Man Killed Near Known Gay Cruising Area in Sydney Park


A man was found dead in Sydney's Centennial Park earlier today and police are exploring whether it was a gay bashing, the Sydney Morning Herald reports:

"The man, in his 30s, was face down on a track next to Busbys Pond and had his trousers down. Detective
Inspector Paul Pisanos, of Maroubra police, said police were
considering whether there might have been a homosexual link to the
attack. 'There are gay beats (cruising areas) in Centennial Park,'
he said. 'I'm not familiar with exactly where they are. That's one
line of inquiry we're looking at but it's not exclusive to that. Our
minds are open at the moment.' … Mr Pisanos said it appeared the man had met with foul play in the park rather than his body having been dumped there…Even from a distance it was clear the man
had suffered brutal cuts to his arm and chest. Ambulance officers reported finding the man in ''a pool of blood' when they arrived. The
man was found on a track between Busbys Pond and close to the public
toilets at the McKay Sports Ground. A large area, including the toilet
block, was cordoned off by police."

Police seek witnesses


  1. Jackson says


    How about you don’t go to cruising parks? I am continuously mystified as to why people feel the need to pull shit like this. It only further perpetuates the “sexual deviant” stereotype. The government should stay out of the bedroom, so keep it in the bedroom. If you have sex in public, you should be arrested.

  2. Bill says

    We all know a heterosexual did this. It’s a typical anti-gay hate crime in that the killer brutally killed a gay man he didn’t even know. Gay people, be prepared. Safety should be your number one concern all the time.

  3. DR says

    yes, Bill, because we all know homosexuals would never dream of robbing, stealing, assaulting or killing other gay men. /end sarcasm.

  4. Rick says

    I am in harmony with Jackson on this one, and besides, this is 2009, not 1979 — with the Internet, there’s a universe of safe cruising opportunities out there. Yes, perhaps sex in public venue might be a little more “intense,” because of the risk, than the relative security of sex in a private room, but as seen here, on has to ask if it is really worth it?

  5. says

    Sad news. A brother is violently murdered. Pretty please don’t judge the dead. No one deserves to be treated this way. There is a killer still out there.

  6. John says

    When Neo-Nazis started roughing up individuals having sex in some Berlin parks, the government responded by sending in police to protect the cruisers. Whether the underlying activity is morally proper or not is simply irrelevant.

    Violent assaults and murders are always a higher degree of crime than sexual revulsion. Rather than respond with our usual brand of Anglo “No Sex Please” puritanicalism, perhaps we should steal a page from the Germans and deal with the situation like adults.

    Of course, that would require sexual maturity beyond that of a teenager. And we all know Americans, Australians, and even Canadians certainly aren’t ready for that. In all likelihood, the authorities in Sydney will “deal” with this by cracking down on gay PDAs in the park. Just as the authorities in Vancouver did with Stanley Park after a similar murder a few years ago.

  7. Rick says

    “Of course, that would require sexual maturity beyond that of a teenager.”

    Yes, and as we all know, your pants down by your ankles in the bushes is the epitomy of sexual maturity.

    “authorities in Sydney will ‘deal’ with this by cracking down on gay PDAs in the park.”

    So a public blow-job is actually a Public Display of Affection? Thanks for clarifying the matter.

  8. says

    What John is saying–quite eloquently and maturely–is that in some places, such as Berlin, the police don’t begin by judging sexual behaviors but rather by recognizing human nature and deciding that the priority is to protect citizens from violence and death. They rank thuggery as a bigger offense than cruising for sex.

    At the same time, I wish people were more alert to the dangers of hooking up with strangers in secluded areas. And that includes anonymous Internet hookups, which because they are less unsavory to some than sex in the woods, are somehow branded “safe” when if fact hooking up secretly and anonymously without precautions can go violently awry whether you’re in public or in some stranger’s bedroom. Men who want safe, anonymous sex would be wiser to go to a sauna, yet they’re often viewed as too sleazy by people who wouldn’t think twice about going home with someone from a bar or arranging a Manhunt date with some guy they’ve never met before.

    We all have a responsibility to be mature enough to take reasonable precautions, but no one deserves to die because they’re engaging in a sex act someone else finds repellent or deviant. Let’s condemn the killers before the guy with his pants down, and let’s encourage men to be safe.

  9. Rick says

    Well, Ernie, part of the problem is that one of the reasons guys cruise in parks is precisely because it IS dangerous — the risk of getting caught along with the element of uncertainty in tricking with somebody you may not trust is what motivates a lot of guys to do this. So the question then becomes why do gay men like to live dangerously?

  10. says

    I won’t argue with you there, Rick. (Though I wouldn’t say that all those who cruise in parks like risk–some are probably simply desperate and horny.) The same question applies to people–straight, gay, and everywhere in between-who do dangerous things of all sorts, many of them unrelated to sex. I don’t particularly enjoy danger, so I don’t have any answers. I think it’s unfortunate that society tends to demonize people who engage in dangerous sexual behavior while seeing someone who dies as a result of non-sexual reckless behavior as a tragedy. The real demon here is the killer. No one deserves to die for cruising.

  11. Contrarian says

    Well said, both Ernie and Rick. But, Ernie here in my part of the USA, we had an (allegedly) drugged, drunk suburban mom drive the wrong way on a parkway killing both herself and her own kids and several others in both cars. She is not being seen as a tragic figure I can assure you, but as a sleazebag.

  12. says

    In her case, Contrarian, she was endangering others, in essence the killer rather than the victim. The guy in the park was only endangering himself, as far as we know, and was the victim. Yet, because he was a victim doing something distasteful to some, there is a tendency to blame him rather than his killer. She deserves more blame than sympathy (the ones killed and left behind certainly deserve sympathy), whereas the man in the park deserves much more sympathy than blame. But maybe I was drawing an imperfect analogy to begin with, so I won’t belabor it.