Guy Who Encouraged People To Commit Suicide Online Banned From The Internet

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

Thu, May 27th 2010 11:54am — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about the disturbing case of William Melchert-Dinkel, a guy who would troll various online suicide forums, claiming to be a nurse, who would then encourage people to go through with their suicide plans, sometimes making suicide pacts with them. As we pointed out at the time, there's really no way to defend what this guy did. He's clearly a sick individual. But, we were concerned about him being charged with "assisted suicide" in Minnesota, where the law seems especially broad, and questionable on First Amendment grounds, because it outlawed just "advising" people on suicide.

In the latest on that case, Melchert-Dinkel has been ordered to stay off the internet completely while the case is ongoing. Like the lawsuit itself, an order like this, seems to raise a lot of questions. I could understand ordering him to stay away from any discussions about suicide, but a blanket internet ban, again, seems like it goes too far. Does it include a VoIP phone? With so much on the internet these days, can you really effectively bar someone from using the internet? We've seen courts that have regularly overturned such bans, claiming that they're unreasonably excessive.

While there's no way to defend what this guy did, so far this whole case seems to go in dangerous directions, both from the standpoint of free speech questions, as well as overly aggressive internet bans, due to one particular activity done on the internet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: assisted suicide, free speech, internet ban, william melchert-dinkel

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BulmaRO, 27 May 2010 @ 12:13pm

right..
totally true he is just wrong in what he does.. but certainly its imposibble to have him out of the internet.. and a ban? please way to excesive.

He may not be doing the right thing so to speak.. but he is not forcing anyone to commit suicide.. the individual has total control over doing it or not.

besides.. doing stuff like this.. just make martyrs you know?, out of nowhere with streisand effect included you'll see more traffic on suicide.. and maybe even a slighly higher rate of suicide.

but then again.. thats barely my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 12:21pm

Which is harder?
I think it comes down to which is harder totally cutting off access, which comes to yes he is on or no he is not; or trying to monitor his usage while he is on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 12:22pm

Jail?
Well, it is a criminal charge, so I guess the standard is, would it be excessive to throw this guy in jail? And do they have Internet in jail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 12:23pm

Re: right..
If being suicidal were somehow a detriment to the survival of the species, wouldn't said tendency have been bred out of the populace by now?

Since suicidal tendencies still exist, there must be some over-arching benefit to the human genome that we're just not seeing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 12:28pm

A court can issue and order, and the subject of the order may choose to obey it or not.

The thing for a person on the receiving end of such an order is that if it is violated and the violation is discovered the court has several remedies immediately at hand, not the least of which is holding the individual in contempt and incarcerating him/her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 12:42pm

an internet ban is certainly better than spending the trial time in a federal butt slammin' holding cell, being bubbas playmate for the next six months. the guy should count himself lucky and accept the ban. for me, internet bans are no different from a judge ordering someone not to come within x feet of a location or person(s).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 12:54pm

VoIP does not equal over the internet. Sure, IP means internet protocol but IP runs on lots and lots of private networks. If I have VoIP service from my cable company, the IP part probably never really leaves their network. In fact, most VoIP occurs on private networks or on the network of a single ISP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: right..
"If being suicidal were somehow a detriment to the survival of the species, wouldn't said tendency have been bred out of the populace by now?"

Are you suggesting that there's some positive benefit to cerebral palsy? If not, why hasn't that been bred out? Or Cancer, for that matter? How about really stinky flatuelance?

There is anomalous data in everything to do with life.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 1:01pm

In France, we once had a similar problem, due to one of our law except it was a ban from the internet in case of piracy.

What was first ruled about the law was the following :

Internet is now a fundamental right, and as such, no one should be barred from using internet. Many things runs over the internet nowaday, including, but not limited to, emails and thus, eventual social life with people.

It was something along those lines anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:02pm

Once again....
"we were concerned about him being charged with "assisted suicide" in Minnesota"

Right, because it would seem that depraved indifference would be the statute here. 2nd Degree Murder is a better charge than assisted suicide....unless you're trying to make headlines, of course....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 27 May 2010 @ 1:02pm

I don't see how it's possible to defend charging him with something. It's the same as the Lori Drew case - you're criminalizing being an asshole.

