You know, it seems just yesterday I was bagging on the FDA.
In today's blog post, I'm complaining about drugs and why is it the FDA isn't doing a better job of regulating Big Pharma.
In fact, and did you know, that there are ONLY TWO countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the public? The United States and New Zealand.
That's right. Pursuant to FDA rules, companies must:
Present a “fair balance” of risks and benefits.
Not omit important safety information.
Ensure claims are truthful and not misleading.
Soooooo, what happens when a pharmaceutical company doesn't present a fair balance of risks and benefit OR omits important safety information OR ensures claims are truthful and not misleading?
Well, they get fined or get sent a really nasty letter.
A letter? You're kidding right?!
Actually, no.
Officially, if a company misleads the public (e.g., downplays side effects), the FDA can issue:
A scary warning letter or Untitled Letters (formal notices to stop certain ads).
Seizure or injunctions (rare).
Referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for civil or criminal prosecution.
But, you say, the FDA doesn't really send out letters when there is a clear violation by a BILLIONS in profit each year MULTINATIONAL corporation?
Say it isn't so, Joe!
1. Celgene – Revlimid (2015, Untitled Letter)
Issue: Promotional materials overstated effectiveness in treating multiple myeloma and downplayed risks.
FDA Action: Issued an untitled letter directing Celgene to correct the materials.
Criticism: No fine or sanction, even though Revlimid was a multi-billion-dollar drug.
2. Amgen – Neulasta (2010, Warning Letter)
Issue: TV ad minimized serious risks (e.g., spleen rupture, acute respiratory distress) and overstated benefits for chemotherapy patients.
FDA Action: Sent a warning letter. The ad was pulled, but no financial penalties were imposed.
3. Novartis – Tasigna (2013, Untitled Letter)
Issue: Website and YouTube videos exaggerated the cancer drug’s effectiveness while minimizing life-threatening side effects.
FDA Action: Issued an untitled letter requiring corrections, but no fines.
4. Otsuka – Rexulti (2016, Warning Letter)
Issue: Sales reps made false claims to physicians, suggesting Rexulti was safer and more effective than proven.
FDA Action: Sent a warning letter. Again, no penalties beyond compliance.
Issue: Print ad overstated effectiveness for generalized anxiety disorder and omitted major safety warnings (including metabolic risks).
FDA Action:Warning letter only — no fines.
OK, OK, so they send out letters. But no fines/money? There's gotta be instances where companies who violate the law get fined, right?!?
Well, yes - fines are levied. The problem is when the company makes BILLIONS in profit each year, any fine is basically a tickle. For example:
GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK) – Fined $3 billion (2012)
Drugs: Paxil, Wellbutrin, Avandia
Violation: Misbranding, illegal
promotion, and failure to report Avandia’s cardiovascular risks.
Profit in 2012: $7.1–7.5 billion USD
Pfizer
– Fined $2.3 billion (2009)
Drug: Bextra (and others)
Violation: Off-label promotion, false
marketing, and kickbacks.
Profit in 2009: About $8.6 billion USD
Johnson
& Johnson – $2.2 billion (2013)
Drug: Risperdal (antipsychotic)
Violation: Misbranding and hiding risks,
especially promotion to elderly patients despite stroke risk.
Profit in 2013: $13.8
billion USD
Abbott
Laboratories – $1.5 billion (2012)
Drug: Depakote
Violation: Promoting for unapproved uses
(e.g., dementia, schizophrenia).
Profit in 2012: $6.0 billion USD
Eli
Lilly – $1.4 billion (2009)
Drug: Zyprexa (antipsychotic)
Violation: Off-label promotion (especially
to children and elderly) while downplaying diabetes risks.
Profit in 2009:$4.33 billion USD
Merck
– $950 million (2011)
Drug: Vioxx (painkiller)
Violation: Misbranding and failing to
disclose cardiovascular risks.
Profit in 2011: $6.27 billion USD
Amgen
– $762 million (2012)
Drug: Aranesp (anemia drug)
Violation: Misbranding, off-label
promotion, false claims to Medicare.
Profit in 2012:
$4.3 billion USD
Allergan
– $600 million (2010)
Drug: Botox
Violation: Promoting for unapproved uses
(headaches, juvenile cerebral palsy, pain).
