Queerty is better as a member
So now the whole world knows Fazzina had gay sex – and he got beat up – and he’s in jail – and Richard discovered he is impervious to knives. Everything went better than expected.
@Kev C: “Everything went better than expected.”
Except Fazzina messing around with an unstable mental case in the first place, which made all this happen. But I guess sex is worth all that to many gays.
Fazzina is the unstable mental case.
@walt zipprian: Yeah, that.
“Except Treitner messing around with an unstable mental case”
Well they’re both CRAZY… Fazzina for………well.. HE’S JUST NUTBURGERS!!! And Treitner for being stupid enough to think with his _ _ _ _ (rhymes with tick)and trusting the nutjob enough to “lean in” to hear what this looney toon had to say..
@Colin: Yeah the complete logic of blaming the victim for hooking up with someone two years ago and then mistakenly having faith in people and thinking it was a true reconciliation. Why can’t Treitner just have been a jaded b_ _ _ _ (rhymes with itch) like the rest of you?
@startenout: Treitner made his decisions so he needs to accept the consequences. Besides, he may very well have forced himself on an unwilling Fazzina or manipulated him in some way to have sex. The details aren’t completely known.
@Colin: Lawyer ? or just like finding a reason to blame others?
Don’t shag your neighbors equates to don’t shit where you eat.
So the boy next door is cray cray.
I don’t know anything about law but isn’t that attempted murder?? He went there with a knife and tried to stab a guy multiple times??
@Colin, I don’t remember seeing that the perpetrator has or is now charging the victim with rape. That’s what forced sex is, after all.
No. 11 · Roxorz wrote, “I don’t know anything about law but isn’t that attempted murder?? He went there with a knife and tried to stab a guy multiple times??”
Check out http://www.shouselaw.com/attempted-murder.html#2 for a discussion of what constitutes attempted murder (this page is California-specific, but it will give you the general idea). There has to be intent to kill. The suspect in this case was drunk, so the D.A. would have to make a judgment as to whether he was so drunk that one cannot prove intent. Also, if the suspect attempted to stab the victim well to the side of the victim’s heart, it might be claimed that there was an intent to cause a serious injury but not an attempt to kill. It depends on the details (which the D.A. has and we don’t).
If they can’t prove intent to kill, other charges apply, so it is not like the suspect is getting a “get out of jail free” card – it is just called something other than attempted murder.
Since that guy looks like Bruce Willis and a knife broke against his chest… He must be… UNBREAKABLE.
@Colin: “Besides, he may very well have forced himself on an unwilling Fazzina or manipulated him in some way to have sex.”
Twice? He was so traumatized by his manipulation he went back? It’s typical post orgasm guilt. I’ve had a couple of closing time desperados turn on me and regret it. When Treitner had him on the ground he should have kept bringing down that door stop on the bastards head. They are both living with the consequences of this closet queens decisions.
@B: Eeek, that’s so sketchy
yeah, that was brilliant. Now everyone knows that Kenneth is gay. Or at least slept with a dude. TWICE. It’s scary what self-hatred can do.
Christianity, or I should say religion is a state of mental poverty!!.
@Colin: “But I guess sex is worth all that to many gays.”
Translation: “I’m jealous.”
@Colin: “@startenout: Treitner made his decisions so he needs to accept the consequences. Besides, he may very well have forced himself on an unwilling Fazzina or manipulated him in some way to have sex. The details aren’t completely known.”
Exactly… details such as Fazzina’s mental instability prior to the initial sex act and other details that may very well spit on your demented logic. :)
Doesn’t it hurt that every time you comment on Queerty, you just get your stupidity rubbed on your face? Don’t you have a life outside such sad masochism? I almost pity you. :)
No. 7 · Colin wrote, “Besides, he [Treitner] may very well have forced himself on an unwilling Fazzina or manipulated him in some way to have sex”
Let me guess. Treitner is a “Jedi” and “the Force has a strong effect on the weak minded.”
