On Saturday, the 28th of March 2015, a fencehopper invaded a horse breeding farm in Espenau,Germany. Next morning, he returned to collect his jacket he probably must have forgotten the night before. When he left the property, he was seen by a girl preparing for riding lessons . The girl told this to the to breeders/owners of the farm what led to the examination of surveillance camera footage. On one cam, this guy, obviously drunk, was filmed in a box, masturbating while sticking his arm into a mare´s vagina. The mare immediately was checked, first by the breeders themselves, later with the support of a veterinary, who diagnosed an intravaginal injury. Blood was found in another part of the farm, obviously from a kick the invader must have received searching for the "right" victim. The two breeders chose the legal way to deal with this attack and turned the police onto this 51 year old guy.
So far, so bad. This case could´ve ended like so many others with fencehoppers involved, but on the evening of June the 11th, the guy was found lying onto the pavement of a street in Espenau-Hohenhausen. He had bruises on his forehead and the back of his head, bled out of his nose and wasn´t able to talk; until today, he still is in coma, suffering from a trauma of the brain. The ambulance arrived and a first investigation gave the hint that the man could have been a victim of a physical attack from one or more anonymous attackers.The police still isn´t sure and investigations involve searching for the unknown attackers as well as the possibility of a traffic accident, because a witness saw the man accompanied by the driver of a blue quad bike. The identity of this quad driver remains unknown until today. Until now, it isn´t clear if the man was a victim of an attack or was hit by the quad bike (or any other vehicle). Now, here´s the controversy: On his blog www.zoophiles-infoportal.de , Mr Burdinski published two articles claiming that this incident from June was an attack ( remember: still not clear if it actually was an attack) not connected to this man´s fencehopping activities, but an attack on a random, publicly known zoophile and thus on zoophilia itself. He denies the quite obvious connection of the two incidents and calls it "an action of zoophobe haters". Some additional informations,mixed with some rumors the HNA (local newspaper) was able to research: The guy found on the pavement was a longtime fencehopper, well known by almost any horseowner from this area,terrorizing the animal owners for many years, the owners even installed a special Whatsapp application on their cell phones to warn each other when our "hero" was seen near horse territory. Another horseowner claimed that this man caused the death of a foal by manipulating a pregnant mare´s vagina the way he did on March 28th. It cannot be proven, but it eerily fits into the picture as one way a mare can lose her foal is an intravaginal infection. And I don´t guess this guy clips his nails and sterilizes his arm before doing stupid shit in his favored way, sticking arms up a mare´s vagina. He is said to have a long history of invading other people´s stables and pastures, but until now, he managed to get away with his actions because no evidence could be obtained before.
So, what do you folks think of this? Do you think he got attacked by some "zoophobic hater", as Mr Burdinski claims. Do you think those two incidents are directly connected and someone simply had enough of the selfish actions from this fencehopper, taking the laws into his own hands? And do you consider it a good idea to defend this guy in public, as Mr Burdinski decided to do, still calling this guy a "zoophile"? Remember that we here have: an injured mare, a man well known for hopping fences, a society in fear of this "zoo", a jurisdiction failing to give animal owners enough power to exclude any further nightly visits from an "animal lover" once and for all and, last but not least, a self proclaimed "zoo attorney" desperately trying to turn this case into something that suits his agenda of turning zoophiles into scapegoats victimized by a zoophobic society, but failing to realize that this guy probably never was a genuine zoo anyways. Do you consider it a good idea to speak out for the fencehoppers in cases like this and connecting them to zoophilia although several details indicate the opposite, a selfish bestialist who doesn´t care a tiny bit for the animals he "visits" to get off? Do you share Mr Burdinski´s view that the two owners of the farm "must be involved" in the attack, although they both said they prefer the legal way to get some of the expenses for the vet back?
P.S.: When I´m done with cleaning boxes and riding, I´ll immediately provide you with the two articles from Mr Burdinski, translated to english, of course. I had to shorten the whole story a bit due to the 10.000 letter restriction of reddit posts, but will go more in depth when I put the translated articles in here. Until then, you could use google translator to examine Mr Burdinski´s articles, but don´t expect the translation to be good enough to get the general displayed attitude right.
