I don't know what it is but lately there have been a spat of videos online of people who are just freaking the freak out!
If I didn't know better, I'd say the guys who manufactured COVID are at it again and have manugactured a crazy driver gene geared to cause crazy drivers to just flip out at the slightest things.
Take the guy whose video I was watching the other day.
Seems the driver of a Mercedes Benz slammed on his breaks for whatever reason in front of a Truck, got out of his car with gun in hand, walks back to Truck driver and starts treatening Truck and his wife with gun in hand - all the while you can hear Truck driver saying to wife, "Should I shoot him?!"
Now, that's a short version and Benz got arrested for a number of crimes not the least of which would be armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.
The bigger question is would Truck driver be justified in defending himself (and his wife) had he shot the Benz driver?
In most states, a person may use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent:
Imminent death, or
Imminent serious bodily injury, or
In some states, certain forcible felonies (armed robbery, aggravated assault, carjacking, etc.).
The key words are:
Imminent (happening right now)
Reasonable belief (what an ordinary person in that position would believe)
As it is applied under this set of facts, imminent threat exists where a person:
Exits a vehicle
Approaches another occupied vehicle
Is armed with a firearm (or, I suspect, anthing that can be used as a weapon)
Points or waves that firearm
Reaches inside the vehicle
Attempts to seize property
Demands occupants exit the vehicle
That is typically treated as an armed felony in progress (e.g., aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, carjacking).
A gun present + aggressive advancement + reaching into an occupied vehicle is generally strong evidence of an imminent deadly threat.
While there might be an imminent threat present, is the Truck driver still within his rights to defend himself (and his wife)?
Under general U.S. self-defense law deadly force is justified if:
You reasonably believe
You face imminent death or serious bodily harm
You are not the initial aggressor
This standard was articulated in cases like Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) which explains that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person under the circumstances — not with hindsight.
Now, here's where things get dicey. See, there are two schools of thought: Retreat or No Retreat.
The duty to retreat is a legal rule that says: Before using deadly force in self-defense, a person must retreat if they can do so safely.
Key elements of this Duty to Retreat:
It only applies to deadly force.
It only applies if retreat can be done with complete safety.
It does not require reckless escape.
It does not apply if you are inside your own home (under traditional castle doctrine).
Historically, this rule was developed in 19th-century American common law.
A well-known articulation appears in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) in which Justice Holmes wrote: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” That case softened strict retreat requirements and emphasized reasonableness.
Currently, the following states adhere to a Duty to Retreat:
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland(common law)
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota(modified; limited duty)
Rhode Island
Vermont(common law duty)
Wisconsin
On the other hand are those states that adhere to the Castle Doctrine (or no duty to retreat aka "stand your ground").
An armed unlawful intrusion into an occupied space often creates a legal presumption that the occupant reasonably feared death or serious injury.
For example:
Utah has statutory provisions allowing deadly force when a person reasonably
believes force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury,
and it includes occupied vehicles in its habitation protections.
Following are the states that follow the Castle (or stand your ground) doctrine:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
and, as it turns out, many of these states extend the Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles.
So, back to our scenario, would shooting be legally justified?
Potentially yes — if the truck driver:
Reasonably believed the BMW driver was about to shoot,
Or believed he or his wife were about to be forcibly removed or harmed,
And the threat was immediate.
A prosecutor in such a case would analyze:
Was the gun pointed directly?
Was the Benz driver within shooting distance?
Was he reaching into the cab?
Did he attempt to disarm or drag someone out?
Could the truck driver safely retreat (if duty-to-retreat state)?
Was deadly force proportional at that moment?
So, the fact that most every question could be answered in the affirmative, I'd think Truck driver is well within his rights to protect himself and his wife.
HOWEVER, and playing devil's advocate here, what could make a self defense shooting be illegal?
Deadly force could become unlawful if:
The Benz driver was retreating.
The gun was not pointed at truck driver or his wife AND threat had ended.
The truck driver fired after the immediate danger passed.
The truck driver escalated unnecessarily.
Timing matters enormously. Self-defense hinges on immediacy.
So, the realistic legal outcome of this situation (because every situation has a whole different set of facts), in many jurisdictions, a grand jury would likely consider this a strong self-defense case — especially if:
The incident was recorded.
Benz driver clearly brandished the gun.
Benz driver initiated the confrontation.
Benz driver physically invaded the truck.
But remember: even clearly justified self-defense shootings are often investigated, and arrest is possible pending review.
So, short answer, under typical U.S. self-defense law:
Yes, the truck driver could legally be justified in using deadly force in this scenario — if he reasonably believed he or his wife were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
The presence of:
A firearm
Aggressive approach
Attempted intrusion into an occupied vehicle
Demands to exit
…all strongly support that claim.
Bottom line, if you're gonna go all crazy and slam on your breaks and scream obscenities at all other drivers, leave your gun in your car because you never know who else it armed and ready to defend themselves.
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.