I’m @B: I’m sure you’re better versed in legal matters than I, but doesn’t third degree assault and only 25K bail seem awfully light? This guy will likely get plead down to probation and it would seem the details of the crime call for substantial prison time.
“At first I was afraid…” But were you petrified?
Justin, you are, so sweet hot and sexy why have the TAT`S with a crucifixion? that`s sucks!!.
@Belize: @Belize: Belize, sweet heart if you only knew how I feel as a German, and anything to do with the “Hysteria” of the WWII and the end results!. Makes me, so fucking ILL in my stomach thanks for Christianity.
@walt zipprian: I have no idea if you meant “Fazana” the Coat of arms in Croatia,? Fazzina is not English.
No. 23 · Geoff B wrote, “I’m @B: I’m sure you’re better versed in legal matters than I, but doesn’t third degree assault and only 25K bail seem awfully light?”
My guess would be that it is third degree assault because (due to ineptness/drunkeness) the victim was only scratched. Possibly some of the facts aren’t what one would assume from the press reports, but who knows. I’ve seen worse cases personally involving “road rage” when I wasn’t even in a motor vehicle, and avoided a serious injury only due to excessive skill. Even though the driver admitted what he did, doing it multiple times, they still refused to prosecute him.
@Belize: @Belize: Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. You’re very consistent about that.
@Ruhlmann: @B: You and most others here obviously don’t understand how victimization works, especially of the sexual variety.
No. 30 · Colin wrote, “@Ruhlmann: @B: You and most others here obviously don’t understand how victimization works, especially of the sexual variety.”
Err, Colin, what I wrote was ‘Let me guess. Treitner is a “Jedi” and “the Force has a strong effect on the weak minded.”’ In case you don’t understand sarcasm, the point was that your unsubstantiated conjecture that Treitner “may have forced himself” on the culprit is no more credible (due to lack of evidence) than what goes on in a Star Wars film.
Now, if you want to accuse Treitner of forcing himself on someone, produce credible evidence proving that. Otherwise, stick to safe topics -your health and the weather.
@Colin: You’re too filled with obvious self hatred to be an even remotely convincing dime store psychiatrist sport. You know nothing of what I have come to understand and risen above in five decades of living, once miserably and now contentedly. Your goading barbs are just expression of your inability to attempt even a modicum of bonhommie with us…your kind. You would be better served seeking the dubious benefits of psychiatry rather than practising it old son.
@B: Cute. But comparing what goes on in Star Wars films to what could very well have occurred between these two men is disingenuous at best. My comments and concerns are within the realm of possibility. Yours aren’t. That’s all there is to it.
@Ruhlmann: I have no idea what you’re ranting about.
“You and most others here obviously don’t understand how victimization works, especially of the sexual variety.”
You make this pompous statement in the certainty that many or all who comment here couldn’t possibly understand how victimization “works”. You alone are privy to the complicated psychology of victim/abuser dynamics.
“My comments and concerns are within the realm of possibility. Yours aren’t. That’s all there is to it.”
You posit a ridiculous scenario to reverse the positions of the potential murderer and his would be victim all so you can crow what you have twisted and then believe is more evidence of the horrid behaviour of the awful, awful gays and “That’s all there is to it”.
I have read comments by some on this site that I would consider frivolous, opinionated or arrogant but everything I have read that you have inflicted upon us is just goddamned silly. Like 12 year old girls pissing their knickers over Justin Bieber silly and of course as annoying. All because you hate yourself and need to flog your own devils in public. Get help Colin before, too late, you come to the realization that synthetic moral superiority and self denial has all been for naught and you’ve withered into a frustrated, bitter, friendless and lonely, old fag.
LOL@Colin. You’re getting your ass handed to you in these comments. Bringing a butter knife to a gun fight isn’t working for you.
@Ruhlmann: Thanks for that. Now I know you are completely off the rocker.
Two budgies and a mangey cat your only companions. A stack of 1980′s romantic comedies your only entertainment.
