The Montreal Police have announced that they have once again arrested Dennis Markuze, aka David Mabus, for violating the terms of his probation. He was already arrested and found to have engaged in cyber-stalking and making threats, but he was put on probation with the condition that he stop doing it. As I predicted at the time, he did not stop. I and others have continued to get deluged with his comments and emails full of threats and bizarre diatribes. Maybe this time they’ll take it seriously and institutionalize him. Unfortunately, they turned around and released him again:
In August, Tim Farley, one of the people Markuze admitted to threatening in May, asked Montreal police to investigate but was initially told that, in their opinion, no such order existed. It wasn’t until Farley relayed verbatim sections of Quebec Court Judge Louise Bourdeau’s May 22 judgment to the Montreal police that they finally decided to investigate Markuze again.
“The first part of the battle was convincing the police that there was a (court) order,” Farley said Monday upon learning Markuze had been arrested again. Farley said he believes Markuze used one Twitter account alone more than 8,500 times since Nov. 1.
Farley also said he believes Markuze was behind a series of threatening messages posted on a webcast Farley took part in on Wednesday with a group called Virtual Skeptics. One message read, “the police won’t save you.” Markuze appeared before a judge at the Montreal courthouse on Monday where he was released after agreeing to a series of conditions, including that he not communicate with Farley.
The first time they did this, he got very little psychological treatment. It’s time to lock him up in a mental hospital. It should be quite obvious by now that he isn’t going to stop on his own.
35 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
November 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So basically they said to him “Hey now don’t be mean to people eh”, and then apologized to him.
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
November 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey, Montreal! He needs help! Patting him on the head and letting him run rampant again is not “being nice”!
He needs to be taken to a place of healing and he needs to be helped!
The first time they let his abusive behavior slide the Montreal Police failed in their duty to others. This time they failed in their duty to him.
Modusoperandi
November 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lies! They gave him the very best treatment Montreal has to offer!*
* Smoked meat and a lit cigarette.
Sastra
November 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe Mabus’ victims need to start complaining loudly and publicly that his crimes are not being taken seriously by the officials because his threats are primarily aimed against skeptics, humanists, and atheists. Would they be so cavalier if popular outspoken apologists for faith were on the end of Mabus’ disturbing and violent rants? It’s discrimination. So HEY!
Is that really the case? Possibly/probably not, given what I’m reading about the general state of things in Montreal. But maybe adopting this tactic might succeed in getting enough publicity and attention on this issue to wake everyone up and help Markuze receive the help he so desperately needs.
lordshipmayhem
November 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Knowing Canada’s legal system, I can’t say I’m surprised. They have difficulty with the concept of locking multiple murderers away, and we have homeless mentally ill wandering our streets rather than being compelled to take treatment in secure treatment centres.
So, no, doesn’t surprise me they released him, and I don’t expect he’ll serve more than a handful of days behind bars unless and until he actually kills someone… and possibly not many days even then.
Olav
November 21, 2012 at 7:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lordship Mayhem, #5:
So, you like the concept of locking people up, do you? Or do you actually believe that forced “treatment” works?
With regards to this “Mabus” fellow, is it proven that he is really dangerous? I have seen some of his behaviour on the Internet (as documented by Ed and PZ, mostly) and I agree that it should have consequences for him. He should be told to stop doing that shit. But how credible are his threats in reality? I wonder.
Gretchen
November 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From this detailed post on the matter:
So it was Mabus, or possibly someone pretending to be him, who tweeted at Kate Donovan and I during Skepticon. How reassuring.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
November 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Speaking as a person with a mental illness: Oh fuck you, you infantilizing jackass.
Beyond that: do people have no right to not be harassed and threatened? Who the fuck are you to decide what’s a “credible” threat and what isn’t? He’s physically shown up at venues where atheists congregated and made violent gestures on his way out. How much more “credible” would it have to be if it was YOUR ass on the line?
Alareth
November 22, 2012 at 12:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tim Farley has abother detailed write up of the events surrounding the most recent arrest http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/operation-archangel-david-mabus-dennis-markuze-montreal-arrested/
Marcus Ranum
November 22, 2012 at 6:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I find it shocking that some people want him imprisoned; what he really needs is help. Prison for someone with mental problems would amount to society’s torturing him for being abnormal – a horrible thing. He’s not a failure of the justice system he’s a demonstration of how poor healthcare (even in Canada, apparently!) is for those with mental health problems. In the US, it appears that he’d just get cycled in and out of the criminal judicial system, building a huge rap-sheet for being an annoying web weirdo, and then eventually be imprisoned if he actually hurts someone. Which does beg the question “why make it illegal to threaten people over the internet, since for all intents and purposes it’s not?”