Wrong link, sorry... The correct links: www.zoophiles-infoportal.org/selbstjustiz/ www.zoophiles-infoportal.org/war-es-versuchter-totschlag/
I will never defend fencehopping. However, I do feel sorry for this individual, and wish he wouldn't have had things happen the way they did. I also feel no ill towards him but I totally understand the attitude of feeling the right to use lethal force if neccesary to defend an animal.
I still hope he can learn a lesson, and put his life back together.
I am anti-trespassing and anti-harm. He did both. Whether you consider animals property or not, he harmed the horse. Maybe, if he didn't harm the horse, I would reconsider.
Same here. Do I agree with people "taking the law into their own hands" and hurting others? No, not really. Do I feel a little bad for him? Sure, nobody deserves to be beat into a coma (if that's even what happened, seems unfair to jump to "this was a hate crime!!" before we even know the details). Do I agree with, support, condone, or even tolerate what he did? No way.
I feel iffy about calling this guy a "zoo," too. His actions seem more on the side of "bestialist." However, I think the only one who can really define if someone is zoo or not is the person themselves; we can't decide from an outsider's perspective if someone loves animals romantically or not, only they can. Could this guy be zoo and just made a really bad mistake? Sure maybe. But actions speak louder than words, and so far they aren't saying good things.
There are so many reasons why an attack could occur, but to defend someone who has caused demonstrable harm while also claiming "Zoophilia is love and affection to animals, something wonderful and harmonious." ... well, a phrase comes to mind, and unfortunately that phrase is "Ethics in Game Journalism".
When I was younger, there were some circumstances where I was unconcerned with fencehopping. That age has passed as I have learned more, but even back then this event would have upset me. His actions were harmful, and I oppose them.
Rather than rage against unknown possible hate-crimes (even the police said "might be a traffic accident"!), we should write to those horse farms and thank them for getting him arrested.
fuck him. apart from tarnishing the name even more (new name anyone?) what did he expect to happen? he had a goddam app built just for him. When the justice system fails, people take matters into their own hands and I wouldnt be surprised if what happened here was a targeted attack. The fact this guy had the audacity to continue on with his life like nothing had happened and continued assaulting mares I guess is what pushed people over the edge.
But violence is just as legally and morally wrong as fencehopping. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Keep in mind that you're commenting an article in another language. In the comments he wrote
which translates roughly to: Via phone the police told him that they are not aware of a connection between the victim (the man in question here) and an alleged miscarriage nor him creeping around schools and kindergartens.
Keep also in mind that we don't know which is true:
When it comes to sex with animals, wild stories are often invented and spread for whatever reason, it might be just another rumor.
The police being unable to confirm a connection doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. We don't know.
Also
Basically means: There's no question that it's not ok to invade stables and pastures of strangers. Whoever does these things, is to be punished according to the law in force.
Thanks for the details
I don't support the practice of fence hopping and molesting someones animals. He probably deserved what he got, if indeed he was injured by persons for his animal abuse. I would shoot someone for trespassing on my property and molesting or injuring my animals. This is the reason we now have laws in Florida against bestiality. A migrant trespassed onto a woman's property and molested one of her mares. The act was caught on video and he was charged with trespass but the owner started a campaign to get the legislature to make laws against bestiality whereas there were no laws on the books at the time of the molestation. We all suffer from the acts of the few crazies who have no respect for other peoples property.
If this was someone who broke into a home and sexually assaulted a woman or young girl and left her bleeding, and knowing he had done it before, I don't think it would be questioned how we would feel about him getting beat half to death.
Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if another zoophile did it to him. I'm only zoo-ish in feelings and sympathy, and the thought of someone harming/raping an animal fills me with rage. You can't claim to love something and then commit these kinds of acts. He's no lover of animals, he's a psychotic narcissistic asshole. I don't think we should call it "fence-hopping even", that's such a soft term that brings to mind frolicking in a field and skipping over daisies. I call it breaking and entering and sexual assault and animal abuse all at once.