You can't arrest somebody for being an asshole. If you could, everyone in New York would be on death row.

- Cops and Robbersons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bradley Stewart, 27 May 2010 @ 1:04pm

There Are A Lot Of
goofy people on the internet. There are a lot of goofy people listening to these goofy people on the internet and taking them seriously. Though what this individual did may have had awful consequences I don't believe he should be kicked off the internet completely. Just listen to all the nutty corporate television and radio show hosts. Should they be tossed off television and radio? Even though I can't stand them they have a perfect right to blather on even though they sound to me as crazy a bed bugs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Qabal, 27 May 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: right..
There are some pretty valid arguments that suicide fulfills a role in ensuring the survival of genes by encouraging those most likely to reduce the chances of group survival to remove themselves from the equation. (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_and_suicide).

Just keep in mind that people's issues with suicide aren't inherent, they're cultural. Many cultures have a reverence (or at least cultural appreciation) of suicide. We happen to come from a judeo-christian culture, which places a strong negative cultural taboo on the subject. Many others do not, especially when couched as 'self sacrifice' (suicide with a purpose).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atari911, 27 May 2010 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re: right..
That would make sense if we lived in a world were selective breeding through competition existed. But we don't. Behaviors and traits that would normally be killed off in nature are not in a less harsh environment that we (or must of us) live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:15pm

My take on this is that it's just an enforcement measure. It might be difficult to prove that he personally used a computer or other internet device at the time it accessed one of those forums - think of all the difficulties we've been discussing about accurately prosecuting IP infringement. By implementing a blanket ban, it becomes easier - he accessed the internet? Instant violation, no matter what he was doing.

Under ordinary circumstances, I'd say this was definitely a cruel and unusual punishment, but under the circumstances he deserves it. Unlike "pirates", he did something to directly affect peoples' lives (and basically committed murder by proxy IMHO) and deserves punishment. I would hope that if he just used a mobile phone with internet capability or VoIP then they might be more lenient about prosecuting a violation of the ban on internet access, but I have zero sympathy for this type of sicko.

Actually, the most disturbing thing I'm taking away from this is that there are forums devoted to people considering suicide. People need help, of course, but with the trolls and other idiots on every other forum on the net, I can't imagine how dangerous a forum for suicidal individuals must be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re: right..
Cerebral Palsy is caused by brain injury/abnormality. Cancer is caused by a series of specific mutations, stinky flatulence is caused by intestinal flora--what is the cause of being suicidal?

None of these is a valid comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:20pm

Re: Re: Re: right..
"That would make sense if we lived in a world were selective breeding through competition existed. But we don't. Behaviors and traits that would normally be killed off in nature are not in a less harsh environment that we (or must of us) live in."
"Survival of the fittest" has never stopped being a factor, we've simply redefined "fittest."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: right..
That would make sense if we lived in a world were selective breeding through competition existed. But we don't.

So you can breed with anybody you want, as often as you want? Must be nice! ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:28pm

Lotta' stupid ways to waste time on the internet - but I think this one takes the cake.

But heck... some people would think it's a good idea: www.waragainsttheweak.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
"So you can breed with anybody you want, as often as you want? Must be nice! ;-)"

Hell, all I have to do is wink at a girl, and BAM!....pregnant....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 27 May 2010 @ 1:32pm

And where were the moderators?
This person trolling the forums is akin to some idiot standing in the lobby of a rehab clinic telling people where to score some "stuff". You would kick him off the premises.

It is the responsibility of a forum to monitor and police its members. I have moderated a car site of all things and a troll like this would survive about 10 minutes before being banned down to the MAC level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke, 27 May 2010 @ 1:41pm

Dad?
That's cause you've got wicked 'force' skills. You can also choke someone by pinching your fingers together so that winking thing shouldn't really be a surprise.

Oh wait, maybe I'm thinking of that other dark helmet guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean T Henry (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:42pm

Re:
Depending on the personality of this individual (Is he charismatic?) and how good he is at convincing people to commit suicide it could be a good thing to have him in jail. Place him with repeat offenders of violent crimes and maybe he can do some good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
"Cerebral Palsy is caused by brain injury/abnormality. Cancer is caused by a series of specific mutations, stinky flatulence is caused by intestinal flora--what is the cause of being suicidal?"

