Watch a New Mexico Sheriff's Deputy Jovially Hurl a Baby Rabbit to Its Death As His Supervisors Laugh
Deputy Alejandro Gomez, who is accused of repeatedly harassing a colleague, faces one charge of extreme animal cruelty and four charges of aggravated assault on a police officer.

My friend Willow likes to kill baby rabbits. So does Alejandro Gomez. One important difference is that Willow, who also likes to eat baby rabbits, is half Border Collie and half Australian Shepherd, while Gomez is a human employed as a sheriff's deputy in Grant County, New Mexico.
A recently revealed cellphone video shows Gomez demanding that another deputy, Marcus Salas, let him hold a baby rabbit that Salas found in the middle of a dirt road while working a night shift near Hachita, New Mexico, last August along with Gomez, Sgt. Brandon Reese, and Cpl. Cesar Torres. Gomez is persistent and at one point threatens Salas with a taser. Salas does not want to hand over the rabbit because he is worried that Gomez will kill it, which is precisely what Gomez does by hurling it against a patrol vehicle after Salas, trying to de-escalate the situation, finally gives in under pressure from Reese and Torres as well as Gomez. The two supervisors, who can be heard laughing hard in the video, evidently thought the whole thing was hilarious.
That disturbing incident is part of a criminal complaint against Gomez that includes one charge of extreme cruelty to animals and four charges of aggravated assault on a police officer—i.e., Salas, who says he was repeatedly harassed by Gomez, including incidents in which Gomez drew his taser and his gun. New Mexico State Police Agent Justin Blacklock, who investigated Salas' complaints after an internal review seemed to go nowhere, filed those charges on February 14. But like the video, which Blacklock says Reese recorded, the charges came to light only recently.
On the face of it, Gomez's alleged gunplay, which involves a human victim, is more alarming than his vicious treatment of the baby rabbit. But combined, the allegations make you wonder what sort of people Grant County is trusting with guns and badges. It is especially worrisome that two supervisors not only saw nothing wrong with the behavior that one of them jovially documented but actually egged on Gomez as he sought to torment Salas with the sort of casual cruelty that is usually seen as a marker of dangerously antisocial tendencies.
Salas says the rabbit incident was part of a pattern that began early in the morning on August 5, 2024. According to an arrest affidavit that Blacklock filed along with the criminal complaint, Salas was working on his computer at the Grant County Sheriff's Office in Silver City when he took out his cellphone to text a relative. "Deputy Gomez came up from behind Deputy Salas and snatched the unlocked cell phone," says the affidavit, which summarizes the account that Salas gave in an interview. "Deputy Gomez then proceeded to run through the office with Deputy Salas's unlocked cellular device."
After Salas, who did not want Gomez to "have access to his personal data," chased after the phone snatcher, Gomez "suddenly turned around, unholstered his taser, and pointed it directly at Deputy Salas's body," Blacklock writes. "Deputy Salas smacked the taser away and told Deputy Gomez to stop horseplaying."
A few moments later, after Gomez took off the vest that held his taser, Salas "picked up Deputy Gomez's vest and told him that he was not so tough without his taser," the affidavit says. Gomez then "unholstered his duty weapon and pointed it directly" at Salas, telling him "he was tough with the firearm." Salas reported that he was "shocked and scared at the firearm deployment." Although "he did not believe" Gomez would intentionally tase or shoot him, Salas worried that Gomez's "reckless behavior" could result in a "negligent discharge."
According to the affidavit, Torres "witnessed Deputy Gomez threatening Deputy Salas with the firearm," "scolded him for it," and told him to "put his gun away." Salas left the office at that point. "Later that night," Blacklock says, "Deputy Salas complained to Corporal Torres about Deputy Gomez's conduct and asked him to do something to correct the behavior, but nothing was done."
The rabbit incident happened 11 days later, on August 16. Salas, while working an "overtime shift" with Gomez, Torres, and Reese, "saw a baby rabbit on the roadway and stopped before running it over," the affidavit says. "He got out of his patrol vehicle and approached the baby rabbit to scare it off the roadway. The rabbit did not move because it was afraid. Deputy Salas was able to walk up [to] the rabbit and pick it up in his hands."
Salas "was very excited about holding a wild baby rabbit, so he began taking photographs to send to his family," Blacklock writes. "His intention was to move the animal away from the roadway and release it after he took photographs." The other deputies "stopped behind him and exited their patrol vehicles to see what was going on. The deputies hovered around him and began laughing loudly. They also took photographs/videos with their phones." Reese's video shows what happened next.