I don't believe in vigilantism and would always opt for people to go through the system like everyone else, but I can relate to the powerful feelings this kind of thing can spark. I hope he eventually wakes up from his coma so he can face charges and spend time conscious in jail and maybe have some time to actually think about his own life and choices.
Unfortunately, no matter how much the good people here may try and differentiate us from them (fencehopping vs. not, beastie vs. zoo), outsiders will probably lump it all together. That's something I'd really like to correct, but I have no idea how. From what I've seen, the people most likely to put a bad face on the orientation are also the people least likely to use restraint or good judgement, even for the benefit of themselves, let alone for the rest of us.
The attorney should know better, but I guess if it's his job to defend the guy he needs to start somewhere, no matter the collateral damage.
I see you're discussing my article here. I want to say something to this discussion:
I NEVER want to defend fencehopping. Like i wrote in my articles, i condemn any form of entering other peoples farmland, kennels or stables. I also wrote, whoever do it must be punished according to the laws. In another article of my blog you can read that its nessessary to make better laws to protect farm and stable properties (in germany, i don't know the laws in other countries).
I also tried to explain in my articles that i see two different cases. One case is, that the guy entered an stable and was catched by the owners. The other case is maybe six weeks later and an brutal attack. This attack made the offender of the 1st case into the victim of the 2nd case. It's my opinion you should see the attack as a case of persecution against zoophiles because i'm sure, the assasins don't differentiate into "good" or "bad" zoophiles. I'm sure, this attack would also happen if the guy is maybe an activist of the ZETA organisation or an zoophile who was exposed thru other circumstances; i.e. like me, who is known from interviews in the press and TV. In fact i got a lot of threats, also death threats.
Maybe there are also some misunderstanding if i use the word "zoophile". I use it in neutral way and i don't evaluate someone a "good" one if i say, he is a zoophile. It's not my intention to make a fencehopper into a martyr. For me, it's only a case of pursuance.
We can argue alot about fencehopping. I'm sure the most of us agree that's totaly not ok. But i can't understand that some zoophiles relay the rumors of anti-zoo's as a truth and talking with so much hate! No joke, one zoo wrote me, he is really happy that this fencehopper is nearly killed.
Finaly Please see some facts we here have: only rumors of an injured mare, rumors that he was seen in front of school and kindergarden and also rumors that he is a fencehopper since years. The german police don't confirm any of this rumors (and remember, this rumors are probably made by people who are intersted to show this nearly-killed guy as a monster).
PS: please excuse my bad english, its 30 years ago i've learnt it.
Thank you for honoring us with your presence, but I won´t let you get away so easy on this:
First, the assault itself: I think you´re totally wrong with your assumptions here. You claim this was a standalone attack, with no connections to the fencehopping. I doubt this, this was not an attack on some random zoophile (I´ll get to that issue later), it was an attack on someone who is a threat to any horseowner in this area. Denying any connection because the attack hasn´t followed the fencehopping immediately afterwards is plain silly. Another thing worth mentioning is that you claim it was a planned assault. How do you know? Do you really think you know better than the police itself? They can evaluate the evidence, you´re just picking out details from articles, randomly and with selective perception. Please answer this: If you try to assault a person, would you do it on an open street or would you rather lay some kind of ambush far away from any potential witness to enlarge your timespan to get away unseen? Huh? You speak of info that only can be known by police and the two owners of the farm. How do you know? You should know how quick rumors spread, especially in rural areas and villages. With or without cell phone apps, it is very likely that almost anyone exactly knows about the guy; it´s not difficult to spy on someone publicly known. So, you´re basically telling stories disguised as facts, Mr Burdinski, and thus you´re doing exactly what you accuse the press of. You don´t have more evidence, you don´t have better insight in this case than the police Speaking of the press: You say that noone has