Causes of suicide:

1. Mental Disorder presents in cases of successful and attempted suicide in roughly 90% of cases:
A. Mood Disorder - Chiefly environmental causes
B. Substance Addiction - Both psycho-social and
hereditary causes
C. Schizophrenia - Both psycho-social, but primarily
hereditary causes

2. Genetics - Genes are established to be a primary player in determining suicidal tendencies, both for the mental illness factors listed above, as well as other factors. Genetics factors in for somewhere between 30%-50% of suicide cases.

3. Sociol and socio-ecnomomic factors are the only true "just chose to do it" causes of suicide, and account for less than 10% of total suicide cases.

In other words, it's a variable in which the preponderance of cases are not simply choice, but usually factor in some form of gentic relationship, not at all unlike the variables I described above, which you summarily dismissed....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:50pm

Re: Which is harder?
I think it comes down to which is harder totally cutting off access, which comes to yes he is on or no he is not; or trying to monitor his usage while he is on.

i think it comes down to the fact that you cannot enforce such a ban.

are you going to lock him in a cell for the rest of his life? 24/7 surveillance? sure you can probably see if he has broadband by pulling his cable/phone bill and make sure he's not dialing up by tapping his home phone, but can you keep him out of every public and private place that might offer him internet access?

in the end the ban doesn't matter because it cannot be enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
how? alot of people survive in America through sheer force of the American Government's will (see: social projects).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 1:56pm

What? 4chan is banned now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 1:56pm

Re: Dad?
no, no, you got the right guy. the other one was a poser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J Hopkins (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:06pm

Should we?
The question is what should we do? I agree with courts for the simple fact that if you are trying to prosecute someone, trying to say what he was doing was criminal in some way, you can't allow him to be in a position where he can continue his ways. Especially if when fact that what he did is even in punishable. The simple fact is he knew he was wrong, we all know what he did is wrong. Especially with all of the litigation going on about bullying these days he really is lucky that he has only been banned from the internet. I believe the internet is a right. However, like all rights if you abuse them, or use them in a way that is detrimental to others they can be taken away from you. Preying on people in a weak mental state is wrong now way around it. If there was suspicion whether he did it or not that is one thing. Innocent until proven guilty but we know he did it, we are just trying to find a suitable punishment for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
Yes, I see you've illustrated my point. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
Was your point sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
Seriously?
To provoke some serious discourse upon the nature of suicide (and the possible function of suicide) within human society.

Besides, if even "normal" (in quotes 'cause I've never met one) people are committing suicide, then perhaps it's simply a part of who we are--something that comes with being human.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pwdrskir (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:37pm

Cultural Honor
Japanese and other Asian cultures regard honor above all else and committing suicide due to the lack of honor is common place in these cultures today.

“Suicide has never been criminalized in Japan. Japanese society's attitude toward suicide has been termed "tolerant," and on many occasions a suicide is seen as a morally responsible action.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

Cyber bullying laws are not the answer, Trolling laws are not the answer. This guy did nothing more than exploit a weakness, which happens everyday, all day long. People are going to put themselves out there, some with positive and some with negative results. You can’t legislate against people “being mean and nasty” to others.

As the world’s economies worsen over the next 10 years due to excessive debt, I would argue that more people will be investigating suicide. I predict the EU countries will have an upswing in suicides as they are forced to change their way of life. This single guy is just the tip of the iceberg and as more people in the US and EU lose their houses and futures, there will be more people like this guy who will come out of the woodwork.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right..
Ah, gotcha.

My boss bought pizza for lunch, and I've been in a minor food coma ever since. I'm starting to think I'm going to shit my shwartz soon...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 4:45pm

So, this guy can't order a pizza online? He can't email his mom telling her about the case? He can't email his lawyer? What if he has to go to the Justice Department website? Can they ban him from using the phone? Would he have to contact his attorney via smoke signals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 4:56pm

Re: Should we?
"I believe the telephone is a right. However, like all rights if you abuse them, or use them in a way that is detrimental to others they can be taken away from you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re:
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 7:15pm

the internet is a tool an object, you have no right to the internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 10:48pm

Re:
Medicine is an object. So is food.
You have no right to food?
How about pen and paper. Do you have right to paper (you know, freedom of expression?), I mean, paper is an object, and a pen is a tool. Maybe someone who wrote letters to people to get them to kill themselves could be forced to never touch a pen, or a typewriter. Yeah, it's not like they'll need it to maybe write a check or anything?

