Um…did anyone say who the suspect was? Given what I’ve heard of Canadian law-enforcement’s handling of this affair, I wouldn’t be suprised if they’d arrested the wrong guy…
Well, since they call it the “Mabus investigation” they probably arrested “Mabus” though as you say, it is a pseudonym so maybe they got some other guy. I’m pretty sure they know who they were looking for, though.
Reputable news organizations generally don’t name suspects for they are charged, so it makes sense the police wouldn’t release the name of the person they’d arrested.
Patience? How many decades and complaints?
Truthspeaker, be careful! There are big differences across countries not only in what is legal but what is regulated (vs.not) and even what the word “charged” means. In many cases, it has no official meaning.
Last time I checked, the RCMP wasn’t nearly as infiltrated with Nazis, or as desperate to close down free speech, rights against unreasonable searches, etc. as the paramilitary police here in the US.
And that’s a good thing.
CTV Montreal confirms: Montreal police make arrest in “Mabus” case on online death threats
I was sent this link by a reader of mine.
Can someone tell me what he was arrested for? This is, I assume Dennis Markuze, fanatic religious nut case and troll from Quebec.
What was the charge?
I had discussed his idiocy and threats with the Montreal police about a year ago… wasn’t enought to nail him on.
They haven’t said what the charge was, but I would assume any number of counts of uttering threats, considered a form of assault under Canadian federal law.
Jason.. ok, thanks.
I hope it’s a capital offense
@Bart, when we are happy that someone who has made death threats is arrested, there is nothing funnier than hoping what he has done is a capital offense.
Sorry about your blood-lust Bart, but Canada abolished the death penalty.
Should we dance to Depeche Mode now?
Canada has laws that make reporters extremely circumspect about naming suspects and arrestees. Also, the police have a lot of leeway in releasing names of suspects and arrestees. It’s not uncommon to see someone’s name being used up until the arrest and then not until the cops or the crown say it’s okay to do so.
I am allegedly amused by how journalists allegedly become overcautious with the alleged word “alleged”. The article allegedly linked to allegedly said, “VanderBeek says while testy exchanges are common online, alleged threats of decapitations, executions and genocide are not.”
I allegedly wonder what VanderBeek actually allegedly said. Okay, then. Here we allegedly go … without alleging anything about what anyone might or might not allegedly have said: While testy exchanges are common online, threats of decapitations, executions and genocide are not.
Timberwoof, you’re right, it’s a much abused word. I thought I’d heard it all when an NYPD detective on TV referred to “the alleged murder victim”, then realized that it’s not a murder until the ME and the DA say so. No matter. It was surpassed when another NYPDer spoke of “the alleged decedent.” If there’s a worse one than that, I’m of two minds about hearing it.
The best use, of course, was when Jesse Jackson parodied himself on SNL, declaring, “I not only reject the allegation, I reject the alligator.”
Susan…relax. I was a death threat recipient of Markuze’s over a year ago. A little sense of humor goes a long way.
Erklr.. yes, I am well aware of the more civilized behavior of our northern neighbors. Disappointing.
The alleged stuff is a precaution against lawsuits for defamation.
If a newspaper says “John Smith murdered Bill Jones” and if Smith is later found not guilty at trial, then he can sue the newspaper for defamation.
If the paper says “John Smith allegedly killed Bill Jones” then they’re fine because the allegation was made by the prosecutor (DA) not the paper.
Charles, I think it’s more a matter of where they supposedly put the alleged adjective. The alleged suspect (incorrect) allegedly (correct) killed the allegedly (incorrect) dead guy. (Really, better grammar = “the suspect is alleged to have killed the deceased”)
the alleged decedent
There are circumstances when this usage is actually correct. If you are claiming that somebody has died, but that person’s body has not (yet) been identified, then it would be correct to refer to that person as “the alleged decedent.” Since I do not know the details of the case in question, I do not know if their usage was correct. If they were talking about a body that had been identified, then of course “alleged decedent” is getting into “Were you present when your photo was taken?” territory.
it would be correct to refer to that person as “the alleged decedent.”
Um, I don’t think so. Rephrased, the term could be “The person who is allegedly deceased” … note that in the phrase you turn there is no name.
“The deceased, allegedly Joe Schmo of Springfield” would be correct, I think.
Since the arrest, have the threatening communications (allegedly?) stopped? Or is it too soon to tell?
I’m not quite dead yet.
Raging Bee, the threats appear to have stopped right about the time the Montreal police said they were opening an investigation.
His last email to me was a response to the investigation, I think:
From email@example.com Thu Aug 11 20:57:14 2011
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:57:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: … firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: so you want to compare my crimes to Donald Rumsfeld?
