Transcription
Hello, this is Dr. Grande. Today I will analyze the case of Jared Vic. First, I'll look at the background of this case, move to the timeline of the alleged crime, then offer my analysis.
Jared Preston Vic was born on September 1, 1998, and lived in Orlando, Florida. By the spring of 2025, he was a student at the University of Central Florida and resided in the Union West building at 601 West Livingston Street. This 15-story mixed-use tower features classrooms, student services, restaurants, retail shops, and student housing. It is 16 miles west of the main campus. Jarrett represented himself as transgender and demanded that people use female pronouns when referring to him. In court records, he is listed as a male. I will refer to him using male pronouns. Jared went by the name Jay Lee. I will refer to him as Jared.
The reputation that Jarrett earned in the Union West building was not great. Some people reported that he could be set off by almost anything, believed other people were against him, and was frequently belligerent. Jarrett would later blame autism spectrum disorder as a contributing factor to his misbehavior.
Now, moving to the timeline of the alleged crime. On February 5, 2025, the police received a report of a disturbance inside the main lobby of the Union West building in downtown Orlando where Jarrett Vic lived. Based on witness reports, Jarrett, who was wearing a blue wig, may have been misgendered by a group of kids who were at a subway shop in the building. Jarrett believed the group of kids was laughing at him. In response, he allegedly made a lunging motion and chased them. When a security guard stopped him, Jarrett allegedly screamed and yelled in a violent manner, and used a clenched fist.
One police officer arrived at the Union West building, confronted Jarrett in the lobby, and said, "What's the problem?" Jarrett responded, "Why do you let those kids get away with this? They are not supposed to be here." The officer warned Jared to lower his voice or he would be handcuffed and taken to a Baker Act facility for a mental health evaluation. Jarrett responded, "Try it." The officer said, "Are you threatening me? Are you threatening me?" He explained to Jared that he was there to investigate a stolen vehicle and did not have time to deal with Jared screaming and yelling. Jarrett responded, "I don't have time to constantly be abused."
At this point, the officer can be heard on the radio requesting assistance so he could get back to work on the stolen vehicle case. He said, "Can we get another unit? He is having a breakdown." Jarrett immediately and vigorously responded, screaming, "She, she, just say the right pronoun." The officer ordered Jarrett to get on the ground and warned him that pepper spray may be used. Jarrett refused to comply with commands and repeatedly said, "Leave me alone." He moved away from the officer, took out a phone, and said, "I'm getting my phone out. I've got to film this." The officer continued asking whether Jarrett was going to calm down. Jarrett demanded that the officer stop pointing pepper spray at him and said he would calm down if the officer complied. He then screamed, "Stop spraying me." The officer never actually sprayed him at any point during the confrontation.
Jared continued screaming, "Leave me alone. Leave me alone." The officer asked Jared if he wanted to get tased. Jared screamed, "I want you to leave me alone." and accused the officer of abusing him. At this point, a university employee who appeared to know Jarrett attempted to intervene. And Jarrett walked away from the officer. The officer said, "It's too late now. He's going to be taken away." Jarrett screamed, "She. She. Stop misgendering me. Just say she." He said to the employee, "Can you please just tell them to use the right pronouns, please? You know, this is causing me a lot of distress."
The officer said, "Put your stuff down, turn around, and put your hands behind your back." Jared said, "I'm not going to be arrested." He then repeatedly refused to comply with commands. By this point, multiple officers were on the scene. Jared said the officers were causing him stress and came in with hostile intent. As the officers moved in to make the arrest, Jared said, "Don't hurt me." During the struggle that followed, he screamed, "Leave me alone. Help! Help me! I'm hurt." As the officers were struggling to gain control over Jared due to his resistance, one officer said, "I'm going to spray him." Meaning he was going to use pepper spray. Jared said, "No, please don't spray. Don't say him. Her." The officer responded, "Okay, I'm going to spray her." Jared said, "Thank you."
Despite his gratitude, he continued resisting efforts to handcuff him, saying, "I will calm down if you just give me some space." After warning him several times, the police used a taser on him. Jarrett still refused to comply and actively resisted. One officer grabbed his legs and put Jarrett on the floor. And another officer was able to handcuff him. As Jarrett was being walked out to a police cruiser, he said, "I hate you. You escalated this. You didn't have to pull out the pepper spray. You didn't have to continue to misgender me. You knew my buttons and you set them off."
Jarrett was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer, and disorderly conduct. He pleaded not guilty. On August 20, 2025, Jarrett was referred to pre-trial intervention. On September 17, 2025, the prosecution of Jarrett was temporarily paused despite the state objecting. On January 16, 2026, his public defender filed a notice of appearance. This is the last entry on the public docket. The final disposition of this case is not recorded and the status of the case is shown as closed. In July 2026, a spokesperson for the university said that Jarrett was not a current student and did not graduate.