Profit in 2010:
$0.28 billion on revenue of $4.8 billion USD
Schering-Plough/Merck
– $435 million (2006)
Drug: Temodar, Intron A, others
Violation: Off-label promotion, false
claims.
Profit in 2006: $1.6 billion
USD
Purdue
Pharma – $634.5 million (2007)
Drug: OxyContin
Violation: Misbranding, falsely claiming
OxyContin was less addictive and safer than other opioids.
Total Revenue in 2007: $2.8
billion USD
What does all this indicate? Simply, that money is no option for some companies. Even though Purdue Pharma got hit with a $634.5 million fine, it was still not enough to sink the company because there is so much money in drugs.
So, why doesn't the FDA hit Pharma companies harder? Well, up to now, the Feds were in bed with Big Pharma.
The most
direct evidence of bribery occurred in the late 1980s, where an
industry whistleblower uncovered a major scandal involving FDA
officials.
What happened:
Several FDA employees in the generic drugs division were found to have
accepted bribes and illegal gratuities from generic drug companies. In
exchange, officials sped up drug approvals or provided inside
information.
The outcome:
The scandal led to criminal convictions and prompted the FDA to
implement new policies to detect fraudulent data submissions and address
bribery
Outside of direct bribery, critics
point to other structural issues that can create a "cozy relationship"
between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry.
User fees:
Since 1992, the FDA's drug division has been partially funded by "user
fees" collected from pharmaceutical companies. This system raises
concerns about a potential conflict of interest, as the FDA becomes
dependent on the industry it regulates.
The "revolving door":
It is a common practice for senior FDA officials and drug reviewers to
leave the agency and take high-paying jobs at the pharmaceutical
companies they once regulated.
Potential concerns:
This practice raises concerns that former officials could use their
inside knowledge and relationships to benefit their new employers.
Arguments for the practice:
Supporters argue that the deep knowledge of former FDA employees can
help companies navigate the complex approval process more efficiently.
The
pharmaceutical industry also has a documented history of paying illegal
kickbacks and bribes to healthcare providers, but these cases typically
involve influencing doctors' prescribing habits rather than directly corrupting
FDA officials.For
instance, in 2016, pharmaceutical executives were charged with a racketeering scheme involving paying kickbacks to doctors to promote an
addictive opioid.
So, I'm wondering whether any of this is going to stop with the new administration? Obama didn't care about the kickbacks. Biden didn't care, either.
Will Trump, et al. care?
Time will tell.
In the meantime, what can regular folks do against big pharma and FDA corruption?
Well, we can advocate for legislative reforms,
such as increased transparency in funding for researchers and advocacy
groups, and reforms to the FDA's fee system that increases industry
influence.
We can supporting independent journalism that investigates misconduct, reporting potential conflicts of interest.
We can join or support non-profit organizations that work to promote patient safety and advocate for stricter regulations.
It's not a lot but at least it's something and sometimes, it's the little things that bring down the mountain.
You know, sometimes when I write these blogs, the research gets deeper and deeper - like a rabbit hole. Turns out, this one got deep REALLY fast.
So, picture it. I'm minding my own business eating my lunch at a local park when I witnessed a Guy wearing what I though was an innocuous T-shirt.
Cue Old Lady who approaches Guy and starts screeching at Guy at how offended she was with his T-shirt. You know, looking back on it, I don't think she really said anything - it was just the tone of the screech that got me. A mix of cat drowning in a burlap bag and Baba Yaga on a mid-night run.
Anyway, she really didn't like what Guy was wearing and screeched until her voice gave out....which about the time she got physical and tried to tear Guy's shirt off.
Well, I'm guessing that's what she was trying to do.
Anyway, good thing there was a cop in the area to help de-escalate things before things got too crazy.
This all brought to my mind what some of the things politicians on the left are doing or have been doing to rile up their constiuents. Specifically, playing the victim whilst complaining about what the Right side of the isle is doing (i.e. Republicans).
So, before we get too far into this, let's cook up some definitions.
As you'll note, we have two words/concepts that we're dealing with this month (and it's important to note the differences). Actually, there are 4 terms here which I'll define in sequence and show their importance as it relates to both the political and judicial environments in which we now live.