DuWayne
November 22, 2012 at 6:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Olav –
Personally, yes I do believe that in some cases secure treatment is necessary. I know too many people who are mentally ill who are living in misery because they are not in an institution they can’t just walk away from and get lost. They get exploited, beaten and often end up in and out of jails and prisons.
A woman I know who has the mental capacity of your average seven year old has been pregnant three times and contracted both herpes and syphilis, because she was willing to do whatever anyone told her to do – even if she didn’t like it. She lived in a group home, but would wander off for days at a time – getting sold as a compliant whore. Pregnancies and STIs aside, she was beaten badly on several occasions, had extensive vaginal and anal tearing on a regular basis and her arm broken on one occasion.
She is one of the more extreme examples, but her story is repeated all over the U.S. and probably Canada as well. In most cases secure treatment has nothing to do with protecting everyone else from the mentally ill, it is about protecting them from the everyone else and prison. But we are bent on this fucking moronic idea that no one, or virtually no one should be in mental institutions. What that translates to is the mentally ill not getting the help they need. Not even kids.
Due to my own mental illness and that of my oldest son, I am involved with an advocacy organization. One of the issues we’re trying to address is preventing kids who are mentally ill, who need to be institutionalized, from being incarcerated instead. There is a boy who was born with a malformed brain, 14yrs old with the mental capacity of a six year old. He has the body of a normal teen though, with the same pubescent hormones raging. He is also considerably bigger than his mom. He developed sexual aggression – something he can’t even begin to comprehend. He needed to be institutionalized while mental health professionals could work him through it – something that if nothing else works, will usually settle out naturally. Instead he was put into juvenile detention and when he got out, his sister was removed from the home by CPS because his mom had nowhere else to put him and she couldn’t be in the same home with him.
Again, a story that is repeated every day, all over the U.S. and possibly Canada – though they may take better care of juveniles than we do.
So yes, I believe in secure treatment facilities, thank you very much.
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 7:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Azkyroth, #8:
As a fellow sufferer, I wish you a good-as-can-be day. I do not see a reason, nor do I have the time for trading unpleasantries.
They have that right, yes.
I would not decide any such thing, that is what the courts are for. I was just asking a question.
So, he should be locked up for making “violent gestures”?
Again, I think he should be told to stop doing those things because obviously it worries and scares people. If telling him doesn’t work, there should indeed be consequences for him. For instance, being arrested and being taken to the police station is an example of such a consequence. Might cool him down a little, for a while (probably not, of course). But in a civilised country you just cannot keep people like him incarcerated for any substantial length of time for things they have only threatened they would do.
The same goes for “forced treatment”, that usually happens when something has gone wrong already.
I understand the antipathy against this man is huge, and justified. He appears to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. That doesn’t mean we can just throw him into jail or into psychiatric hospital against his will.
dingojack
November 22, 2012 at 7:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus – Not sure aboot Canadian Law, but under Australian Law* it actually is (you can go down for upto 10 years).
Dingo
—–
* Criminal Code Act 1995, Section 474.15
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 7:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
DuWayne, #11:
I believe in them too. I just don’t believe you can put someone in there against their will if they are still legally competent.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
November 22, 2012 at 7:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Suppose they’re not. The threats are still very likely to be doing other people serious harm. Some of Markuze’s victims are probably able to dismiss his threats and get on with their lives with little concern; but very likely some are not, particularly if they have already been the target of a stalker. Even if he is never likely to try to put his threats into action, he is a danger to others; if there is no way to stop him other than permanent confinement, then he should indeed be permanently confined.
dingojack
November 22, 2012 at 8:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The appropriate section of the Canadian Criminal Code is, I believe, section 264.1. (I don’t know that there is any distinction in how the threats were ‘uttered’).
Dingo
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nick, #15:
Of course I agree that he should be made to stop doing the things he is apparently doing, for all the reasons you mentioned. I understand you very well. But permanent confinement, as in lifelong imprisonment?
Such permanent confinement is something civilised societies only do to people for crimes like murder with aggravating circumstances. Not for making empty threats or “violent gestures” or for displaying mental incontinence on the world wide bloody web.
There needs to be a sense of proportionality here.
dingojack
November 22, 2012 at 8:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Olav – *ahem*.
