Word of the Month for May 2026: Grievance Mentality v. Victim Mentality

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:

1. Something specific happened that was unfair or wrong.

2. Responsibility for this wrong is limited and identifiable.

3. 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:

1. I am fundamentally innocent / morally superior.

2. Others are agents of harm (even when neutral).

3. 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:

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).

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.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack

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.

AOC’s emotional recounting of Capitol events as trauma

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.

2025 Minnesota Legislators Shooting (Vance Luther Boelter)

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.

Riley Jane English — Arrest on Mall with Weapons

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.

2025 Texas ICE Facility Shooting (Antifa‑linked suspects)

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.

Solomon Peña’s Shooting Campaign (New Mexico)

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.

Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl (Portland, 2020)

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:

1. Perceived grievance or threat (political, social, ideological)

2. Internal belief that traditional channels are inadequate

3. Action taken — often violent — supposedly to counter that perceived threat

4. 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. 

  

The Constitution under Attack

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 have probabe 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:  

1. Police are called saying defendant is going to shoot himself (can you say swatting?).
2. Police wait 40 minutes before entering.
3. Without probable cause (as is generally necessary under the 4th Amendment), police enter without a warrant (you know, because of emergency), 
4. Police confront and shoot the defendant and arrest they guy they're supposed to be helping 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:

1. Probable cause

2. 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 every bloody time) 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:

1. Someone falsely reports a suicide threat.

2. Police perform a welfare check.

3. Officers claim they believed someone inside was in danger.

4. Forced entry occurs without probable cause.

Because the standard is objective reasonableness, courts will often (that's "often" as in every bloody time) 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?

1. Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (2025)

Facts:

• FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the wrong house in Atlanta.

• They broke the door, threw a flashbang, and handcuffed the residents, including frightening a child.

• Agents later realized they had the wrong address.

2. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989)

Facts:

• Police arrested a man and charged him with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

• At trial he was acquitted of the resisting arrest charge, the more serious charge.

Legal significance of this case is that the court allowed a malicious prosecution claim, noting that police sometimes add unsupported charges.

The court warned that allowing this practice would permit officers to add unsupported serious charges with impunity.

Why this matters: Courts recognize that officers sometimes add charges like resisting arrest or obstruction to justify an encounter.  

3. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

Facts:

• 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.

6. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest can be lawful even if the officer cited the wrong crime, as long as probable cause existed for some crime.

Why this matters:  This rule allows officers to arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

The underlying situation here is that courts see that civil rights litigation frequently shows a pattern:

1. Police enter a home (sometimes the wrong house).

2. Residents react (confusion, refusal, self-defense).

3. Officers charge them with:

   • resisting arrest

   • obstruction

   • assault on an officer

4. 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 every bloody time) 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 every bloody time) 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.  

 

Go Ahead and Speak Your Mind

Have you ever noticed how most people really don't like being told they suck or are bad at their jobs?

I've had not a few irate people scream at me (over the years), because I wouldn't provide legal advice to people researching their legal questions.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

Nope, I'm taking about members of the city council.  I mean you'd think they way people scream at these guys (and gals) that they (the city councils of America) really don't have a clue about what they're doing!

And by their reactions, sometimes, I'm guessing they don't.

Take the case of  Noah Petersen, who was arrested for criticizing his mayor and police department.

 

Seems Mr. Petersen had written letters to the city council because he was upset about something.  After not getting a response, he decided to stand in front of his local city council and complain about how things were being done.

During the course of his monologue, Mr. Petersen stated that both the Mayor and the Chief of Police were "fascists"- which really didn't sit well with the Mayor who banged his gavel and, eventually, had Mr. Petersen arrested and removed from chambers.

The problem with all this is that the right to criticize the government is protected under our constitutional republic.  Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the United State Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This single amendment protects the core right of citizens to criticize government, officials, laws, and policies.

The two clauses that are especially important (as they relate to criticizing government or speech, in general) are:

1. Freedom of Speech
   Protects verbal and expressive criticism of government actors and policies.

2. Right to Petition the Government
   Protects complaints, protests, and demands for change — historically understood as the right to criticize authority without fear of punishment.