A GRIEVANCE is a specific complaint about something perceived as unfair, harmful, or unjust. A grievance mentality is a persistent way of seeing oneself or one’s
group as having been treated unfairly and staying focused on that
injustice, often with a mix of resentment, moral outrage, and a desire
for payback rather than resolution. It becomes a stable lens: new events
are interpreted as further proof that “they are against me/us,” and
positive or neutral information is discounted.
Key traits of a grievance mentality:
Situational and contextual (“X happened that was unfair”)
Can motivate action, advocacy, or problem-solving
Does not define the person’s identity
Can be verified or addressed
Example:
A person believes a company denied them a promotion unfairly and formally files a complaint or seeks mediation.
In contrast, a VICTIM is a person who suffers harm, loss, or injury as a result of someone else’s actions, negligence, or circumstances beyond their control (whether actual or presumed). Where a victim is someone who has genuinely suffered harm, a victim mentality is a psychological pattern in which a person perceives themselves as perpetually wronged, whether or not actual harm exists, and interprets all challenges as personal injury.
Victim claims are persuasive because they tap into automatic emotional,
moral, and group-based processes in the brain that evolved to respond
quickly to threats and unfairness. They also exploit common persuasion
dynamics: trust in the speaker, vivid emotional stories, and repetition.
Key traits of a victim mentality:
Persistent external blame: Others or systems are always at fault
Powerlessness: Belief that one cannot meaningfully influence outcomes
Identity fusion: Being a victim becomes a core part of self-concept
Resistance to solutions: Any advice, compromise, or effort is dismissed
Moral leverage: Suffering is used to claim authority or righteousness
Example:
That same employee now believes all promotions are rigged, everyone is out to get them, and any attempt to fix things is hopeless. They may never try again, instead framing all setbacks as proof of universal injustice.
In politics, these mentalities shows up as:
Constant outrage over opposition actions, even minor ones.
Treating all criticism as illegitimate or harmful.
Framing your party, ideology, or movement as systematically under attack, with little acknowledgment of agency or responsibility.
A grievance mentality is built around three psychological core beliefs which are narrower, more situation than a victim mentality but still reality-anchored. The three core beliefs of a grievance mentality are:
Something specific happened that was unfair or wrong.
Responsibility for this wrong is limited and identifiable.
Redress should be proportional and rule-based.
A grievance mentality still allows evidence to matter, intent to matter, proportionality to matter, and self-reflection to occur.
It says:
“This was wrong, and it should be addressed.”
—not—
“I am wronged, therefore I am right about everything.”
From a legal perspective, a grievance mentality says: “That law unfairly limits voting in my district — let’s challenge it through courts or advocacy.”
A victim mentality, on the other hand, causes people to interpret the world through a lens of permanent threat and moral innocence, which turns neutral actions into attacks, disagreement into evil, and ultimately makes aggression feel like justified self-defense rather than wrongdoing.
A victim mentality isn’t just “feeling wronged,” it’s a stable identity built around three beliefs:
I am fundamentally innocent / morally superior.
Others are agents of harm (even when neutral).
My suffering justifies my reactions.
Once those beliefs lock in, the person’s brain stops asking “What is actually happening?” and starts asking “How is this happening to me?”
Essentially, the person's perception shifts to themselves as the victim for everything around them allowing them to then blame everyone (else) and not take any blame themselves for anything they do.
From a legal perspective, a victim mentality says: “The system is rigged, nothing we do matters, and anyone who disagrees with us is part of the oppression.
Looking back at Baba Yaga in the park, what are some behaviors that were exhibited indicating a victim mentality?
As I was looking all this, I got to wonder at what point does a grievance twist into a victim mentality?
You know, I can't help but feel that Maxine Waters is partly responsible for people like this. Back in 2018, she actually encouraged people to out and out attack persons who did not believe as they do/did saying, "If
you see anybody in a restaurant, in a department
store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And
you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore,
anywhere...protest and harass them..."
Really? Harass people into doing what you want? What a boring world it would be if everyone did and thought the same thing.
The thing is, once someone sees themselves as a victim in principle, they feel entitled to break norms, justified in punishing others, and are immune from moral scrutiny.
In psychology, this is called moral licensing. Essentially, what a person is saying in such a situation is:
“Because I am harmed (whether or not they actually were), I am allowed to harm.”