Now, moving to my analysis, here are my thoughts on a few areas that stood out to me in this case.
Item number one. Based on the court docket entries, it appears as though Jared Vic was offered a diversion program, even though prosecutors may have argued against it. If he did get a diversion program, then the charges either have been dismissed or would ordinarily become eligible for dismissal. This is a very fortuitous outcome for Jarrett considering the severity of the behavior captured on body camera video. The police said that during the confrontation, he attempted to punch an officer and kicked that officer. I am not surprised that prosecutors objected to a diversion program under those circumstances.
Item number two, it appears as though Jared may have sidestepped getting a criminal record, but that was not the only liability he faced. The more significant problem may be the video of his misbehavior, which is now permanently available to a large number of people. This includes employers, colleagues, and anyone else with an internet connection. Most of the people watching the video of him are not on his side. They are not looking at him as a victim. Rather, they find his behavior to be disturbing and perhaps humorous. It's difficult to imagine an employer looking at that video and thinking, "This is exactly the kind of behavior we need at our company." Jared may find that pronoun usage will be the least of his problems as he moves forward in life.
Item number three, a man throwing a temper tantrum in the lobby of a building is not typically a significant event worthy of analysis. What makes this case unusual is how Jarrett prominently invoked the transgender ideology during the incident. The problem was never that people voluntarily used preferred pronouns as a courtesy. The problem began when courtesy was transformed into compulsory affirmation and disagreement was treated as harmful. As Jarrett was screaming, yelling, and refusing to comply with lawful commands, he tried to create outrage by accusing the police of misgendering him. It was almost like he was trying to go on the offensive to make the officers the bad guys because they did not initially use his preferred pronouns. Even when the confrontation became physical, pronoun enforcement remained his priority. This is what was important to him. This is what mattered to Jarrett. If people would just use the pronouns that he demanded, then everything would be fine. Others must acknowledge the legitimacy of his belief system in order to calm him down. If not, there would be more screaming and yelling. The temper tantrum would never end.
A good argument can be made that Jarrett's case is a metaphor for the future of the forced pronoun usage component, which is often promoted as part of the transgender ideology. When the idea of mandatory pronoun usage first became popular several years ago, it won a lot of sympathy. There were many people who supported this idea that freedom of speech was nice and all, but it should not apply to pronouns. Pronoun usage was an exception to free speech, just like speech that represents a clear and present danger. People should be forced to use pronouns that are not scientifically accurate in order to placate proponents of the transgender ideology. The nonsensical term misgendering became part of the discussion. It was elevated by extremists as a quasi-criminal offense committed by people trying to adhere to scientific principles. Misgendering was supposedly a way to terrorize innocent people who were just trying to identify as a different gender. This philosophy was promoted all around the world. And many people believed they had just received a new power. They had been handed the ability to force someone else to express agreement with their political beliefs and to endorse their gender expression. All they had to do was accuse someone of misgendering and they would be on the correct side of the debate. A flock of supporters would come to their aid. They could be a victim of a new and non-existent quasi-crime.
Over time, the logical shortcomings of forced pronoun usage became increasingly obvious. It became viewed as a way of demanding someone identify their political affiliation publicly rather than as a genuine attempt to help someone transition to a different gender identity. Mandatory compliance with preferred pronouns not only fell out of favor, it became viewed as promoting something harmful. The cultural environment surrounding the topic shifted dramatically. Those who had embraced the preferred pronoun component of the transgender ideology now found themselves in a desperate situation. This refers back to what I was saying about Jared's case being a metaphor. I think his behavior reveals the desperation that now exists to bring back the glory days of preferred pronouns. There is a strong and intense desire to rebuild the original vision of controlling the speech of others. Proponents of preferred pronouns feel themselves losing the culture war. Jared's screamed demands of "just say she" no longer sounded like a protest advancing a cause, but rather an embarrassing display illuminating its demise. Jarrett is the last remnant of a failed experiment in forced speech. He was an eager buyer of nonsense, and now his investment is worthless. The behavior that he displayed would once have earned him sympathy and made him a hero who was battling the forces of intolerance. But now the only dividend he collects is ridicule.
Some people may look at Jared's behavior and think this is the problem. This proves that demanding the use of specific pronouns is out of control. Something must be done to stop people like Jared. I look at the behavior and think this signals the end. It offers proof that the political winds have shifted. Jared insisted that he was a victim. In a sense, he was correct. He was misled into believing that he had the right to demand that others abandon science to offer him reassurance. He was the victim of nonsensical propaganda. Jared's case illustrates the dangers of believing that outrage can validate a false belief of being special.
Those are my thoughts in the case of Jared Vic. Thank you so much for watching. I'll talk to you soon.