The Full Story of Mabus/Markuze’s Rearrest


Tim Farley, the person most responsible for getting David Mabus/Dennis Markuze arrested last year, tells the full story of the months of work it took him to get the Montreal Police to rearrest him for doing the very same things he had been ordered not to do after pleading guilty in May. It’s a long story about the apathy and incompetence of the police and the courts to do what needs to be done. I have little faith that it will be done now.

Comments

  1. Rodney Nelson says

    Most likely he’ll have another psych exam, the initial diagnosis of bipolar and substance abuse will be confirmed, he’ll go before a judge, promise on Nostradamus’ grave he’ll be a good boy, and get told to sin no more. He’ll then get his computers back from the police and return to a life of harassing atheists.

  2. says

    This guy sounds like some goofy fuck who fantasizes about Jody Foster and wants to be a hero. I’m sure he’ll never turn into a John Hinckley, David Chapman, Jared Loughner,Jim Jones,John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, James Holmes, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold. Well, not, like, superpositiveconvinced, but y’know, what harm can he do?

  3. says

    While Tim Farley deserves praise for the time and energy he expended to curtail Dennis’ harassment, I have to say that I (living nowhere near Montreal) never felt threatened by Dennis’ bizarre rants. They seemed so far removed from what I had written that they were more like incantations than threats … throwing salt over his shoulder whenever he saw someting that he deemed “untoward.”

    Neither the police nor the courts are likely to really help him. If he’s lucky, there may be some relative who can get him real help. If not …

  4. says

    I have to say that I (living nowhere near Montreal) never felt threatened by Dennis’ bizarre rants.

    Out of curiosity, why do you feel you have to say that? Do you think it counts as some kind of evidence against people who a) live somewhere near Montreal, and/or b) do feel threatened by his bizarre rants, plenty of which have included threats of violence?

  5. says

    I’ve known a lot of women (and a few men) who have taken out restraining orders because somebody scared the shit out of them. In some cases they got lucky and the threat of arrest for unacceptable behaviour was enough to deter a violent encounter. Some folks were not so lucky. I don’t know anyone who’s been killed by someone who they “didn’t consider a threat” but there’s a reason for it being called “criminal threatening”.

  6. says

    why do you feel you have to say that? Do you think it counts as some kind of evidence against people who a) live somewhere near Montreal, and/or b) do feel threatened by his bizarre rants, plenty of which have included threats of violence?

    Proximity, actually. Everything I had learned about Dennis up to the point he was first arrested made me doubt he was likely to leave his mother’s basement to travel to strange places to harm others. If I lived in Montreal, I’d be less sure. As to his “threats of violence,” they were never quite direct. They were “promisory notes” for what would happen once people like Dennis took over. I could never imagine Dennis actually doing something to make the takeover happen. That’s only my take on it and I hope he gets real help.

  7. says

    Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub:

    I never meant to say Dennis couldn’t be dangerous … just that I, myself, never felt threatened by him. I was and am glad (as I said) that Tim Farley took the effort to bring him to the attention of the authorities. Maybe that will result in him getting real help (though I doubt it) but I can’t stop feeling that he is a poor crippled human being that deserves our sympathy as much as our fear. Again, that is only my take on it from afar.

  8. RickR says

    John Pieret-

    “Everything I had learned about Dennis up to the point he was first arrested made me doubt he was likely to leave his mother’s basement to travel to strange places to harm others.”

    Then you should look closer. He’s already gone from ranting in his mother’s basement to appearing in-person in meatspace.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/03/dennis-markuze-exposed/

    It’s not unreasonable to believe his antics could escalate. Because they already have.

  9. says

    He’s already gone from ranting in his mother’s basement to appearing in-person in meatspace.

    Yes, I knew about that and, as I said, I’d be more concerned if I lived in Montreal, where that sighting took place. Still there was nothing more than a sighting … some argument with the atheists at the meeting … and then he left. As PZ said, “pathetic.”