At the beginning of the one-minute video, Torres is holding the rabbit. Reese repeatedly tells Torres to let Gomez hold the rabbit. Torres instead hands the rabbit to Salas, who says, "Don't throw it." One of the supervisors (it is unclear which) says Salas should let Gomez hold the rabbit. As Gomez asks to hold the rabbit, Reese reiterates that Salas should let him. "You're going to fucking kill it," Salas says. "I won't throw it," Gomez says. "I swear." Torres, who is laughing, says, "Let it go."
When Gomez walks away from the road and starts to put the rabbit down so it can escape, Gomez draws his taser and points it at Salas, saying, "Give it to me right now." Salas is still smiling at this point (perhaps nervously), so it's not clear how seriously he took that threat. But according to the affidavit, "the taser was armed with the light/laser fixed on Deputy Salas's body," and Salas thought Gomez might actually use the weapon.
Four seconds later, Reese, who is "laughing hysterically" (as Blacklock puts it), tells Salas to "let him hold it." Salas is about to capitulate, but he again wants Gomez to promise that he won't hurt the rabbit.
"Are you going to kill it?" Salas says. "I won't," Gomez assures him. "Don't fucking kill it," Salas says. "I won't kill it," Gomez responds. "You better not kill it," Salas reiterates. "I won't kill it," Gomez says again. But a few seconds after Salas hands over the rabbit, Gomez smiles broadly at Reese's phone camera and throws the rabbit against a patrol truck, causing an audible thud. "Damn," Salas says. Reese and Torres are still laughing.
Gomez "threw the animal with such force that it fatally wounded the animal," Blacklock writes. Gomez "said he dispatched the animal as it lay on the ground dying so that it would not suffer."
According to the affidavit, Gomez was not through messing with Salas. A few hours later, Blacklock says, Salas "realized his flashlight was running out of battery," so "he decided to draw his duty handgun and see if his weapon mounted light had power." Salas "aimed the weapon in the opposite direction of the other deputies and tested his weapon mounted light." Then he "holstered his weapon and turned back toward the other deputies," at which point he saw that Gomez "was pointing his duty handgun directly at Deputy Salas's face" from about three feet away.
Salas, who "was frightened and thought he could be shot in the face…jumped back and told Deputy Gomez to stop," Blacklock writes. "Deputy Gomez told Deputy Salas that he was only testing his duty mounted light like Deputy Salas was. Deputy Salas told us that Deputy Gomez didn't have a weapon mounted light during this encounter so that explanation did not make sense."
Salas was "upset about the incidents which took place during the overtime shift," the affidavit says, and "he was even more upset about the fact that these incidents were witnessed by two supervisors," who "did nothing to intervene." When "a few weeks passed and nothing was done about these incidents," Salas "decided to officially file a complaint so that an administrative investigation could be completed." He "went above his chain of command and reported the incidents to Captain Stephen Gallegos" on September 23. The ensuing internal affairs investigation "seemed to result
in very little disciplinary action being taken."
During these incidents, Blacklock says, Reese and Torres "failed to intervene as required by New Mexico Statute." He says they and Gomez, who has been placed on leave pending the resolution of his case, declined to be interviewed as part of the state police investigation "without an attorney present."
Grant County Sheriff Raul Villanueva declined to comment on the case. "Unfortunately, there is an ongoing criminal prosecution of one of my deputies, a county employee," he told The Grant County Beat. "He is entitled to due process. Therefore, the County cannot comment on either the pending litigation or the personnel matters."
Gary Mitchell, Gomez's lawyer, was a bit more forthcoming. "We don't think he did anything wrong, obviously," Mitchell told the Albuquerque Journal on Thursday. "We're waiting to see what evidence the state has.…But it sounds like an [intra]-office situation that should not have turned into a criminal case."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
US POSTS UNEXPECTED $27 Billion monthly SURPLUS for June as a tariff receipts for 2025 top $100B
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/treasury-posts-unexpected-surplus-in-june-as-tariff-receipts-surge.html
I don't have the energy to revisit all 400 Reason stories from this year on ballooning deficits and tariff catastrophes.
Just know this, the tariff haters here wanted to raise everyone's income taxes instead.
You tax something, you get less of it. That's the theory behind sin taxes and carbon taxes. They want to tax work and investment, as opposed to buying foreign.
They dont care. They have broken models and talking points to defend globalist trade systems that were designed to disadvantage America. Sure they were lied to when they called it a free market, but they "know" things and god dammit if data will ruin that for them.
globalist trade systems that were designed to disadvantage America.