The SCOTUS has repeatedly said that criticism of government is at the heart of the First Amendment, not at its edges and has said so in not a few cases, including:

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
  The Court held that public officials must tolerate harsh, inaccurate, and even offensive criticism, unless it is knowingly false and malicious.
  → This case exists specifically to protect criticism of government.

• Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
  Speech that “stirs people to anger” or “invites dispute” is still protected.
  → Government cannot silence speech simply because it is upsetting.

• City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
  The Court struck down a city ordinance banning verbal criticism of police officers.
  → The Court said “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”

Government officials try to get around the right to criticize government constantly, and the courts have been very clear—all such speech is protected.  Following are real-world breakdown of the most common methods, what officials claim, and how courts respond.

1. “You’re being disrespectful / negative / offensive”

What officials say: “This meeting must remain respectful.”

What they really mean: Stop criticizing us.

Why it fails:  The First Amendment does not protect only polite speech. In fact, criticism is often uncomfortable by nature.

Court response:  City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987): The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.

Bottom line: “Disrespect” is not a constitutional category.

2. “You’re off topic”

What officials say: “Please limit comments to agenda items.”

How it’s abused: Supporters are allowed to wander; critics are shut down.

Why it fails: Agenda limits must be evenly applied. Selective enforcement = viewpoint discrimination.

Court response: Courts consistently hold that unequal enforcement of meeting rules violates the First Amendment.

Under Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) the court held that viewpoint discrimination is an“egregious form of content discrimination.”  The Court made it clear that once the government allows speech on a topic, it cannot favor one side of that topic.  Thus, any uneven application of rules tied to perspective is unconstitutional. 

Bottom line: Rules aren’t illegal — biased enforcement is.

3. “You’re causing a disruption”

What officials say: "You’re disrupting the meeting."

What disruption actually means (legally):

• Physical obstruction

• Refusing to yield the floor

• Shouting so proceedings can’t continue

What it does not mean:

• Saying things officials don’t like

• Accusing them of corruption

• Speaking passionately

Court response: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
Speech that provokes anger is protected.

Bottom line:  Offense does not equal disruption.

4. “This is a limited public forum — we can control speech”

What officials say:  “Public comment is a limited forum; we can restrict it.”

Why this fails:  Limited public forums still require viewpoint neutrality.

Court response:  In Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 41 F.4th 938 (D.C. Cir. 2023), the Court explicitly recognizes a First Amendment claim for selective enforcement based on viewpoint.  Government violates the First Amendment when it enforces rules against one viewpoint but not another, even without bad motive.   Consequently, selective enforcement of a law “in a viewpoint discriminatory way” states a First Amendment claim.

Bottom line:  “Limited forum” is not a magic eraser.

5. “We’re just enforcing decorum”

What officials say:  “We’re enforcing decorum rules.”

How courts see it:  Decorum rules must be:

• Narrow

• Clear

• Content-neutral

• Applied equally

Why this fails in practice:  “Decorum” is often undefined and used selectively.

Court response:  Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973): Vague rules chill speech and are unconstitutional.

Bottom Line: Vague/undefined rules are unenforceable

6. “We’re protecting staff safety”

What officials say:  “This speech makes people feel unsafe.”

Why it fails:  Emotional discomfort ≠ legal threat.

Court response:  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 444 (1969): Only true threats or incitement to imminent violence are unprotected.

Bottom line:  Feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe.

7. “You violated meeting policy”

What officials say:   “Our policy doesn’t allow that kind of speech.”

Why it fails:  City policies do not override the U.S. Constitution.

Court response:  Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972): Local rules conflicting with constitutional rights are void.

8. “You can criticize us — just not here”

What officials say:  “Take that outside.”

Why it fails:  If public comment is allowed, criticism must be allowed too.

Court response:  City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 U.S. 167 (1976): Silencing dissent at the only official forum for public input is unconstitutional.

Bottom Line:  If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. 

So, what can you do about city council's violating your 1st amendment rights (to criticize them)?