That’s how aggression becomes “self-defense,” harassment becomes “accountability,” and violence becomes “justice.”
A victim mentality can manifest in public by treating symbolic opposition as real harm. The pattern is recognizable:
Perceived offense → personal moral obligation → confrontation or shaming → justification through self/identity as victim.
You know, I seem to recall a few times over the last couple of years where politicians have lashed out pushing a victim rhetoric, to wit:
A West Virginia Supreme Court justice refused to recuse himself from a case involving a company whose CEO had spent millions supporting his election. The Supreme Court of the United States held that due process required recusal because of a serious risk of bias.
While the judge's actions wasn’t out and out called a “victim mentality,” it shows how perceived alignment or favoritism can undermine judicial neutrality.
Quote/Context:
After the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described fearing for her life and equated calls to “move on” with minimizing harm. She said those urging others to forget the event were using “the same tactics of abusers,” and connected her emotional response to her experience as a survivor of abuse.
Interpretation:
Critics have interpreted this as invoking personal victimhood and psychological harm to frame political opponents’ disagreement or pushback as abusive — a victim-framed narrative rather than simply political disagreement.
Democrats in Congress blaming Republicans for political violence
Quote/Context:
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in 2025, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) accused Republicans and right-wing rhetoric of being chiefly responsible for politically motivated violence in America: “Let’s be serious… extremist murders 76% are from right wing extremists.” He emphasized that while left-wing extremists are also condemned, the responsibility lies primarily with the other side.
Interpretation:
Here Democratic criticism shifts from condemning violence to blaming the opposing party’s rhetoric for harm to themselves and others. Some view this as presenting themselves and their allies as victims of polarizing rhetoric rather than focusing solely on broader solutions.
House Democrats calling GOP investigations politically motivated
Quote/Context: Democrats on the House Oversight Committee labeled a Republican-led investigation into D.C. policing as a “political stunt” and “biased,” rejecting the legitimacy of the probe and framing the effort as aimed improperly at local leaders rather than based on evidence.
Interpretation:
Framing the investigation as biased and harmful can, for critics, signal a narrative of being targeted and unjustly treated — even when the investigative topic itself is not inherently about personal harm.
Quote/Context: In televised or social media posts, Ocasio-Cortez described the Capitol attack as traumatizing and recounted saying “I woke up and I thought I was dying” while sheltering during the siege. She has invoked trauma language when discussing the event and Republicans’ role.
Interpretation:
While describing trauma is valid, critics have at times argued that linking it rhetorically to political opposition blurs personal threat experiences with political messaging — potentially encouraging narratives that the entire political context is an ongoing attack on them.
The problem with all this mud-slinging and victim mentalizing is that it always spills over into real life, encouraging people to act out and become victims themselves. Dang but the courts are full of people who took what their favorite politicians have said and chose to become political victims.
Cody Balmer — attempted arson/murder of a governor’s residence (Pennsylvania)
What happened:
In April 2025, Cody Balmer pleaded guilty to attempting to murder Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro by throwing gasoline‑filled bottles at the governor’s mansion while Shapiro and his family were inside.
Prosecutors described the attack as politically motivated, linked to Balmer’s grievances around political issues, including the war in Gaza and his hatred for Shapiro’s policies. Balmer was sentenced to 25–50 years in prison on multiple charges, including terrorism, arson, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault.
Why it’s relevant:
Balmer believed his ideological/political grievances justified an attempt on a political opponent’s life — and the court convicted him accordingly.
What happened:
In June 2025, Vance Luther Boelter was arrested and charged after a shooting attack that killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and severely wounded others. Investigators found he had a hit list of ~70 political figures and expressed hatred against Democratic lawmakers, with motivation tied to political ideology.
Why it’s relevant:
This is a clear case where political grievances fueled targeted violence against public officials. It was widely condemned and charged as politically motivated murder.
What happened:
In January 2025, Riley Jane English, 24, was arrested on the National Mall carrying a folding knife and Molotov cocktails with stated intent to kill high‑level U.S. officials she described with political epithets (e.g., calling one a “Nazi”). Federal authorities arrested her before any attack occurred.