No, they were designed to disadvantage central planners in government who think they know what's best for millions of people and want to rearrange the world economy to benefit those people at the expense of everyone else. Like Team Blue, AND like your MAGA pals.
They were designed to advantage AMERICANS, so that their dollars could buy affordable goods, no matter where they were produced in the world. They were also designed to advantage those in developing countries, so that they could see their standard of living rise by doing work that was of value to others.
ACTUAL free trade benefits both parties. It is a win-win. YOUR version of protectionist/mercantilist trade is a zero-sum game. One nation must win at the expense of others.
Poor jeffy
I see those same nazi ani can still get a rise out of the few that haven't yet muted them
They have broken models and talking points to defend globalist trade systems that were designed to disadvantage America.
Funny thing is, the systems are/were broken even from a relatively anti-MAGA, anti-capitalist, or anit-libertarian-market-individualist perspective.
Reason's persistent take is like looking at a half-solved 1,000-piece puzzle that clearly only has a couple hundred pieces left and saying "We should just dump a bunch of other pieces from other puzzles in until we've got more than enough pieces!"
“Just know this, the tariff haters here wanted to raise everyone's income taxes instead.”
What a lying sack of shit. Saying that cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts is irresponsible does not equal wanting to raise income taxes. Then again you wouldn’t be a Trump defender of you were honest or responsible.
“They want to tax work and investment, as opposed to buying foreign.”
250 years of economic study has shown that protectionism makes a nation poorer. And opposition to tariffs doesn’t equate to a love for income taxes.
The Trump defender fallacy of the day is false equivalency.
Fuck off. They weren't cutting taxes they were extending them. You wanted to RAISE taxes you lying fuck.
The bill has 4% cuts to mandatoey spending which you never noted. You kept equating a tax extension to spending like the dishonest shit you are. The fucking dishonest leftist shit against every DOGE audit. The dishonest leftist shit against kicking illegals off Medicaid and other taxpayer programs.
So fucking dishonest.
You wouldn't know honesty if it was the only word in the dictionary.
Ink isn’t even dry and my muted stalker is already dropping turds. Get a life you miserable piece of shit.
Poor sarc. Knows he is a leftist liar even with pretending to mute people. This shit doesn't work when jeff tries it either.
Youre too fucking dumb to even realize when you're wrong. Like here. You keep claiming to know economics yet your predictive power is worse than Jim Kramer lol.
Attaboy! Waste debate obvious, ADMITTED whack jobs
Taxes is taxes. You crow about income tax reduction AND tariff increases. You are a fool.
This is far more frightening than your antifa open borders buddies shooting at DHS. I'm literally shaking.
I dunno. I've watched CNN and MSNBC and not heard a word about this. I guess it is not happening.
Can a story be too local, a Conspiracy!, and old news, all at the same time?
Looks like you're right.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc-skip-on-air-coverage-july-4-armed-attack-ice-agents-texas-facility
Why do you do this crap, Jesse?
If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the officer involved here, Gomez, is a little mentally unstable who takes pleasure not just in cruelty to animals, but drawing his taser AND his service weapon *on his fellow officers* as a type of "horseplay". That is exceedingly dangerous and wrong. From this article, I conclude that this guy shouldn't be anywhere near a badge. I would expect the "law-and-order" types like you to not want nutjobs with badges either because when they inevitably abuse their authority and someone gets hurt or worse, it undermines your cause.
But no, you instead mock and minimize what this guy has done. Why? Do you really think this guy acted properly? Do you not give a shit?
They want nutjobs with badges because they assume they will never be a victim of a psychopath cop, and they love it when people they hate (anyone who isn’t a Trump defending WASP) are beaten, tortured and killed.
Time to post yours and jeffs views on nut jobs with guns.
chemjeff radical individualist 4 years ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What is there to talk about?
From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.
They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren't supposed to be.
sarcasmic 1 year ago (edited)
Flag Comment
Mute User
I back the blue when they’re right. In this case, as you very well know, the cop didn’t know she was unarmed and from his vantage point he couldn’t see the crowd. He just saw someone crawling through a smashed barricade while hearing chaos on the police radio. So based upon what he knew based upon what he could see and hear, he did what he thought was right.
But, bunnies!
Hurt my bunnies and it's to ass.