Well, following are some practical, plain-English checklists citizens can use in real time at city council or board meetings to protect their First Amendment rights.  They are written so an ordinary person can actually use them while standing at the podium or immediately afterward. 

Before You Speak

Is there a public comment period?
→ If yes, it is at least a limited public forum.

Are other people allowed to speak?
→ If yes, the government cannot silence you based on viewpoint.

Are time limits posted or announced?
→ Time limits are legal if applied equally.

While You Are Speaking

Am I speaking on a matter of public concern?
→ Criticism of officials, policies, or spending is fully protected.

Am I following the same rules as others (time, order)?
→ If yes, you are protected even if officials dislike your message.

Am I being interrupted or cut off?
→ Ask yourself why:

• Actual disruption (shouting, refusing to yield time)?

• Or because the content is critical or uncomfortable?

If it’s the second one, that's a constitutional red flag.

Common Illegal Justifications (Red Flags)

🚩 “You’re being disrespectful”
🚩 “We don’t allow negative comments”
🚩 “You’re criticizing council members”
🚩 “You’re making people uncomfortable”
🚩 “This isn’t the place for that” (when others are allowed to speak)

None of these are valid legal reasons to stop protected speech.

If You Are Cut Off or Removed

Did others expressing a different viewpoint speak longer or more freely?
→ This suggests viewpoint discrimination.

Was the rule applied only to you?
→ Selective enforcement = unconstitutional.

Was the reason vague or emotional?
→ “Decorum” without definition is a legal weakness.

What to Say (Calm, On-the-Record)

If interrupted, you may calmly say:

“For the record, I am speaking on a matter of public concern and complying with all posted rules.”

Or:

“Please state the specific rule I am violating.”

These statements create a record without escalating conflict.

After the Meeting (If There Was a Violation)

Note the date, time, and exact words used
Save video or request the meeting recording
Identify witnesses
Request meeting minutes and written policies

Ask:

• Was my speech stopped due to content or viewpoint?

• Were rules enforced equally?

If yes, this may be a First Amendment violation (that's "may" as in there are no absolutes in law)

The bottom line to all this is if praise is allowed at City Council hearings but criticism is stopped, then the First Amendment has been violated.

Make a note of it.

You're Pulling Me Over, Why?!?

In every place I've lived (four states and counting), California has, by far, the most police per mile of roadway.  That said, I am often surprised to find cops popping up in the most unlikely places here in Utah - particularly when I'm driving a few miles over the speed limit.

That's right, I'm a scofflaw of sorts and have been known to break a few traffic laws.  Thankfully, though, I have yet to be caught doing so (knock on wood).  I got to thinking about this the other day (as I was flying down the highway) specifically about the various ways people can get pulled over.  

So, how many reasons do you think there are that police can pull you over?  Well, If you count actual, codified legal reasons, most states have 200–400 distinct traffic and vehicle code sections of which roughly 150–250 are enforceable as stop-justifying violations, like:

• Speed-related (multiple sub-rules)

• Lane positioning

• Signaling timing

• Equipment specs (color, brightness, placement)

• Registration display rules

• Driver conduct rules

• Pedestrian/right-of-way interactions

Soooooo ballpark guesstimate: there are maybe about 200 legitimate statutory reasons a police officer could lawfully stop a vehicle in a typical U.S. state?

Now, if you count discretion-based or “catch-all” violations, the number of possible pull-overable violations dramatically increase the number.  Nearly every state has vague statutes like:

• “Careless driving”

• “Unsafe operation”

• “Failure to maintain lane”

• “Driving at a speed not reasonable and prudent”

• “Equipment not in safe working order”

and each of these can be triggered by dozens of observable behaviors.  Sooooo, again, ballpark guesstimate: maybe another couple hundred more practical justifications.

Given all that and because the SCOTUS went and ruled in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) that any traffic violation, no matter how minor, gives police probable cause to stop a vehicle, we are all in danger of getting pulled over and for any of the 400-ish reasons government has come up with to separate we the people with our hard-earned cash.