  10. says

    Markuze issued very explicit death threats to me on multiple occasions. It was creepy in the extreme. Were I in Montreal instead of California, I would have been quite distressed. As it was, aware that Markuze was much more obsessed with higher profile atheists like PZ, I was fairly certain that I was too insignificant to merit a stalking trip of my own. Nevertheless, there were days he spent hours cutting and pasting the exact same incoherent diatribe over and over again into the comments on my blog.

    Until you have had a nutcase tell you very specifically that you are going to die and he is going to see to it, reserve judgment on those who worked hard to bring Markuze to the attention of the authorities. He is a sick, drug-abusing man who fantasizes about wreaking bloody death on nonbelievers. Decent people have a legitimate interest in seeing him hobbled and monitored.

  11. says

    Unfortunately, his mother seems to think that the blame lies on atheists for offending her and her son by their existence. So no, I don’t think that his family is going to make sure that he gets the psychological treatment that he needs. He would probably have to be incarcerated and see a prison psychiatrist and the bar for “danger to others” is set quite high.

  12. says

    Until you have had a nutcase tell you very specifically that you are going to die and he is going to see to it, reserve judgment on those who worked hard to bring Markuze to the attention of the authorities.

    Again, I have nothing but praise for Tim Farley and his efforts to make Dennis known to the legal system.

    And I have a file of hundreds of Dennis’ posts to my blog, which I still do not believe were specific threats but a kind of prediction of what will happen if Dennis’ delusions came true. I am not condoning what Dennis did. I’m just trying to take a rational and compassionate approach to it.

  13. harold says

    Dennis Markuze represents a major dilemma for a humane society.

    He is mentally ill, and his mental illness drives him to obsessively deluge people with messages on the internet, and make vague but intensely obnoxious threats in the process.

    He is violating the law and he is potentially dangerous.

    However, it is an exceptionally difficult situation for any jurisdiction.

    Quebec does not use the exact legal terminology that most other North American jurisdictions do, but, with that caveat, as far as criminal charges go, he meets the definition of “legally insane”. He cannot differentiate right from wrong, due to his mental illness.

    Therefore, a humane society which does not imprison the legally insane, a description which does not apply to some parts of the US but which may apply to Quebec, is left with several imperfect options –

    1) Permanent supervision in a forensic mental health facility for making anonymous threats over the internet, 2) transient supervision in such a facility in the hopes that he will be permanently “reformed”, 3) court ordered therapy under non-forensic conditions, or 4) attempt to persuade him to accept therapy, but without court mandate.

    Now, if you go for one of the first two, you set a precedent of putting people who have not acted out physically into forensic mental institutions. Setting a low threshold for involuntary admission into restrictive mental health facilities is not a straightforward benign policy, on the contrary, that very policy has led to severe abuse in the past.

    Quebec went, I believe, for number “3)”. I think that was probably the best available choice. I should not that many people would condemn me for supporting the concept of mandated mental health therapy at all. I’m an old fashioned progressive liberal; I think that an ethical society is obliged to provide the most effective treatment it can to someone like Mabuze.

    The Montreal police and courts undoubtedly have many flaws. Full disclosure – I went to university in Montreal and my brother has lived there for many years, but my only contacts with the police were calling them once about a case of animal abuse (they responded rapidly and professionally), and convincing them not to take some very drunk friends to the drunk tank (arguably they should have, but I was able to convince them not to).

    However, no jurisdiction is perfect enough that a case like this is easy to deal with.

  14. says

    I am not condoning what Dennis did. I’m just trying to take a rational and compassionate approach to it.

    I’m not sure “Well, it doesn’t bother me” really fits that description.

  15. yellowsubmarine says

    Harold – I agree that we have to handle the mentally disturbed differently from criminals and that the options for doing so aren’t great, but if they’re going to go with “not so great option number 3″, they REALLY ought to follow through when he violates his parole. I think we all understand that it may not be fair to blame him for his condition, but it’s fantastically irrepsonsible for those in charge of protecting the public to stick their heads in the sand after acknowledging that he’s crazy and this might end poorly.

  16. says

    I’m not sure “Well, it doesn’t bother me” really fits that description.