Hey Jesse, why was Ashli Babbitt crawling over a barricade, breaking glass, and trying to climb through the window? Hmm? Could it be because... she was the aggressor trying to break into a place where SHE KNEW she didn't belong? (The barricade is there for a reason, right?) And that the cop was DEFENDING the lives and property of everyone on the other side of the barricade against the AGGRESSORS like Saint Ashli Babbitt?
He decides whether police action is right or wrong based upon the politics and immigration status of the people involved, NOT what the people did or didn’t do. That’s why he calls Saint Babbitt’s death murder and said Floyd deserved to die. Why? Babbitt was on a MAGA mission from God to overturn the election, while Floyd was presumably a Democrat because of his race and he used drugs.
If you really think that the cosplay "revolution" on Jan 6 would have overturned the election and brought on Trump Fascism! forever, you are dumber than we thought.
He has been posting all the Maddow conspiracies like trump will not allow an election in 2028.
So ironic when you can read your own words right above. And you continue to defend a cop shooting blindly into a crowd. So weird.
Who has said he deserved to die? Another jeffsarc lie. He died of an overdose.
He died of an overdose.
Yes, an overdose of cop knee squashing his neck.
That is what the government said, after all.
Oh wait, so NOW we don't trust the government anymore?
It's so hard to know when to trust the government I'll let WAPO tell me.
Chauvin's defense was "I didn't do what you saw me do." That will doubtless be parroted by the border nazi. The Prohibitionists Sullum and Billy trounced argued that drug bans do NOT cause those thousands of cops murdering people in cold blood. Pure coincidence. But in 1930 and 31-32 the papers were full of dead narcs found in ditches, fields, waterfronts... so long as the names are kept blurry the soft machine is OK with that. Plenty more where those came from. I'm definitely blogging that in other languages!
No his defence was the doped up nigger took enough fentanal to kill a dozen people, and the corner agreed. Which was why they changed the autopsy
He decides whether police action is right or wrong based upon the politics and immigration status of the people involved, NOT what the people did or didn’t do.
Is that a problem? If so it's odd since we've shown numerous times every judgement you make is determined by who is involved.
For example when left wingers rioted for 6 months it was extremely important to split the group between violent rioters and peaceful protesters. There was effectively no effort made to apprehend anyone involved in violence or property damage later on.
By contrast every Jan 6er who could be identified was prosecuted, violent, vandal, or neither. Later on Feds spent tens of thousands of man hours identifying and prosecuting even people who came past hours afterward sentencing them to vastly disproportionate sentences even compared to criminal BLM rioters. Literally thousands of agents worked on the program.
But the Jan 6ers were right wing while the BLMers were good people so you supported these dual standard prosecutions.
There you are. MAGAt = WASP = NSDAP just like in the old days.
I’d trade you for Mike Hihn in a heartbeat.
A while back my folks’ neighbor has a raccoon in his shed and it was behaving strangely. They called animal control and a police officer showed up. They (neighbors and folks) said the sick grin on the officer’s face while he took his time beating the animal to death with his club left them really disturbed.
As true as your illegal alien hunter bumper sticker comments.
Have you ever tried being truthful?
Funny how there are people left to whom that is a surprise.
For fucked up cop stories it's either Prince George County or New Mexico.
Interestingly local story.
Sorry no, I do not want to watch that.
Here you go buddy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S26LA8Bk14&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
Don't be silly. This is what a Mission From God looks like in real life! Hitler coudn't've done it better: "I'm not gonna kill it; I SWEAR TO GOD, MAN!" Christian National Socialism, live.
HITLER!!!!
I don't care about the rabbit. The rest of it is enough to take his badge and gun away permenently.
The rest of it is enough to take his badge and gun away permenently.
Assuming Reason and Jacob Sullum are within even 30 mi. of the truth of anything not recorded on video, and aren't blatantly "editing" in a "mostly peaceful" fashion.
To wit:
If Blacklock was there, why did Salas have to inform him that Gomez didn't have a weapon light? If Blacklock wasn't there and this is one-sided heresay, why is it assumed true? Because the guy killed a rabbit? What does Sullum think should happen here? Blacklock should go interrogate Gomez about testing a weapon light he didn't have? Wouldn't that implicate Salas as the complainant?
If the rest is true, absolutely take his badge and gun. Unfortunately, third-hand from Jacob Sullum I'm only about 10% sure the condition is met.
If Blacklock was there, why did Salas have to inform him that Gomez didn't have a weapon light?
He clearly has one, if not two, weapon mounted lights in the video.
Classic socialpath behavior.
False.