Why it’s relevant:
Although she hadn’t harmed anyone yet, English explicitly connected political beliefs and threats of violence — illustrating how grievance and perceived ideology can lead people to arm themselves for political reasons.
What happened: In the summer of 2025, authorities charged 11 people after a violent attack on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, involving gunfire and other violent conduct. Prosecutors described the group as tied to left‑wing activist circles and intent on opposing immigration enforcement by force.
Why it’s relevant:
Participants claimed political beliefs (opposition to immigration policy and law enforcement) motivated their actions. This case became controversial over how much political grievance justified the violence in prosecutors’ eyes.
What happened:
In 2022–23, Solomon Peña, a failed political candidate in New Mexico, allegedly retaliated after losing election by recruiting others to fire shots into the homes of Democratic officials. No injuries were reported, but the attacks were violent and politically motivated.
Why it’s relevant:
This shows a progression from grievance (losing an election) to violent acts directed at specific political opponents.
What happened:
During the protests in Portland in 2020, Michael Reinoehl, a far‑left activist, shot and killed Aaron Danielson, a supporter of a right‑wing group, claiming self‑defense. Reinoehl told media he acted because he believed Danielson posed a threat.
Why it’s relevant:
Although self‑defense was legally contentious, the motive was rooted in believing the political environment made violence necessary — a fusion of grievance and worldview that led to lethal harm.
So, what do these cases all have in common? Across these examples, the pattern is:
Perceived grievance or threat(political, social, ideological)
Internal belief that traditional channels are inadequate
Action taken — often violent — supposedly to counter that perceived threat
Legal consequences where courts treat violence as a crime regardless of motive
What is important to note is that in most legal systems (including the United States), perceived political grievances do not legally justify violence. The law generally holds that a subjective belief you are a victim of political circumstances does not provide moral or legal license to harm others.
What this leads to (or, at least leads me to) is how important it is for politicians to curb their rhetoric. Yeah, yeah, I realize the reason politicians spout what the spout is to get people worked up. However, and I suspect the bottom line to all this is that people should ignore 99% of what media and politicians say and take the other 1% with a grain of salt.
If that doesn't work, then maybe go to a park and yell at the squirrels. They don't care what you say and they're probably laughing at us, anyway.
I gotta wonder what is going through the minds of the SCOTUS justices sometimes. I mean, Trump, Trump, Trump aside, it's amazing how they find the time to muck up the Constitution so much.
What? Muck up the Constitution?! What'd the SCOTUS do this time?!?
Back in 2021, police in Anaconda, Montana received a 911 call from William Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend saying he was suicidal and might try “suicide by cop.”
Important to note: His EX girlfriend (whom I am sure only had his best interests in mind) called the police. Thing is, I've had ex-whatevers and they NEVER have my best interest in mind. Heck, tell me I'm wrong but are there any EX's out in people-land who aren't out to screw you the first chance they get?!?
Anyway, and moving on, officers arrived at Case's residence and start looking in windows but saw no immediate emergencies. Waiting another 40 minutes outside the house (during which time they called their supervisor to assess what, if any, risk they might have if they were to break down the door under the pretext of an emergency discussing whether or if Case might ambush them.
NOTE: they were seeking advice as to what risk/emergency THEY might have if they broke down the door - not whether there was any risk to Case. Yeah, so very altruistic they were.
Note also that in all that 40 minutes, they never tried to get a warrant to break down the door (which they could have) nor did they haveprobabe cause (because of the presumed emergency). Police eventually broke down the front door with rifles in hand and ballistic shields.
Confronting the defendant, Case emerged holding an object (believed to be a gun) and an officer shot him. Case was later
convicted of assaulting an officer and challenged the admissibility of
evidence, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment.
So, let's recap:
Police are called saying defendant is going to shoot himself (can you say swatting?).
Police wait 40 minutes before entering.
Without probable cause (as is generally necessary under the 4th Amendment), police enter without a warrant (you know, because of emergency),
Police confront and shoot the defendant and arrest they guy they're supposedtobehelping for assaulting a police officer.
Yeah, sounds like something police would do.
Anyway, Case loses at the trial and appellate levels. The SCOTUS also rules in favor of the State (of Montana) in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624. In their holding (written by Justice Kagan), the court held that police can enter a home wihout a warrant to render emergency aid if they have
"an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside is seriously inujured or facing serious harm."