    I never gave that as a basis of how Dennis should be treated … just as my own subjective reaction to him. Of course, one large issue is whether he should be treated based on anyone’s subjective reaction to him … one way or the other.

    I think harold has laid out the problems well.

  17. lorn says

    On the one hand you have to be sympathetic to the police and courts. They are all operating with limited budgets and feel the need to prioritize seriously destructive behaviors over the obnoxious when allocating resources. Mabus, as far as credible threats and imminent violence goes, is a duffer. And the threat, based on statistic of actual violence against age, would seem to be receding as he ages.

    On the other hand there was Danny Rolling, who might have avoided becoming a serial killer if the local authorities, who were aware of his mental issues, had allocated a few thousand dollars in resources.

    I suspect that Mabus has mental issues that are chronic. They will never go away. But they can be managed. He will, for the foreseeable future, need regular tuneups to keep him coloring inside the lines.

    Police services hate dealing with those sorts of situations. On a per person/per case basis the actual risks are fairly small and there are precious few actual solutions. These sorts of people can be treated when they have a crisis or cross some bright line but mainly they need life long treatment, counseling and management. Police, and the law aren’t really set up, or very happy taking on that sort of thankless, routine, and ultimately Sisyphean task.

  18. joachim says

    When a co organizer of Atheist Meetups in Kansas City told Christians they would end up “in a ditch” like Jimmy Hoffa no one would do squat.

    Certainly not the atheists. He is still quite popular with them.

  19. harold says

    yellowsubmarine –

    Harold – I agree that we have to handle the mentally disturbed differently from criminals and that the options for doing so aren’t great, but if they’re going to go with “not so great option number 3″, they REALLY ought to follow through when he violates his parole.

    Total agreement.

    I think we all understand that it may not be fair to blame him for his condition, but it’s fantastically irrepsonsible for those in charge of protecting the public to stick their heads in the sand after acknowledging that he’s crazy and this might end poorly.

    I also agree that if the Montreal police and courts are sticking their heads in the sand, then that is fantastically irresponsible.

    However, a depressing point I’m making here is that even if they are not fantastically irresponsible, this is still a very difficult situation.

    The only possible good outcome would be to treat Markuze (ideally with his full informed consent, but that is unlikely to be possible), effectively, so that he voluntarily loses his desire to obsessively post incoherent threats on the internet.

    Coming in a distant second would be restricting his activity as humanely as possible, plausibly with an open ended admission to a restrictive mental health facility, including preventing him from freely using the internet. I wouldn’t be surprised it that’s what happens next, by the way.

    That simply does potentially open up a can of worms, though, given that he hasn’t acted out physically yet. What if a young man with a history of mental illness begins obsessively posting on climate change denial blogs, using language along the lines of “your denial is killing people and you deserve to die for it”. What should the threshold be for court ordered psychiatric treatment? For involuntary, open-ended admission to a restrictive mental health facility?

    (Markuze has crossed at least two lines that are relevant, of course – physical contact and recidivism after court order to cease.)

    And by the way, I am very strongly in favor of humane and appropriate involuntary psychiatric admissions. I’m a pro-science, pro-modern-medicine progressive, and I personally know people who’s lives have been saved and massively enriched by an appropriate involuntary admission. It’s just that this situation raises a lot of important and difficult questions.

    Note that, again, I am most certainly not excusing any laxity or corruption on the part of Montreal officials, but rather, noting that even in the absence of such corruption or laxity, it could still be a tricky situation.

  20. harold says

    When a co organizer of Atheist Meetups in Kansas City told Christians they would end up “in a ditch” like Jimmy Hoffa no one would do squat.

    Certainly not the atheists. He is still quite popular with them.

    1) Sounds like something an asshole would say, but some atheists are assholes, and that fact has been noted in this forum. Of course, I’m assuming that you’re reporting the incident accurately. If not, my judgment of who is an asshole will change.

    2) If it was a specific, credible threat it was illegal, but if it was just rhetorical, it’s covered by the First Amendment. Obnoxious speech is covered by the First Amendment, and if it weren’t, the First Amendment would be worthless.