Forensic psychiatrist John Macdonald, is generally credited with "discovering" the triad. In a 1963 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, entitled "The Threat to Kill," he gave his clinical impression that "a history of great parental brutality, extreme maternal seduction, or the triad of childhood firesetting, cruelty to animals and enuresis" can signal those who will eventually threaten homicide." His article was based on his work with 100 patients at the Colorado Psychopathic Hospital in Denver, Colorado who had threatened, but not necessarily committed, violence.
...
Two psychiatrists were the first to empirically evaluate the Macdonald triad, according to Ryan. Studying 84 incarcerated offenders in 1966, Hellman and Blackman reported a positive association between the triad and future violence. Accordingly, some took to labeling the phenomenon as the “"Hellman and Blackman triad."
But subsequent attempts to replicate Hellman and Blackman's findings were unsuccessful. Even John Macdonald himself voiced later doubt about the triad's validity. After trying to test his own clinical theory, Macdonald reported in his 1968 book, Homicidal Threats, that he could find no statistically significant association between homicide perpetrators and early problems with firesetting, cruelty to animals, or enuresis.
Likewise, in an examination of 206 sex offenders at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexual Dangerous Persons, Prentky and Carter (1984) found "no compelling evidence" for the idea that the triad predicted adult criminality. They did, however, note that the individual components of the triad were common among people raised in highly abusive home environments.
Some years later, this was also the conclusion of Jonathan Pincus, in his 2001 book on convicted murderers. Pincus described "a forensic assessment protocol in which bed-wetting, firesetting, and cruelty to animals (among other behaviors) are considered 'hallmarks' of childhood abuse," notes Ryan.
Indeed, it seems far more likely that one of Macdonald’s five original indicators that didn’t go on to fame has more explanatory power as a cause of later violence: parental brutality.
Once again, for all the more-and-less-apt "excited delirium is junk science", "shaken baby syndrome is junk science", "reefer madness is junk science", "arson forensics is junk science", etc., etc., etc. the fact that this hold over from a time when 'rock and roll music caused kids to sacrifice babies to The Devil' is still just accepted and asserted uncritically by a layman second hand would be humorous if it weren't so sad.
The only one likely to take official flak is the citizen who released the video. Gangmembers hate snitches.
One rabbit you say? Huh.
Just point to the hero fauci and the animal abuse there.
The real problem is Gomez is doesn't have any soccer tattoos, is the wrong color of brown, the bunny isn't gay, and he didn't drop it off a roof.
Then this all would've been a cross-cultural misunderstanding that we should be tolerating if not celebrating for enriching us all.
JS;dr. But from the comments it doesn't look like anybody else did either. Bravo!
Headline. By line. Comments. There is no article.
casual cruelty that is usually seen as a marker of dangerously antisocial tendencies
And Reason, once again, can once again take their "Junk Science" horseshit and shove it up their own ass sideways.
First, you stupid fuckstick, the *actual* behavior associated with dangerously anti-social tendencies is animal *torture* and *habitual* abuse**. Second, the marker is itself, utterly useless and is poor even with the traditional (and stupid junk science) markers of bedwetting, and pyromania *in children*. Third, dozens, if not hundreds of times over, it's been demonstrated that the association is actually inversely causal and *not* irreversible. That is, abused kids torture animals and once you stop the child abuse, the child stops abusing animals and go on to live a normal life (or can). Fourth, *all* of the above is specific to individual cases in isolation. The abuser, child, engages in abuse in isolation of their own volition, not as part of a peer group and in response to their obvious shared enjoyment. The fact that they're all there laughing before he even touches the rabbit is the opposite of sociopathy and your fake-ass, shittiest of shitty junk science, psychoanalysis is the actual sociopathy.
**Addendum 1a: Arguably, what he did was not casual cruelty. Or, conversely, every motorist who hits a squirrel or a rabbit or a possum is engaged in casual cruelty. Every fisherman and hunter is engaged in casual cruelty. Every person who puts someone or something out of their misery is engaged in casual cruelty. But, again, the issue isn't whether what he did was a sign of socio/psychopathy, it's not. The bigger, far more dangerous red flag is that you don't seem to be able to distinguish between people dissecting their neighbor's cat in their shed, or on YouTube for clicks and attention; from a group of guys fucking around.
Geez, sounds like more of that toxic masculinity oppression. If only we had one-gender rule. Oh, excuse me, I meant multi-gender rule, but with one gender outlawed.
Didn't this Gomez bunny-killer just get the crap beat out of him debating Sullum?