Notwithstanding all that, and after extensive research into all things reasons police pull people over, I've come up with the top 10 reasons police pull people over (in all states).  To wit:

1. Speeding

• Driving above the posted speed limit is one of the most common reasons for being pulled over. Officers may also pull over drivers who are going too fast for the road conditions (e.g., in poor weather).
  

Speeding ends up as the #1 reason police pull people over because it sits at the intersection of law, safety, detectability, and enforcement practicality.  No other traffic offense checks all those boxes as cleanly.  Common penalties for speeding include:

• Fines – Usually the first hit. The faster over the limit, the higher the fine.

• Points on your license – Many places add demerit points; too many can lead to suspension.

• Higher insurance rates – Even one ticket can bump your premiums for years.

• Traffic school – Sometimes required, sometimes optional to reduce points.

• License suspension or revocation – More likely for extreme speeding or repeat offenses.

• Court appearance – Required in some cases, especially if the speed was very high.

• Vehicle impoundment – In some jurisdictions for excessive or reckless speeding.

• Criminal charges – If speeding is classified as reckless driving (e.g., 25–30+ mph over the limit).

As it relates to speeding, fines are typically based on how fast your are traveling and vary state by state.  To that you can usually expect to pay:

First Offense (example speed ranges):

• 1–10 mph over limit: about $120–$130

• 11–15 mph over: about $150–$160

• 16–20 mph over: about $200–$210

• 21–25 mph over: about $270–$280

• 26–30 mph over: about $370–$380

• 31+ mph over: base $470–$480+

2. Running a Red Light or Stop Sign

• Ignoring traffic signals or failing to stop at stop signs is dangerous and a frequent cause for police intervention.

Turns out running a red light or stop sign really is one of the most dangerous everyday driving behaviors, and the reason has less to do with speed alone and more to do with how crashes happen at intersections.  When someone runs a red light or stop sign:

• Vehicles are crossing at 90-degree angles, 

• There’s no shared direction of travel, and
  

• There’s often no time to react.

Running a red light or stop sign is dangerous because it:

• Creates unavoidable, perpendicular collisions
• Removes reaction time from innocent drivers
• Targets the weakest parts of vehicles
• Endangers pedestrians and cyclists
• Turns small timing errors into major crashes

Bottom line, running a red light is not just illegal — it’s one of the highest-risk choices a driver can make in everyday driving.

3. Improper Lane Changes or Failure to Signal

• Not signaling before changing lanes or making turns can create confusion on the road and is a traffic violation that often leads to a stop.

Improper lane changes combine high crash risk, constant occurrence, and are easily enforceable—even though they don’t feel as dangerous as speeding or red-light running.  Lane changes may not feel dramatic, but in real-world traffic safety and policing, they’re one of the most consequential everyday mistakes drivers make.

4. Tailgating (Following Too Closely)

• When a driver follows another vehicle too closely, it’s considered unsafe and can lead to a ticket or a stop, especially in high-traffic areas.

Even though it often feels like a minor annoyance rather than a serious risk. The danger of tailgating comes from physics, human reaction time, and chain-reaction crashes, not just irritation.

While tailgating feels minor, from a safety standpoint, it’s one of the most mathematically unforgiving driving behaviors because it:

• Eliminates reaction time

• Makes collisions unavoidable

• Causes chain-reaction crashes

• Amplifies small mistakes

• Turns ordinary braking into emergencies

5. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

• Officers will pull over vehicles that exhibit erratic driving behavior, such as swerving, slow or fast speeds, and inconsistent braking, which are often signs of impaired driving.

While DUI is often associated with drinking alcohol, DUI includes many more things and in many ways non-alcohol DUIs are just as dangerous—or more dangerous—because drivers often don’t realize they’re impaired.

DUI (Driving Under the Influence) generally means driving while impaired, not just drunk.  Depending on the state, it may also be called:

• DUI (Driving Under the Influence)

• DWI (Driving While Intoxicated or Impaired)

• OUI / OWI (Operating Under/While Intoxicated)

The common legal standard is:  Impairment to the extent you cannot safely operate a vehicle.  Alcohol is just one way that impairment happens.