examined the "contributions" of the press as a gateway for this assault. Maybe noone examined this because in all the articles dealing with this, the sentence " Search the asshole and give him a good portion of whoop ass" cannot be found. Let´s reverse this bogus argument of yours and say that your own and ZETA´s page played an important role in reassuring this guy to continue with fencehopping because "Zoophilia is harmonious and beautiful". How about that? Of course, this is silly...silly as your own accusations of the press. In your articles, there´s a certain underlying overtone of distrusting the press...the only thing I´m waiting for is you using the infamous "Lügenpresse" word the Pegida ("Patriotic" Europeans against the islamisation of the occident) is famous for. We all know that the press can be sensationalistic sometimes. But a stupid generalisation won´t help. You say that the press should refrain on reporting "rumors", but "rumors" are a part of journalism and it is legit to report these rumors if they are recognizable as unverified data. Insisting on solely fact based journalism would ban every report of eyewitnesses, any background info like, for example, interviewing Mohammed Attar´s neighbor (he had nothing to do with 9/11, couldn´t contribute any evidence regarding the terror attack, but still it was legit to talk to him for additional pieces of the picture). Why do you believe the press, when an article is dealing with a "publicly known" neonazi? Of course those individuals aren´t as clandestine with their convictions as zoophiles, but why is it okay to believe the press when it reports things you like and mistrust it when things don´t fit your "weltbild"? Do you know the difference between a sceptic and a zetetic? Sceptics doubt everything except themselves, zetetics add themselves into things worthy doubting.
You wrote "I use the word zoophilia neutral". WTF? There is no neutrality in this. You aren´t a zoophile just because you fuck animals. This word is more than a simple description of a kink, sexual obsession; there´s no room for interpretations here. You don´t call a married , but cheating husband "faithful", you don´t call a white horse " very light black". There´s no "schwarzer Schimmel", there´s no sexually experienced virgin and there´s no zoophile hurting animals. If you do, you cease to be a zoo. You say it´s only a rumor this guy has injured the mare from Espenau. Why haven´t you called the farm or the vet examining the horse after the attack to investigate whether the injury is a fact or not? Why do you claim knowledge about the fencehopper´s criminal history you got by calling the police? You should know that the police is very unlikely to hand out info to random strangers calling, especially when a case still is investigated. I don´t want to call you a liar, but for me it seems this phone call never took place. The police would violate the law protecting personal data if they tell you via phone. As long as you´re not a journalist or the defendant´s attorney, you don´t get info about people not related to yourself in any way.
I really think you stepped over the line with your articles. You connect us with the fencehoppers and don´t even realize this. Oh, one thing: Yeah, you put in the disclaimer stating that FH isn´t acceptable, but be honest for one time. Was this your own idea or did you finally give in to a commenting user´s steady recommendations regarding distancing zoophilia from FH? I know that MH is constantly nagging about the lack of clear and plain rules.So, how much of the disclaimer in your text is based on MH´s interventions? Your attempts to turn us zoos into the "new jews" by editing a zeta into a david´s star like you did and published on the ZETA page some time ago are despicable and I still am awaiting a genuine apology for this shit that definitely wasn´t thought through completely. Your attempt to reinterpret this assault as an attack on zoophilia itself fits the victim role you desperately want to force us into.Please stop that immediately. Thank you.
I just realized while reading over this, maybe in German there isn't the same distinction between "zoophile" and "bestialist." I might be totally wrong, but maybe there aren't two different words for it like that, so zoophile is the only word to use. This would still hold true when translating it, especially if English is a second language and maybe he doesn't know the two words have different meanings in English, or that the word "bestialist" even exists at all.
I might be 100% pulling that out of my ass and there are different German words after all, maybe /u/OBurdinski can reply and let us know. But something to consider, maybe, when reading articles that aren't in English.
