believe the fallacy of the Black Lives Matter movement is revealed. And before you denounce me as a bigot, a racist, and all sorts of other nasty things, hear me out.

Understandably, both cases are tragic. Any loss of life is tragic. However, we in America are a nation of laws, and as citizens of this country we must abide by those laws. One of the most primary principles of American law is the idea that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and that he or she has the right to a fair trial in order to determine the status of his or her guilt.

In Tulsa, Officer Betty Shelby, the policewoman in question, is being given this. She has been charged with manslaughter in the death of Terrence Crutcher and her case is moving to trial to determine in a court of law what should be done.

In Charlotte, the same cannot be said, primarily because the evidence is not nearly as forthcoming. The video quality is much poorer in the Charlotte case. There is not definitive evidence of whether or not Scott had a gun on him at the time. The exact location of Scott, his first being approached by police officers while in his car and subsequently exiting the vehicle before being shot and handcuffed, also makes the Charlotte case a much more complex one.

What's the key difference is between the two cases (and the factor that likely sparked protests so heavily in Charlotte) is speed. Officer Shelby was charged very quickly after her incident with Crutcher and all of the video evidence was not only handed over to Crutcher’s family and attorney, but released to the public as well. The same cannot be said in Charlotte, where release of the video footage was delayed a few days, and any charges (if they are to come) have yet to be spoken on.

The protesters in Charlotte do not seem to care whether or not the officer in question acted in a justified manner in shooting Scott. All they know is this: 1) a black man is dead, and 2) the state has done nothing to punish those involved. It’s not about justice for Black Lives Matter, rather about delivering the result they would most like to see.

The protests in Charlotte have been snap judgments, just as they were in Ferguson. Notice, I’m not claiming that the Scott shooting was justified. Rather, I’m saying that there are not enough facts either way to determine if the officer in question is possibly guilty or not.

But the lack of evidence doesn’t bother Black Lives Matter. They believe Scott was murdered in cold blood, and good luck trying to reason with such a base, emotional conviction.

You’ll also notice I have yet to touch on the destruction to property and businesses during the riots that came in the wake of the Keith Scott shooting. Most incredibly, a man was murdered during the riots. Both the victim and the suspected killer were black. I have yet to mention these discrepancies because I’ve already written nearly 800 words at this point and I could take another 800 to fully explain the sad ironies paraded here.

At the heart of the matter is this: Black Lives Matter is protesting in Charlotte precisely for all the reasons I’ve outlined above. The case is murky. It’s unclear. It’s controversial. And that’s where they thrive. They thrive on the idea of injustice because that’s all they know. If they were to point to Crutcher’s case in Tulsa and acknowledge that proper work was done by the police in the handling of the incident, that would defeat their narrative. They would lose the emotion of the mob, and thus lose their power. Why does Black Lives Matter need to exist if the system does its job?

So they draw attention instead to the controversial case; instead of letting evidence come forward and an unbiased decision be made, they protest and screech and threaten till they’re red in the face and fact can no longer be cleaved from presumption. In this sense they’re like any political organization looking to wield power: anything that can be done to drive a one-sided story is exploited wholeheartedly.

So while so many take up the banner and call for justice for Scott in those humid North Carolina streets, remember the quiet downtown of Tulsa. Remember that while no instance can be seen in a vacuum, each case is unique. Remember that if any semblance of American democracy and liberty is to be preserved it begins with this notion: innocent until proven guilty, no matter the color of your skin.