  21. F says

    John Pieret

    Just to point out: Markuze has been posting his bizarre shtick on the net and BBS for like twenty years or something, and becoming more unhinged and going after more people as time progressed. This is why people are worried, even if you never received anything you consider a direct threat.

    a kind of prediction of what will happen if Dennis’ delusions came true.

    Yes. And there are always those who want to imanentize the eschaton, bring about armageddon. That’s why it starts becoming a bit scary, whether he actually does anything or not, which you won’t know until after he’s dead and cannot possibly do anything himself.

  22. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    joachim@21,

    Even if your claim is accurate – and you give no evidence that it is – it should be obvious to you that comparing one threatening remark with a 20-year obsessive campaign of harassment including explicit threats of torture and death to many individuals, and resulting in a guilty plea in a criminal trial, is just silly. But of course if obvious things were obvious to you, you wouldn’t hold the absurd beliefs you do.

  23. raven says

    When a co organizer of Atheist Meetups in Kansas City told Christians they would end up “in a ditch” like Jimmy Hoffa no one would do squat.

    When the xian terrorists threatened to kill me for the who knows how many times, the FBI managed to arrest and indict two of them.

    Leaving a few dozen or a few hundred to run free.

    Some fundie xians toss off death threats like normal people say hello. They also occasionally do kill people and blow up or burn down medical facilities.

    Xianity though is heading for the dustbin of history. If anyone really cared, they would round up trolls like joachim. Because when xian became synonymous with liar, hater, idiot, and sometimes killer, normal people didn’t want to be one any more.

  24. Ben P says

    I’ve known a lot of women (and a few men) who have taken out restraining orders because somebody scared the shit out of them. In some cases they got lucky and the threat of arrest for unacceptable behaviour was enough to deter a violent encounter. Some folks were not so lucky. I don’t know anyone who’s been killed by someone who they “didn’t consider a threat” but there’s a reason for it being called “criminal threatening”.

    I don’t do any domestic work whatsoever so this is totally anecdotal, but from what I hear the effectiveness of restraining orders seems to vary dramatically by jurisdiction even just county to county and sometimes even officer to officer.

    Some seem to be very lacksadaisical like this case. “oh, we’ll come by and tell him to stop, you don’t think he’s actually going to do anything do you?”

    On the other hand, some jurisdictions or possibly just some officers seem to take an extreme line on such things or at least in domestic violence cases, which are more typical of things like this. Wife has a restraining order due to pending abuse case, husband shows up at house, husband spends the weekend in jail.

  25. Michael Heath says

    joachim @ 21 is a troll repeating false assertions; I suggest we ignore him. I learned this lesson the hard way, by attempting to get him to validate this very claim in another of Ed’s blog post thread and then confronting a massive display of idiocy.

  26. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Certainly not the atheists. He is still quite popular with them.

    So popular, I have no idea who you are talking about.

    Why, this is just like the saga of Mabus.

  27. katenrala says

    John Pieret

    Don’t ever effing dare call a person a poor cripple in that manner again. It’s disgusting and people with disabilities, mental and physical, which includes me for both, don’t need to be off-handedly degraded and treated flippantly.

    A poor cripple can still do things, a lot of things and be competent in doing them, even competent enough to hurt you. The threats should be treated seriously and not dismissed because of Markuze’s status.

    I didn’t need a rage button pushed.

    Apologize for your ableism, please.

  28. says

    “I didn’t need a rage button pushed.

    Apologize for your ableism, please.”

    I didn’t need to have mine pushed either. Go fuck yourself, please.

  29. katenrala says

    @ Democommie

    What other marginalized groups are acceptable targets to you, you know, as a bigot?

  30. says

    “What other marginalized groups are acceptable targets to you, you know, as a bigot?”

    Considering your original post, asshole, any group that is you.

    If you were attempting to make a point with:

    “I didn’t need a rage button pushed.

    Apologize for your ableism, please.”

    you suffered a major FAIL.