All objects, all tools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 4:18am

Plenty of people don't have access to the internet, through poverty, bad circumstance, whatever.

The internet is not a right. Stop treating it like it is. I don't want this guy on my internet.

And suicidal advice may not be covered by the first amendment. There is plenty of speech that isn't. Like slander.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyle, 28 May 2010 @ 7:09pm

Good Lord! How can you defend this satanic piece of manure with "free speech"?

I think that this guy should be in prison tonight and not walking the streets. He is the most evil man.

Free speech is a noble concept for sure, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to let this maggot hide behind first ammendment rights. Free speech advocates think that we should be able to say anything. I don't agree. There must be reasonable limitations. For example, is it okay to encourage a blind person to walk over a cliff? No! Is it okay to seek out people who are in trouble and encourage them to take their lives just for your amusement? No! Is that what America's founding fathers had in mind when they talked about free speech? Hell No! Free speech means that you can express your political beliefs etc., not harm/target vulnerable people.

Please look at this tv documentary prepared by Bob McKeown who is a former Dateline NBC reporter. He tells the story from Nadia's vantage point. You will see what an evil person you are defending.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/death_online/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 8:00pm

Re:
Nobody is defending him. I don't even think anybody is saying that what he did should be protected speech. The problematic aspect of this story is that the law in question is really broad, and could ban many things that rightfully ought to be protected.

Also keep in mind that there is no law against being evil, only against specific acts. There are evil things people do that violate no law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle, 29 May 2010 @ 12:35am

Yes, I take your point that there is no law against being evil, but there was indeed a very evil act committed. To be frank, I see this incident as a kind of *murder*. I don't think that Ms. Kajouji was in her right mind when she jumped into the river. Dinkel was a nurse and was aware that Kajouji was clinically depressed and not thinking rationally due to insomnia, etc. He knew very well what he was doing. Dinkel was the last person to talk to her, and his intention was to kill her. You know, if you think about this case, you can see that Mr. Dinkel sought out Ms. Kajouji because he knew that she was clinically depressed. He calculated that she would be an easy victim. He developed a *plan* to manipulate her into taking her own life. He succeeded in that plan. He got exactly the outcome that he was hoping for. I honestly don't understand why they don't charge him with capital murder. That is really the crime that he has committed.

Melchart Dinkel has also told authorities that he pretended that he was a woman to make it harder for people to identify him. This demonstrates his awareness that he was doing was wrong. He also disclosed the motivation for what he did, saying that he did it for "THE THRILL OF THE CHASE". For me, that statement really says it all.

Listen, by proscecuting people like this, nobody is going to take away any American freedoms. That's not even on the menu. It's about whether it is okay for criminals like Mr. Dinkel to go on the internet, seek out people who are in trouble and then manipulate them with the intention of doing them harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle, 29 May 2010 @ 6:55am

Yes, I take your point that there is no law against being evil, but there was indeed a very evil act committed. To be frank, I see this incident as a kind of *murder*. I don't think that Ms. Kajouji was in her right mind when she jumped into the river. Dinkel was a nurse and was aware that Kajouji was clinically depressed and not thinking rationally due to insomnia, etc. He knew very well what he was doing. Dinkel was the last person to talk to her, and his intention was to kill her. You know, if you think about this case, you can see that Mr. Dinkel sought out Ms. Kajouji because he knew that she was clinically depressed. He calculated that she would be an easy victim. He developed a *plan* to manipulate her into taking her own life. He succeeded in that plan. He got exactly the outcome that he was hoping for. I honestly don't understand why they don't charge him with capital murder. That is really the crime that he has committed.