Tbf im surprised no one here has commented on the fact that the guy was more concerned the police got his doorstop description wrong “I realized I had grabbed the door stop which was a round carved stone, (which the police described as a concrete block but I think it is granite” house proud much lol..
No. 32 · Colin wrote, “@B: Cute. But comparing what goes on in Star Wars films to what could very well have occurred between these two men is disingenuous at best. My comments and concerns are within the realm of possibility. Yours aren’t. That’s all there is to it.”
Sarcasm is not “disingenious”. Your conspiracy theory was simply being dismissed as being as much of a fantasy as a Star Wars film is. It is not like you have any evidence, no matter how flimsy, to support your conjecture. The culprit isn’t claiming he was pressured or tricked into having sex either, at least not so far, and he desperately needs to find an excuse for his behavior.
What is disingenious is your statement that “Yours [i.e. mine] aren’t” because I made no comment whatsoever about the victim (the use of his name in a wisecrack is obviously a statement about you). I simply noted that you are making things up without even a tiny shred of evidence, dismissing your statement as a pure fantasy, which it is until you get some actual evidence.
@B: I should’ve been more clear: Your attempt to use sarcasm to dismiss my speculation is what is disingenuous. It still stands that my comment is in the realm of possibility. What you stated in comment #21 is nothing more than a red herring, and calling it a “conspiracy theory” nothing more than exaggeration.
Regardless of how you see it, it is still a possibility, and given the circumstances of this case and others like it in history, it is a strong possibility. Hence why I said you have no clue how sexual victimization works. Until people know all the details, the possibility is apt.
@Colin: Meant to say: “And calling my stance in comment #7 a “conspiracy theory” nothing more than exaggeration.”
No. 39 · Colin wrote, “@B: I should’ve been more clear: Your attempt to use sarcasm to dismiss my speculation is what is disingenuous. It still stands that my comment is in the realm of possibility. What you stated in comment #21 is nothing more than a red herring, and calling it a “conspiracy theory” nothing more than exaggeration.”
Unless you are purposely lying, you obviously don’t understand what the term “red herring” and the word “disingenuous” mean as my comments were neither. That fact is that your “speculation” is simply a figment of your imagination with absolutely no evidence, no matter how weak, to justify it.
@B: You’re not very good at reading comprehension, so I’ll let you have the last word. I stand by my comments.
No. 42 · Colin wrote, “@B: You’re not very good at reading comprehension, so I’ll let you have the last word. I stand by my comments.” Is that your way of admitting that you are unable to use the English language properly, or do you think anyone is fooled by your attempts to weasel out of your obvious effort to smear the victim of a crime?
@B: I actually did use the terms properly. I’m sorry you don’t understand them.
As for smearing the victim, I can’t see why I would do that. I have no stake in this case, which is why I’m not arguing the point any longer. I’ve said what I had to say, stating why I think about this case the way I do.
You’re basically carrying on about nothing at this point and it’s obvious you have some kind of axe to grind.
No. 44 · Colin wrote, “@B: I actually did use the terms properly. I’m sorry you don’t understand them.” Actually, you didn’t.
Then you blabbed, “As for smearing the victim, I can’t see why I would do that…..”
Whether you can see why or not, when you suggest that the victim might have manipulated the culprit into some sexual activity, you did precisely what I said – you are smearing the victim with innuendo, with just enough plausibly deniability for a defense in a libel suit.
@B: *eyeroll* Whatever.
@B: He’s eyeroling and whatevering, I think you’re wearing him down.
Please log in to add your comment.
Need an account? Register It's free and easy.
PHOTOS: Gay Cowboys Lasso The American West
PHOTOS: Idina Menzel Back on Broadway in If/Then
PHOTOS: A Glittering Night Of Body Painting, Hookah Circus & Porn Stars
PHOTOS: New York City Prepares For The Black Party Weekend
Photos: Take A Glimpse Inside The Lives Of Soldiers, Boys And Biblical Figures