Fuck rabbits.
Fuck baby rabbits. They turn into adult rabbits that have more babies.
Just because they are "cute" doesn't mean they have more value than rats. Kill em all and shed no tears.
But combined, the allegations make you wonder what sort of people Grant County is trusting with guns and badges.
Exactly the kind your lot asked for, Jacob.
You constantly persecute, condemn, malign, and threaten the good ones. Ludicrous amounts of them took early retirement or left for greener (and whiter) pastures. You zero in on even the slightest questionable activity, but you extol the "virtues" of outright criminals. ACAB. Defund the Police. Black Lives Whatever. Critical Resistance. You side with losers like fat ugly chick and double-chin incel guy who intrude on police activity for Facebook likes and pretend it's "citizen journalism."
Half the time Reason doesn't even do the barest of background investigation when they post an anti-cop story. Darn near every single one of them is written exclusively around a plaintiff's complaint. But I DO look into them, and even the most cursory glance shows that 9 times out of 10 this trash-rag is 100% BS when it comes to "reporting" the subject.
Here's what you don't get, "Libertarian." The cops? A ridiculous number of them have shrugged and said, "Who is John Galt." If you haven't read that book, then maybe you should - because it'll tell you EXACTLY what kind of person, in this case cops, are left afterwards.
Cops like this SOB.
This is what you're left with.
This is what you asked for. ACAB was never a protest. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If there were ANY good cops, there would be NO bad cops. When was the last time you heard of a cop arresting another cop absent public outrage or an arrest warrant? Why did none of the other cops present arrest the rabbit killer on the spot?
Because you lot chased off all the good cops.
Bad Cop: *kills a rabbit*
Good Cop: *arrests the rabbit killer*
ACAB: *spits in Good Cop's face, because ACAB can't tell the difference.* (It's in the name!)
Good Cop: *quits*
Bad Cop: *still has a job*
You wanted ACAB - ACAB is what you got.
It's not even that. Once again, when it comes to censoring people online or shooting trespassers in the capitol building it's all byzantine blue lines and various shades of gray, but when it comes to a not exactly criminal behavior (My Brother and SIL slaughter their rabbits by bashing their head against a tree all the time, I 'bonk' fish before filleting them all the time) they don't like suddenly all moral relativism goes out the window and only the tippy-toppiest passers of their own moral purity tests won't incur their wrath.
It's one step back from the stochastic terrorism. Malicious stochastic activism, where concerted efforts across several major cities thousands of miles apart, under a united banner with slogans and an online presence, is just mostly peaceful wilding out by people who don't carry membership cards; but five guys who, under pressure from the FBI agree to a plan to kidnap a governor that they never actually participate in, are evidence that systemic right-wing violence is lurking around every corner... despite the fact that violence and oppression was higher when borders were (more) open, status quo FBI and policing was taking place, and everybody was forcing everyone else to get the jab.
One group that's orders of magnitude larger covers for another group of people who loot and burns buildings to the ground but "aren't enough to significantly affect the outcome", but a group that's several orders of magnitude smaller than even the group that "isn't enough to significantly affect the outcome" is an existential crisis by virtue of the fact that they even exist.
If there were ANY good cops, there would be NO bad cops.
This is so self-evidently stupid, openly and dishonestly biased, and insultingly naive sophistry as not to be believed out of hand.
You're a retard better muted than read.
Later, he killed John Wick's dog. Whoops-a-Daisy.
JS:dr
Bet that cop has a hare trigger on his sidearm.
I LOLed. Would LOL again.
The slimy pile of lying TDS-addled shit Sullum has been handed his ass for so long he's now searching for ANY outrage he can find, and perhaps he's found on here. Perhaps. And even if so, this is right up there with a district judge being told to STFU, right?
But given that the TDS-addled slimy pile of lying TDS-addled shit Sullum has been busted lying so often, I'm gonna need a whole lot more support before I believe a report from the TDS-addled slimy pile of lying TDS-addled shit Sullum.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
This country needs to realize that if there were any good cops, there would be no bad cops. We need to stop looking for low IQ, low empathy, high aggression and high psychopathy (the same qualities you find in inmates in maximum security prisons) when we hire cops.
Next time I hire a cop I'll take your post under advisement.
This makes me want to throw concrete at an ICE van!
As the slimy pile of TDS-addled lying shit Sullum intended!
This year's check is gonna be $0.05, just so you don't forget what you used to get when you were a libertarian publication as opposed to a collection of TDS-addled lying piles of lefty shit.