You´re wrong, I am German and we use the word "beasty" or "bestialist" like it is used all around the world. I know Mr Burdinski knows the difference, but has an intention to mix up these two words until they become synonyms for each other.At least, that´s the impression one gets when following ZETA´s and Mr Burdinski´s publications. Why, you may ask...well, you also can witness it in here and any other place where people with an interest in animal sex collide. People will bend the definitions according to their own interests and are very eager to call themselves the z-word, even if they don´t fit the definition that has it´s origins in the early nineties when zoos from all over the world first had the possibilities to communicate with each other online. IRC chats like lintilla and sleepy´s, you know... From the second this definition of zoophilia was made, people started trying to reinterpret it so they can use the more scientific, serious term "zoophile" although their actions speak otherwise. The original meaning of zoophilia included no human sex whatsoever, living with an animal in a marriage-like relationship with no cheating with other animals, refraining from animal porn and fencehopping...hope you get the idea of replacing promiscuous and sex centered conduct with a morally and ethically more "normal" attitude. It was the idea to adapt the values and ethics of the "normal" human relationships so society can find similarities between themselves and us "pervos" easier. You have to admit that teaching about zoophilia can be swallowed by the average person believing in monogamy and condemning "sexual explorative behavior" (fucking anything that walks...^^) way more easier when you can meet their definition of true love instead of fucking through the stables, doing every animal you can get a hold of. Today, our entire community consists of about 90 percent of "poly-persons", but only about 10 percent of people fitting into the original definition of zoophilia and thus it is so goddamn difficult to raise awareness and tolerance for this very unique and special orientation. The z-word seems to have magical powers, at least that would explain why everyone is so eager to call himself a zoo. Note that there´s a "zoo pride", but no "beasty pride", another hint that insisting on the original definition of zoophilia has nothing to do with "feeling superior" to the beasties; actually I have the impression that the beasties feel inferior to the zoos and thus are trying every semantic trick to "join the club". Mr Burdinski himself told that he had sexual experience with dogs, humans ( both male and female) as well as horses ( also both genders) and may be terribly afraid that he would be an "inferior" beasty when definitions are used correctly. So, he tries everything to reinterpret the original meaning on lots of occasions. Other ZETA members do it alike, as well as most of the BF users, for example. They all fear not belonging to the "elite" animal fuckers, for whatever reasons they make up themselves. Our orientation may be the only one where definitions seem to be worth nothing and rules like the zeta principles are easily set aside to pamper the egos of those not fitting the definitions. Just look up the strange list that is flowing around in the net, with 9 ascending "grades" of zoophilia, from "romantic zoos" (people who probably never will have sex with an animal their entire lives, but speak like they had; fantasizing manchilds) to the "exclusive zoos" at the bottom of the list; actually the only ones worth calling zoophiles. Maybe this is our worst mistake: the word zoophile, once meant as an honorable title as well as a steady reminder of all the duties coming with true zoophilia has deteriorated and became empty and hollow by allowing anone to call themselves what they want to be called.
I have a hard time seeing defending this particular guy going well. Fence hopping is one of the big "hell no's" that non-zoos hold. I have heard people saying how they would shoot somebody who had sex with their animal in such a way. It is one thing behind closed doors, but I think defending this guy would simply make the zoo community look worse. Maybe I am wrong, but coming from a non-zoo perspective, if I did not have the information I had now and I saw somebody like this fence hopper being defended, it would have a negative affect on my view of zoophilia. As much as I support zoophiles, I do not think I can ever support fence hopping. I will not judge or be rude or anything, but I do not agree with the whole fence hopping thing. IMO it is the equivalent of cheating in a heteronormative relationship, people probably will never support fence hopping.
Thank you, exactly this is my perspective and I´m glad a non-zoo shares my view on that.
Why did he have to harm the mare while fencehopping. I say shame on him. But that is still no reason to use extreme violence and put him into a coma.
To say fencehopping were totally wrong and have to be punished is bullshit. Cruelty has to be punished in opposite to love! Many people can't effort or manage to have own horses, cows, donkeys or whatever animal in this size. Just because of the animals owners dont like that someone have sex with there animals, you can nobody force to life a life without love and sex. Or say he has to get punished just for making an animal which he don´t own himself feel good. I do fencehopping since i was 12 years old (now i am 27). I do have an etablished romantic relationship to the mares i visited so many times in my life. I am 100% zoophile and i do not want to have sex or an romantic-like relationship with humans ever. The only thing that i live for is my love to animals. btw i live in germany