Substances that can cause a DUI (besides alcohol) include:

A. Prescription medications

B. Over-the-counter (OTC) medications that cause sedation, blurred vision or reduced altertness.

C. Marijuana (THC).  THC can slow reaction time, impair attention and tracting, and distort perception of time and distance.

D. Illegal drugs like Cocaine, Methamphetamine, heroin, MDM, and LSD.

E. Combined substances such as:

• alcohol + marijuana

• alcohol + prescription meds

• multiple prescriptions together

F. Inhalants and household substances like nitrous oxide, solvents, or aerosols.

G. Non-substance impairment can also count. In some states, DUI laws also cover:

• Extreme fatigue (sleep deprivation)

• Certain medical episodes (if known and ignored)

6. Expired Tags or Registration

• If your license plates are expired, officers may pull you over to check the registration and ensure the vehicle is properly insured.

While money is part of the system — expired tags are a pull-over offense mainly because of administrative control and accountability, not because it’s a high-profit enforcement tool. In fact, like DUI, expired-registration stops often cost more to enforce than they money they generate.

7. Broken or Non-Functional Lights

• A malfunctioning brake light, headlight, or turn signal could result in a traffic stop. Police often look for vehicles that are unsafe or in violation of basic equipment regulations.

Police often issue fix-it tickets as a way to get drivers to keep cars safe (for other drivers).  Fix-it tickets (sometimes called corrective action tickets) are minor traffic citations that don’t carry heavy fines or points, but instead require the driver to correct a violation and prove it to the court or DMV.  

The good thing about fix-it tickets is that they are often cheaper and less burdensome than standard citations. For minor issues:

• Drivers who can’t immediately pay a big fine can still comply

• This avoids a cycle of escalating penalties for small infractions

8. Driving Without a Seatbelt

• Failing to wear a seatbelt is a primary offense in many states. Officers often stop drivers and passengers if they notice they are not buckled in.

The thing is that seatbelt laws just feel like a money grab because seatbelt tickets are often low-cost fines and enforcement is easy — officers can issue a citation on sight.

However, the purpose of seatbelt laws is safety first, not money. Wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of death in a crash by about 45%.  Wearing seatbelts also reduce the risk of serious injury by about 50% and unbelted occupants can become projectiles, injuring passengers or first responders.  In fact, before mandatory seatbelt laws, hospital and insurance data showed huge costs from preventable injuries. 

9. Unusual or Erratic Driving Behavior

• Sudden lane changes, inconsistent speeds, or driving in a way that suggests distraction or lack of control may prompt a police officer to pull you over for a safety check.

Years ago, the law office i worked represented a guy who was charged with driving erratically (essentially, he was weaving back and forth in his lane.  At the time, we thought, as did the judge when we won, that the copy had lost his mind.  Weaving back and forth in his lane?  What's the harm in that?

Which is what I thought until I was driving on the 5 freeway in Orange County (California) one night out of Buena Park when I had this nutjob swerve right next to me, then over to the other side and back and forth.  

If you don't know what's doing on, you're liable to swerve to get out of his way because you don't know if he's going to ram into you causing you then to swerve into the other lane causing a chain reaction.

Yeah, scary stuff this one is.

10. Failure to Yield to Pedestrians

• Not stopping or yielding for pedestrians in crosswalks is a traffic violation that can lead to a stop, especially in areas with heavy foot traffic. 

There are a whole lot of loonies in traffic land and many of them are pedestrians.  However, drivers must always yield to pedestrians in crosswalks or where pedestrians have the right-of-way, regardless of who the pedestrian is.

So why is the law is absolute when it comes to pedestrians? Traffic laws are designed around predictability, not moral judgment because the system assumes everyone must follow the rules for safety. If exceptions were allowed, roads would become chaotic and deadly.

Consequently, if you see a pedestrian and you're driving, you gotta slow down - even if the pedestrian is being a jerk (staring at their phones instead of paying attention to cars around them).

Yep, there are a whole lot of reasons police are gunning for you.  However, if you're able to keep your wits about you, you can avoid police and tickets and fines and other miserable things.