Melchart Dinkel has also told authorities that he pretended that he was a woman to make it harder for people to identify him. This demonstrates his awareness that he was doing was wrong. He also disclosed the motivation for what he did, saying that he did it for "THE THRILL OF THE CHASE". For me, that statement really says it all.

Listen, by proscecuting people like this, nobody is going to take away any American freedoms. That's not even on the menu. It's about whether it is okay for criminals like Mr. Dinkel to go on the internet, seek out people who are in trouble and then manipulate them with the intention of doing them harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 10:49am

Re:
I honestly don't understand why they don't charge him with capital murder. That is really the crime that he has committed.

I don't know for sure, but that is probably not the crime that he committed. I can't imagine the DA had the option and a strong case for murder, and decided to go with this other law instead. If they didn't charge him with murder, it's probably because what he did is not described by Minnesota's (if I remember the state right) murder statute.

Listen, by proscecuting people like this, nobody is going to take away any American freedoms. That's not even on the menu. It's about whether it is okay for criminals like Mr. Dinkel to go on the internet, seek out people who are in trouble and then manipulate them with the intention of doing them harm.

No controversy there. But what do you think about the law? Is it possible to charge someone for giving any advice about suicide, or only someone who advises another that they ought to commit suicide? Is it well-written and focused, or overly broad and possibly unconstitutional? That's really a much more interesting question here, because obviously what he did was wrong and we don't want him or anybody else doing that anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guest, 1 Jul 2010 @ 5:53pm

for all those people who are trying to defend, or say that he only advised people. lets say one of your kids, or parents or cousins or whatever were suicidal, would you rather have people like this idiot giving them advice on how they should kill themselves or have people who try to talk them out of it, i call them decent good people. this person should have a VIP spot in HELL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 7:36am

Re:
for all those people who are trying to defend

I don't recall anyone defending this guy's actions, only pointing out potential 1st Amendment problems with this legislation.

this person should have a VIP spot in HELL!

Which of course has nothing to do with what the courts should do to him. He must be judged according to the law, not according to what we think should happen to him in the next life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tanya, 6 Jul 2010 @ 6:05pm

suicide
I know a man that is pretty top gun in our town but he is a real sicko he tried to get my son to shoot himself and now I find out that he also tried to get an ex student of his (karate or such) to kill himself with a sword its like he wants to see someone die our pdept would never believe it but this guy is so manipulative his mother still takes care of him and he is 36 but now he has manipulated my daughter she is 21 she will not speak to me or her brother and is seeing this person I am so afraid for her I know he is going to hurt her or make her hurt herself.his mother is a well known physcologist and baby's him its really kinda weird please help me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shitfuck, 17 Aug 2010 @ 9:25am

poopy popsicle
You should all kill yourselves.

Trust me, I'm a nurse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Giovanni, 6 Dec 2011 @ 7:08pm

Ridiculous
This is ridiculous. How can not having empathy be illegal? I'd say this is infringement of the first amendment right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Just because some people do not share the same morality as the majority, that doesn't mean they should be punished. They're not harming anyone. If someone kills themself over someone else's words, you have to wonder how long they would have lived anyway. What's next? If someone advises me to stop paying my mortgage, and I stop paying it, will they share liability for the debt with me? This is just another case of people shoving their personal morals and beliefs down everyone else's throat. Typical of Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CJ, 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:14pm

suicide
Absolutely the right thing to do. Ban him for life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arden, 7 Mar 2012 @ 2:41pm

where can I find online suicide services? any web addresses I can browse? it's important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:23am

i love this guy i want people to die all the time i fucking hate shit people i want half of yall here to die. think about it if you dont like someone why have them alive this guys badass as hell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:26am

what the fuck why does it say anonymous coward thats some shit i just dont wanna make a fucking account to much shit and fucking lobo santo you're badass as hell keep up the good shit i dont want you to die keep on fucking bitches
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 5:05am

Re: Ridiculous
dude you are so badass that is so true man you are so cool i salute you with respect
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laurin Talarico, 25 Dec 2018 @ 2:40pm

Guy who encouraged people to commit suicide
Watched a true crime doco on this guy last night. Thank god for the English lady she is a hero. I dont know how old your post is but I hope this man spends a long time in prison with a rope in his cell
[ link to this | view in thread ]