    Mr. Mabus may be fucking whacky (that certainly appears to be the case) or just a garden variety dickhead attention whore (somewhat less likely). His behaviour, attacking people and issuing verbal threats, is unacceptable–regardless his actually carrying them out–and needs to be curtailed. If the only way that can be done is to incarcerate him, so be it.

    Despite the fact that a number of commenters here might disagree with the actual actions taken against him, they all agree that his behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be curtailed.

    Your impolite admonition, “apologize for your ableism” means what, preisely?

  31. dingojack says

    Demo – I think that katenrala* was objecting to the use of ‘poor cripple’ to describe Mabus.

    katenrala (#32) – Um… How about criminals? See Canadian Criminal Code 264.1 (uttering threats), 18 U.S.C. § 875 (interstate communication of threat to injure) and Australian Criminal Code Act 1995, Section 474.15 (using a carriage service to issue threats) for a start.

    Dingo
    —–
    * as being both without monetary means, and having some kind of mobility impairment

  32. says

    Don’t ever effing dare call a person a poor cripple in that manner again. It’s disgusting and people with disabilities, mental and physical, which includes me for both, don’t need to be off-handedly degraded and treated flippantly.

    I didn’t mean it flippantly. But neither did I intend to offend anyone. I appologize for having done so and will keep it in mind in the future.

  33. dingojack says

    John – I’m sure you meant that Mabus resembles a dense, overgrown, swampy area; or perhaps a shorter than usual structural member (such as a stud under a window)*, right?
    :) Dingo
    ——–
    * or perhaps you were comparing the width of two of said members

  34. katenrala says

    @ democommie

    I get it, you don’t recognize when someone says something that is an attack on a whole group even though they were talking about an individual. Would you have noticed nigger, or fag, or cunt, which are attacks on black people, gay people, and women? Would you have admonished the author of the post that has the attacks or those admonishing the first author because they are members of the groups attacked?

    Or you’re a sincere bigot considering any group I’m a part of is to be attacked, as you say: enjoy attacking sexual minorities, queer people, gender queer people the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, autistic people, people with cancer, atheists, I’m sure your attacks will be allowed to fly without objection by anyone else, heh, doubt I’m hardly unique here and won’t be the only one standing up for myself since an attack on my group is usually so broad as to be an attack on me and everyone else in it.

    My impolite “apologize for your ableism, please,” yeah, sorry, I forgot it’s okay to send out attacking messages but message saying that their authors what some accountability for being attacked is rude, is wrong, victims aren’t supposed to fight back but take it.

    Dismissing Mabus because of his status leaves one vulnerable, but progressives need their targets too so dismissing someone who is obviously a threat as a “poor cripple” lets progressives be bigots so they can feel higher and better than the very people they claim to want to help, and leaves them open to a threat that regardless of Mabus’s status (and reading about Mabus, he’s far more able bodied than I am) he can follow through.


    John Pieret

    Thank you for apologizing. (:

  35. Homo Straminus says

    At the end of his post, Farley makes a point of saying

    Astute observers of the Mabus saga may notice the absence of a particular name here. While this person has blogged about Markuze many times over the years (even demanding action from the authorities in some posts) I found him to be astonishingly uncooperative during this investigation. With so many others volunteering to help, he stood out in his lack of assistance. Lesson learned – some bloggers are all talk and no action. (the original is italicized)

    I assume he’s referring to PZ, whose name I don’t see? I don’t see Ed’s name up there either, though.

    Any speculation on this?

  36. harold says

    The term “cripple” is often a blatant and offensive slur against people who live with a disability. That is how it has mainly been used.

    It is sometimes used in other contexts, but should be used with caution. It can be used in a metaphorical or literary sense but one should be aware of the word’s power.

    It is highly understandable that a differently abled person would react very negatively to the term. Anyway, the person who originally used the term has realized that. I am not very politically correct, at least not relative to other progressives, but I can see this.

    A civilized society should make efforts to stop Markuze’s behavior, but that doesn’t mean that every method of stopping him is acceptable. He shouldn’t be summarily executed without trial, for example.