The Court reasoned that probable cause is rooted in criminal
investigations and ill-suited to non-investigatory welfare checks (which is total BS!). Because the officers reasonably believed Case might have shot himself or was
in immediate danger, their entry was constitutionally valid.
A few problems stick out for me.
Before Case, the generally understood standard for police entering a person's home was that warrantless entry into a home usually required:
Probable cause
Exigent circumstances
After Case, in cases of "emergency aid" or "welfare checks," Police only need:
“Objectively reasonable belief” that someone is seriously injured or in danger. This is a significantly lower threshold than probable cause. Consequently, civil liberties groups argue the decision:
blurs the line between exigent circumstances and welfare checks
makes home entry easier to justify after the fact.
A few other problems I see is that why do courts seeminly ALWAYS (that's "always" as in everybloodytime) give deference to police holding out a objective standard based on how a cop perceives a situation. Turns out, I'm not the only one thinking this as many legal scholars have raised exactly the concern. Critics argue the standard:
1. Allows post-hoc justification
If officers can articulate any reasonable emergency theory later, courts often accept it.
2. Encourages pretext
Police could enter homes under a “welfare check” theory even whether or not they suspect a crime is being committed.
3. Weakens the home’s constitutional protection
The Supreme Court historically called the home the “core of the Fourth Amendment.”Lowering the standard will definately erodes that.
4. Creates escalation risks
Situations like this one can become violent precisely because police enter. However, a bigger problem where critics point to is:
Someone falsely reports a suicide threat.
Police perform a welfare check.
Officers claim they believed someone inside was in danger.
Forced entry occurs without probable cause.
Because the standard is objective reasonableness, courts will often (that's "often" as in everybloodytime) defer to what officers say they perceived at the time.
How might this play out? Picture it, an ex-girl or boyfriend or a Karen of a neighbor or a political opponent decides to swat someone they don't like and calls the police filing a fake report.
Police respond, break down the door and, later, claim to have seen a gun or some other weapon and charge everyone inside the house with crimes that are trumped up to ensure the police aren't later sued and lose their precious qualified immunity.
We didn't need Case for this to happen because it happens all the time.
Wait, what?! You're saying there are instances where people had someone file a false claim against them, police break down their door and then charge them with crimes that didn't happen or were trumped up?
Police broke into a home without properly announcing authority or purpose.
The defendant reacted by attempting to close the door.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the arrest unlawful because officers failed to follow required procedures before breaking in. The Court emphasized that the home has special constitutional protection.
Charges are later dismissed, but the encounter is legally justified by the arrest.
Courts often analyze these cases under: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (civil rights lawsuits), Fourth Amendment unlawful search, and false arrest / malicious prosecution.
Under Case, however, much of these protections will be tossed in favor of a tyrannical police force who are legally able to
lie to people to get them to admit to things they didn't do,
arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.
Probably the BIGGEST problem with all this (and what the SCOTUS blew past) is that police are, by their very nature, seemingly have a tyrannical streak and will ALWAYS (that's "always" as in everybloodytime) look for reasons to break the law.
You read that right - break the law. Police do it all the time (not every time but a lot of the time).
In this case, what Case does is give police another bad reason to violate the Constitution and break down doors to private residences under the pretense of an emergency or welfare check.
I mean, do you really (that's "really" as in pull your collective heads out of your collective backsides and face reality) believe police will only kick down a door when they think there is an emergency?
Hells Bells, police will use Case to kick down doors with reckless abandon if it so pleases them. You know it, I know it and the police know it.
And the reason for this is because Police are like politicians - always looking for ways to muck up the Constitution. Police will always be looking for ways to arrest and terrorize people because, otherwise, what are they going to do with themselves? Get fat on donuts?!
Well, yes, police do (seemingly) have a donut fetish but the bottom line to all this is that cases like Case only do one thing: undermine the rights of we the people.
As long as courts continue to defer to what is reasonable to the police/government in every (that's "every" as in everybloodytime) situation, the rights of we the people will continue to errode.
Regardless of whether you are Republican, Independent, or democrat, it behooves everyone the necessity to stand up against these blatant attacks on the Constitution and fight against cases like Case and their ilk.
