KNOWLEDGE IS MURDER

Let's recap, shall we:

Human beings are the stupidest and meanest creatures in the universe, as far as can be determined. Despite this—or because of this—our heads are jam-packed with vital knowledge, every single bit of it true. We know what we know and we can't be wrong, far as we know.

Knowing stuff is our wheelhouse.

In reality, human beings are full of crap, pretty much wall-to-wall. How come? Easy: We're the crap people. We make up a bunch of crap, then get to work killing folks over it. We got crap in our heads and murder in our hearts.

To be fair, we're pretty sure we're not making it up. Most of our excellent head crap is thought to have come directly out of God's golden poop-hole—which means it's the best crap ever. (Turns out we made up the God part.)

But we should be proud: Human beings are the only known source of idiotic nonsense in the entire universe.

How is this possible? First: You can teach a human child anything and they'll believe it forever. Next: A grownup's brain will literally edit the observable world to provide its owner with proof all the improbable crap in there is true.

And to make it a lock, the brain is also the authority on the question of how much proof is needed to do the job. It should be no surprise, we always get the perfect amount of proof. The process is seamless and undetectable.

And this is not a heavily-guarded secret. We can see the truth of what I'm saying in every direction—when we look at other people. Clearly, those guys are deranged goofballs. Unfortunately, we don't realize it's happening to us, too.

Is it any wonder this planet-sized ball of divine crap is making life hard for us? The fact is, certain chunks of knowledge lead straight to death, one way or another.

For instance, radicalized Muslims know they have to blow themselves up in crowded places to defend their religion. As a bonus, they're also getting revenge for the many Muslims who have died in the War on Terror, fighters and innocent civilians alike—and they know the fighters were also blameless, guys doing what they were required by the Quran to do.

Another example: In Sacramento, California, the Black Lives Matter folks are busy championing yet another martyred black youth, Stephon Clark. The fellow's brother suggests schools should be named for the man, shot by cops in his grandmother's back yard.

(Newscasters always mention the grandmother's back yard, as if that were in any way relevant.)

The BLM folks know this depressing fact: White cops are murdering black men whenever they can, for no reason—and doing it on camera if possible (including their own body cams). BLM folks also know cops lie when they claim they thought the victim had a gun (as they did in the Sacramento case). Without a doubt, according to BLM, those cops executed the man.

Human knowledge, baby, good as gold and twice as heavy!

Or is it? Except for a couple glaring counter examples, the evidence of murder in an overwhelming number of cases is simply not there. What seems to be happening is standard cop behavior, dealt to all—black and white, alike—who dare to defy authority and resist arrest.

I've written about this before (PART TWO, etc.), but I need to make a further point. Is it possible the BLM movement is encouraging black men, on some unconscious level, to take an action that precipitates the most extreme result?

Did Stephon Clark heed the Siren call of landing on the Big Board of Beloved Martyrs? Did he take a "shooter's stance" (as the cops have said) in order to get the inevitable response? Was it de facto suicide by cop?

I know how this sounds: I'm blaming the victim. But just because it sounds bad doesn't mean it can be ruled out.

The BLM folks make it their business to insure every black man knows he's in constant jeopardy of being murdered by cops. It doesn't matter what you do, the cops will shoot you down in cold blood. Everybody knows this by now, with fresh proof arriving every day.

Can you really say this "knowledge" has no effect on black guys when they see a cop car in the rear-view mirror?

Seriously, if violent death is inevitable, why not go out a hero?

Faced with that possible outcome, might not the cops be extra nervous when chasing black men? Is the fellow going to force the issue? Is he leading them into an ambush? According to BLM wisdom, an ambush of cops might well be warranted.

And has already happened numerous times.

Look, I get why the BLM folks accept their "knowledge" as accurate. The history of black people in this country is over-stocked with blatant murder perpetrated by self-righteous white a-holes. No question, the notion of white cops killing black men for no reason is on that spectrum.

That doesn't mean it's happening.

Doesn't mean it's not happening, either. But in every case the black man who was shot was refusing to cooperate with the arrest, forcing matters to escalate to a deadly conclusion.

Some folks think these outcomes could have been avoided. If the black man had a weapon, why couldn't the cops shoot the gun out of his hand? Because that only works in the movies. Cops are trained to aim at center mass.

(But here's a question: Why didn't the cop in Baton Rouge move his muzzle a few inches and shoot the fellow in the arm on the gun side of his body? At point blank range he'd have no chance of missing, and it's unlikely the fellow would have died.)

Folks also want to know why cops fire so many bullets. First, every cop on the scene is going to discharge his weapon. Nobody can hold back, thinking his brother cops will do the job. They might all hesitate, with fatal results.

But why do they shoot so many times? Cops are trained to end the threat with decisive action. You shoot until the matter is settled without a doubt, even after the guy is on the ground.

(By the way, cops standing and firing into a prone man on the ground is likely to result in back wounds. Also, when people are being shot, they tend to turn from the source of bullets. Back wounds don't prove the cops started shooting when the man was facing away from them. In Sacramento, police helicopter video showed the man advancing toward the cops before falling to the ground.)

And consider this: Cops almost never fire their weapons in the line of duty. So when they do, they can get pretty jacked up. Some of them may go overboard in panic, despite their training, and fire an excessive number of rounds.

Folks want to know why cops shoot guys before they know definitively the suspect is armed. Couldn't there be a rule saying they can't unholster their weapons until they've been shot at once or twice? Sorry, but cops would never agree to something that put them in such a disadvantageous position. Whenever it looks like the guy has a gun, cops have to go with that scenario—for their own safety. They have maybe half a second to react. As the saying goes, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Bottom line: You can always trick the cops into killing you, if that's what you desire most in this world. I think it would be better to remove that level of despair from your life. Be great if the BLM leaders could find a way to do it, instead of falsely adding more terror and confrontation to the mix.

But that's not how they see it. And there's no way they could be wrong, far as they know. They're just human beings doing what humans do best.

The ultimate solution, as I've mentioned before, is to arm cops with Star-Wars-type phasers set permanently on stun. Never any need for deadly force. The bad guy wakes up in the back seat of a cruiser on his way to getting booked.

We need a modern version of the Manhattan Project to produce phasers before this country is burned to the ground—destroyed by irrefutable human knowledge.

Folks, we invented irrefutable knowledge, and by God we know how to use it.