    Mentally ill people whose illness deprives them of the ability to understand that their behavior is wrong often need to be constrained, but they are not treated in the same way as voluntary criminals. That is a well established progressive, humane principle. In fact, it’s been well established for a thousand years. If you don’t agree with it, you’re basically saying that Eric the Red was a soft on crime pinko. The idea that someone who can’t control their own behavior and can’t understand that their crime is wrong is treated differently is a fairly well-established one.

    Markuze is breaking the law and potentially dangerous; no-one is arguing with that. His behavior is, however, apparently driven by mental illness, and that is relevant.

  37. says

    I know I’m going to get in trouble with this but …

    I didn’t call Dennis a “poor cripple” … I called him “a poor crippled human being.” I acknowledge that the term is more than problematic and probably the result of my being older than dirt and the child of a less sensitive age. My sincere apology still stands.

    But the base description I gave Dennis was “human being” and only added on that he has a deficiency/disability/problem (incorrectly described) that we should have sympathy for as much as we have fear of him.

    I should have done better (and will in the future) but I was not quite as insensitive as I may have seemed.

  38. says

    “Would you have noticed nigger, or fag, or cunt, which are attacks on black people, gay people, and women?”

    Goddamn, I get hot when you talk dirty!

    Wow, you’re one offensive fuck in service of complaining about someone else being offensive. Go fuck yourself, moron.

    Ableism? Is that in the DSM? or did you just make it up? I make lots of shit up, every single fucking day.

    You remind me of some of the arrogant assholes a friend of mine ran into while attending Gallaudet U. as part of her undergrad program in SpEd. They treated her like she was a bad person for being able to hear and speak.

    I get that you’re offended, I also get that you’re on the pitypot; enjoy yourself.

    You want Mabus NOT to be considered to be “unabled”, “disabled” or a fucking loon? Do do you want him to be punished/incarcerated for behaviour that he may not actually be able to control?

    I am, according to the dictionary definitions I googled, temporarily “crippled”–fucking sciatic nerve pain is making movement or lack of it uncomfortable. Odd, I don’t feel that the definition is inapt or offensive. I wonder why that is.

  39. katenrala says

    You always got an entrenchment tool to dig a deeper hole for yourself when you could have just climbed out of the one you already made?

    Anyway you apparently know zero about the social aspects of disability and bigotry against disabled persons, though you are a consummate bigot, but as I already tried to give you a shot, which didn’t take, I’m not going to play teacher and educate a hostile jerk such as yourself.

    To answer your question about Mabus: I don’t want individuals that are dangerous to others being dismissed simply because they are disabled. Mabus threatens people and appears capable of following through with those threats, he seems far more abled than I am at least, and still I’m capable of killing. I think he should be incarcerated for threats as any and all should, or watched very, very closely, and incarcerated if he follows through. He should be incarcerated anyway even if he “isn’t really responsible” for them due to his mental status as he is being dangerous to others instead of what mentally disabled and mentally ill people typically are: which is dangerous only to themselves.

    Funny, I said I’m physically and mentally disabled and mentally ill, I’m autistic, down an arm, have PTSD, and chemo has reduced what mobility I have. Where’s my pass from being responsible and accountable for my actions from you? You’re certainly worked up over my words, you carving out an exception for me or Mabus?

    Regardless of my disabilities I’m still dangerous if I choose to be. Practice has made me a excellent shot with a pistol and I can hit the center mass of a man sized target at 50 yards aiming, and am only off 4-8 MOA from center of things like paper plates when only point aiming (that is pointing one finger as if pointing at something instead of looking down the sights) when lying on my back, sideways, with my off and only shooting hand, at targets 10-15 yards away. If I started to threaten people you think it’d be smart to dismiss me as a person of no danger to anyone? Same goes to anyone; guns are a great equalizer, and then there are knives, clubs, improvised weapons, etc, all things that will give a disabled person an edge over an abled person and things that can cause serious damage or death. The reason I’m proficient in a weapon is because abled people, being bigots, will attack disabled people more often and in many ways. I’m not getting raped again, neither will I allow myself to be beaten again, nor will I allow any other violence to be committed against me anymore.