:) Dingo
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 9:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dingo Jack, #18, completely different situation.
dingojack
November 22, 2012 at 10:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Olav – “Such permanent confinement is something civilised societies only do to people for crimes like murder with aggravating circumstances”.
Care to re-word that*?
Dingo
—–
* or: ‘Why do you hate America so?’ [tears up like Mr Bek]
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
November 22, 2012 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There does indeed, and you’re the one who needs to acquire it. Stop pretending that “empty threats” are harmless. In a case like Markuze’s, they are, to some people, as harmful as serious and repeated physical assault. If there is no other way to get him to stop then yes, lifelong imprisonment would not be disproportionate in the least.
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dingo Jack, #20, perhaps I should have added the qualifier that of course I meant that only within the context of criminal cases such as the one we were actually discussing.
Can’t be too clear around these parts, there is always someone intent on misunderstanding what you write.
By the way, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly, this Typhoid Mary left a trail of dead bodies where she went but doctors and authorities still tried to work with her, convince her to change her profession et cetera, before putting her in an indefinite quarantaine. I would say America scored some genuine civilisation points right there.
Of course, Mr. Beck, the list of reasons to hate America remains as ever, long and persuasive :-P
Olav
November 22, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nick, #21:
You can’t be serious.
dingojack
November 23, 2012 at 2:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Olav (#22)- you are aware I wasn’t being entirely serious.
Typhoid Mary was forbidden to work as a cook (her chosen profession) and forced into working as a laundry maid (back-breaking labour), she really wasn’t given a choice. She was confined because she was a danger to others, rather than because of any fault of her own (she wasn’t ever charged with any crime).
(#23) – ‘I am – and don’t call me Shirley!’ :)
Dingo
joachim
November 23, 2012 at 7:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heck, in Kansas City we have a self described “Anti Theist” who has told Christians they will end up “in a ditch” like “Jimmy Hoffa”.
He has done this on a public blog.
The cops don’t care.
In fact, the local atheists love him.
Michael Heath
November 23, 2012 at 8:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
joachim writes:
Citation requested validating that “the local atheists love [the "anti Theist" [sic, sic] ]. My confidence what you claim is true approaches zero.
dingojack
November 23, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Any odds that our MrBongo has a BMI well over 30?
:) Dingo
dingojack
November 23, 2012 at 10:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t tell me – you’ve just got big stomach bones, amiright?
:) Dingo
——–
BTW, just for your information: ad hominem.
dingojack
November 23, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And, mrnongo, your oomment (such as it is) is related to the headline or leader how exactly?
Dingo
joachim
November 23, 2012 at 10:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No. 26, just to the site of the Midwest Skeptics Kansas City meetup and look for the many pithy comment by KC Skeptic under their discussion boards.
Ask them about him, and his remarks about “Jimmy Hoffa” and many others.
They love him.
See for yourself.
joachim
November 23, 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
http://www.meetup.com/skeptics-137/messages/archive/
There ya go, 26. Also search for remarks about killing that I don’t want to repeat here.
Like I said, they love this guy.
joachim
November 23, 2012 at 10:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If an atheist like the Skeptic mentioned about that the “bullet of rationality” will strike me down and “I can run but I can’t hide’ is that just a figure of speech?
Do I have a right to be concerned?
Lets see what you all have to say.
Michael Heath
November 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
joachim,
So no evidence at all for your assertion that Kansas City atheists love a particular hate-monger. You need to go research what evidence actually is and then learn how one goes about defining an attribute of an entire population. In this case that would be atheists who happen to reside in the Kansas City area.
joachim
November 23, 2012 at 3:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I gave you a link to the site where he posts; all you have to do is read through the discussions.
If you choose to ignore it, that tells me all I need to know.
You lose.
Michael Heath
November 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jaochim writes:
It’s a lie I ignored your defense; I did.
A comment thread of posts published by a mere and relative handful of anonymous people can not be representative of an entire city’s set of atheists. So your assertion that you can define Kansas City’s atheists with this thread, and that they love one particular person, doesn’t even come close to meeting the type of methodology required to empirically find what a sample size thinks, let alone establish that your defectively non-random sample is actually representative of the population of Kansas City atheists, even if I concede outlier results, which I do.
To amplify this massive failure in remedial thinking, your claim KC’s atheists love for one yahoo is so pervasive a position that we can assign this attribute to the KC atheist population in general, as you falsely do in this thread and then defend with no evidence at all, actually dives into Victoria Jackson territory.