• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Man who promotes sex with animals is back in prison

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,483
A convicted cocaine-runner and unapologetic advocate of zoophilia — sex between humans and animals — has been sent back to federal prison for again refusing to obey court orders that he stay away from animals and off the Internet.

Douglas Spink, 43, whose behavior has frustrated federal probation officers and prosecutors, was returned to prison on May 9 for nine months for violating his supervised release. It was the longest sentence U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez could impose.

Spink — who has repeatedly skirted court orders since he was first charged with smuggling more than 370 pounds of cocaine in 2005 — will be done with the federal judicial system when he gets out.

That will not be the end of his legal problems, however.

He still faces misdemeanor animal-cruelty charges in Whatcom County after the Sheriff’s Office raided his property in 2010 and turned up what officials described as a bestiality farm. Spink, who was on federal probation for the drug charge at the time, was sent back to federal prison for nearly three years after that.

(...)

Spink was convicted on drug-smuggling charges in 2005 after he was arrested near Monroe with 371 pounds of cocaine in his vehicle. Facing a mandatory 10-year prison sentence, Spink admitted he was a drug smuggler and agreed to cooperate against others involved in a massive drug-smuggling conspiracy operated by Robert Kesling. Spink received a three-year sentence.

cont at
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023658786_spinkprison1xml.html
 
I love the end section where it talks about the guy who has sex with a horse and later died of internal injuries. Got ass fucked by a horse and it kills him... crazy. And hilarious.
 
Folley said:
... they can force you to stay off the internet?
Click to expand...

They can try. Some people who are convicted of sex crimes are told they cannot use the internet or use drugs or alcohol. So I have read in cases, ironically off the internet. lol.
 
Real life is so much more bizarre than fiction.

I wonder how the death certificate read.. fucked to death by a stallion?
 
I randomly found and posted this article, so I was really surprised to hear that the guy is a blue lighter, and that many of you know him.
Doesn't sound like a bad guy.
But then again, I am a horse.
 
They can indeed ban you from the internet, which is absurd and insane regardless of the crime. They can spy on you endlessly, why would some sadistic asshole judge completely ban you from the internet? It happened to the owner of best-gore (violence porn, conspiracy website you have been warned), except his charges are bogus.

lol at beastiality farm anyone remember "heavy petting zoo".
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
They can indeed ban you from the internet, which is absurd and insane regardless of the crime. They can spy on you endlessly, why would some sadistic asshole judge completely ban you from the internet? It happened to the owner of best-gore (violence porn, conspiracy website you have been warned), except his charges are bogus.
".
Click to expand...

Please explain^. He posted the Magnotta snuff video. Not even using the word allegedly because I saw it on his site and he admits it. One of the people in that video did not consent, that person being the dead guy. I can't start up a site with real rape videos, why is okay for him to post videos where someone didn't consent?
People like this are forcing the government of Canada (where he is) to draw a line in the sand. Since the internet got big there have been almost no busts for any porn that wasn't CP here. He went and rubbed the cops noses in it thinking he was safe and they called him on it. Lots of people get banned from the net in Canada including fraudsters and pirates, and guys who cant stop threatening their ex wives. It is a common punishment.
You are not entitled to internet use, it is not a right.
 
my3rdeye said:
Please explain^. He posted the Magnotta snuff video. Not even using the word allegedly because I saw it on his site and he admits it. One of the people in that video did not consent, that person being the dead guy. I can't start up a site with real rape videos, why is okay for him to post videos where someone didn't consent?
Click to expand...

Oh shit - that's not very nice (to put it mildly).
 
my3rdeye said:
Please explain^. He posted the Magnotta snuff video. Not even using the word allegedly because I saw it on his site and he admits it. One of the people in that video did not consent, that person being the dead guy. I can't start up a site with real rape videos, why is okay for him to post videos where someone didn't consent?
People like this are forcing the government of Canada (where he is) to draw a line in the sand. Since the internet got big there have been almost no busts for any porn that wasn't CP here. He went and rubbed the cops noses in it thinking he was safe and they called him on it. Lots of people get banned from the net in Canada including fraudsters and pirates, and guys who cant stop threatening their ex wives. It is a common punishment.
You are not entitled to internet use, it is not a right.
Click to expand...

He literally gives people access to graphic, unfiltered material on the internet. It is one of the only places where you can get a glimpse of the brutal realities of life without it being warped by the media.

The consent argument is ridiculous, it is the internet. He helped them find Luca I believe, and took the video down afterwards. They just made up charges because he embarrassed the police. He explains it on the website in detail. They are trying to use laws from the 1800's against him now and are trying to bleed him dry financially while they draw out the process as long as possible. He is being maliciously prosecuted.

Internet use absolutely is a right. You have a very paternalistic view of your own freedoms. It is as if he was banned from entering any store. Not a certain chain of stores or store that sells certain products but all stores. It is an egregious violation designed to maximize the chance he will be arrested for disobeying the order. People use the internet for all sorts of daily things and banning it completely is simply vindictive excessiveness on the part of the judge.

Putting the onus on someone who gets sent videos constantly from around the world to get consent from everyone in them personally is asinine and impossible. What if you secretly recorded a government official raping your child and the evidence was thrown out because you didn't get consent from them and you got charged with a crime for recording it while they walked free? How can you support laws that erode your own defences against oppression?
 
^ People who use animals for sex or kill people and have sex with them or abuse kids (and take pics or vids) and people who trade in that sort of garbage, I have no problem with them being monitored and having their rights taken away, such rights as using the internet or going places without being tracked and drug and alcohol tested and having to report daily/weekly or whatever to police station and made to see therapist, all that sort of stuff.
 
poledriver said:
^ People who use animals for sex or kill people and have sex with them or abuse kids (and take pics or vids) and people who trade in that sort of garbage, I have no problem with them being monitored and having their rights taken away, such rights as using the internet or going places without being tracked and drug and alcohol tested and having to report daily/weekly or whatever to police station and made to see therapist, all that sort of stuff.
Click to expand...

The site owner did not do any of these things. He posted the video that helped the investigation then took it down. Have you visited the website? It is not a pedo/zoo porn site, they literally do not have a single image of these things.

I am referring to the owner of best-gore though, in case there was confusion, not the guy here.
 
I find this an interesting discussion.
Is internet access a "right"?
It is probably not a "natural born right" because we didn't have the internet until recently.
As far as I can tell, we must decide if it should be a right or not.
To me, it is clear that it should be a fundamental right.
Should criminals lose their rights?
Seems pretty bizarre to me, to be honest. But, with heinous crimes, it seems far less bizarre, and could make sense.
Like poledriver and Kytnism, I would be okay with pedophiles losing their rights to access the internet.
But zoophiles? It is not so clear to me.

(Then again, I am a horse, as I mentioned above, so this could be affecting my judgment.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top