    Hey, here’s a tip, the dictionary isn’t an authority on what words mean, but a recording of their use, and you have a shitty dictionary as the pejorative cripple is the number one definition in several dictionaries and wikipedia. Google is your friend.

    As for why you don’t feel cripple is offensive, that’s for you to figure out as I’m not your mind, but the abled in general don’t face what disabled face if they are only temporarily disabled and thus don’t ID or are ID’ed as disabled, and have generally not spent years, every day during those years, dealing with their condition and they know they will get better. I sincerely hope your pain is alleviated soon, my mother has very bad pain with that nerve and I understand neurological pain well enough to empathize, I have constant phantom limb pain and my amputation set off intense fibromyalgia. The drug I take for them is only a mild reliever of the pain.

  40. dingojack says

    katenrala – actually, an ability (or not) to carry out the threat is legally irrelevant under Canadian law. The crime is making the threat(s).
    Weirdly, you could be charged under that law (if you were in Canada, of course) even if you weren’t an ‘Internet Tough Guy’ who is able to shoot stuff by just pointing, but a mere ‘joe average’.
    Here, I wouldn’t even have to feel threatened.
    Go figure.
    Dingo

  41. katenrala says

    I’m pointing out that even as a disabled person I can be dangerous, and so can any disabled person be dangerous, just as I think Mabus should not be dismissed as a non-danger.

    WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension?

  42. katenrala says

    If you, or anyone, insist that I made a criminal threat, you are lying.

    Frankly I don’t know why people are defending Mabus for making threats, and making the issue about me because I think he’s dangerous and his, or anyone’s, threats are crossing the line.

    I’ve consistently written that disabled persons can still be dangerous and should not be dismissed as a non-threat simply because they are disabled. I’ve used myself as an example, I’ve said any disabled person with a weapon is dangerous to an able bodied person. I’ve maintained that threats are enough to incarcerate someone.

    I suspect those who take issue with the concept that disabled people are capable of doing things, even dangerous things, are defending abled privilege and are bigots.

  43. katenrala says

    Here Dingo,here’s the sheriff for my county. Have them read everything I said and have them come get me if I made a threat.

    Lyon County Sheriff’s Office
    30 Nevin Way
    Yerington, NV 89447
    Phone: (775) 463-6600
    Fax: (775) 463-6610

  44. dingojack says

    katenrala – I think you need another shot of pain meds, then a re-read for comprehension.
    Dingo
    —–
    See my post here for the relevant sections (I believe) covers threats over the Internet in Canadian, American and Australian law, such as were made by the subject of this thread and no one else. Presented only for your edification and amusement.

  45. katenrala says

    How convenient for you that you can say you didn’t mean that I made a threat when point blank telling me I could be charged under a law. We all can be charged under laws, so there’s no relevancy in saying so unless you mean to say I violated it.

    Double talk, innuendo, and being duplicitous.

  46. dingojack says

    katenrala – “Weirdly, you could be charged under that law (if you were in Canada, of course)…” [emphasis mine]

    I won’t presume to lecture you about the use of the subjunctive mood.

    Dingo

  47. katenrala says

    Don’t tell me to ignore a sub-text that claims I did something criminal.

    Better to react to that claim and be wrong than ignore it when you mean it.

    If you don’t mean it than fine, but I’d make the same “mistake” every time.

  48. katenrala says

    Actually no, I take it back, now you are clearly saying I’ve committed a criminal act. Sometimes the subtext is the effing text and I’m effing right.

    Fuck you. You can’t process what an example is. Fuck you. You are duplicitous. Fuck you. You are a bigot for hijacking a discussion against ableist concepts and conceit to wank all over.

    So many people on progressive sites who hate disabled people and I don’t have all the energy…

  49. Homo Straminus says

    Sorry DJ, demo, I’ve gotta hand this round to katen. I agree (s)he gets a bit rude (gasp!) toward the end but her main point rings true to me, however tangential I find it to be. katen, keep on bein’ your bad self–doubtless dj and dc will keep on, so it’s only fair.

Leave a Reply