WHAT’S THE HARM OF ATHEISM?
we’ve received some complaints…
new rulership for ATHEIST SACKS OF SH&T – traitors to the human race
come see our NEW ATHEIST PIGLETS!
and the winner of the ORWELL PRIZE is…
for randi and his army of robot zombie atheists at TAM9
DRINK YOUR OWN POISON!
TAM 9 – atheist revolution? stupid sh&theads
why would anyone tolerate you intolerant sh&theads? the REAL WORLD!
for lying intolerant sh*thead “wiseman” – we even use YOU!
“Now, I have become death, the destroyer of worlds”
THE END OF WAR
The End of America
while you were talking NOTHING you lost your country….
what happened to the OLD SH*THEADS?
you don’t want to see what happened to the OLD SH*THEADS….
BUNCH OF LITTLE NAZIS!
RAT MAN PZ & THE NEW SH*THEADS
Judgment Day – May 21, 2011
for sh*thead james randi
THE ATHEIST GENOCIDE – YOU LOST THE WAR
for little dick shermer
FOR YOUR BRAINDEAD IDIOT CALLED “RICHARD DAWKINS”
PZ NEEDS HIS MEDS
*NEW VIDEO FROM THE RDFRS*
my SPECIAL POEM – RANDI’S HEAD
Guess what is inside ANGEL’S ENVELOPE…
words from the most eloquent hypocrite that ever lived…
Do we have the right to burn pz myers?
angels are rejoicing at the death of atheists…
where did Lady Liberty go?
you have FORFEIT your LIBERTY…
for mr. Nonsense on stilts…
I think she sums up the INSANITY of the atheist position quite well…
LOOK at the CORNFIELD
but the REAL COST is not to be measured in dollars and cents but in HUMAN
LIVES & FREEDOM…
Subject: Judgment Day
you talk about wanting to hear and see both sides, but that is all BS…
here is the other extreme – the absolute negation of the atheist position
BIG TIME, f*ckers…
my challenge for sh*t for brains james randi:
JUST A GAME!
nothing will save you!
TORA! TORA! TORA!
Dear PZ… I spoke with God yesterday…. Do you want to know what he told
dawkins – got you…
who’s the WINGNUT?
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION – JAN 1, 2011
OMENS OF DEATH:
the end of atheism – only the blind and deaf can deny it…
an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people….
At least we’re on the same page…
Serves Em Right, eh, Randi….
Just for you, little traitors?
WHAT IS *WRONG* WITH HENRY?
we’re this far from nuking all of you….
the X-MAS vacuum cleaner for the atheists….
shermer, randi, myers, pz, dawkins, harris
why does everyone always want to PUNCH you, shermer?
take your meds, you little fckers…
now we are going to bury you…
And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!
What do you want, you little ****ers?
more of these idiots
HOW N WON ALL THE PARANORMAL PRIZES!
pz myers does not exist?
atheists, we?re gonna cut off your heads?
THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION
let them have a GOOD LOOK at the CORNFIELD….
exposing quacks and war criminals who ordered the slaughter of innocent
say hello to my little friend…
DIE, ATHEISTS, DIE!
UTTER CRAP AS USUAL!
WOULD YOU EVER INVITE THIS PHOQUER TO DINNER?
the atheist genocide 2011
NEW VIDEO FROM THE JREF
YOU LOST THE WAR!
MORE THAN A MILLIONS DOLLARS!
even Goebbels would not dare use such techniques to brainwash children….
the one image that sums you USELESS SH&THEADS BEST!
Hmm, and they said they were investigating on the 10th. Maybe right around the time the police actually contacted him then.
Now he has a flying-pig fixation? I guess that’ll help with his insanity plea…
While it’s good to hear the Montreal police finally got off their doughnut-filled asses and arrested Markuze, I’m also reminded of the incompetence and laziness of police in Canada. Specifically, two incidents: the October Crisis and the arrests and convictions of David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Morin (among others).
In October 1970, the RCMP were given near unlimited powers under the war measures act to arrest and hold people without access to a lawyer or a hearing, often resulting in abuses of rights and mistreatment of prisoners. Anyone who showed any words of sympathy for the FLQ could be detained, and the then-mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, insinuated his opponent was a sympathizer, effectively turning the election into a one-man race. The sort of arrests and violations of rights the US saw after 9/11 and the “patriot act” were nothing new to anyone aware of the October Crisis.
Milgaard, Marshall and Morin were three men all arrested and falsely convicted of murders, with the RCMP doing slipshod investigations and even coercing witnesses or falsifying evidence, all because they didn’t want to do thorough investigations. The three spent a combined 40 years in prison before being exonerated, and they weren’t the only ones.
This, of course, is not to defend Markuze but rather to criticize the oft-incompetent efforts of police in Canada. I wouldn’t put it past them to screw up the case and cause it to be dismissed.
Canada does not have “double jeopardy” at trial like the US does, but in almost all cases of not guilty verdicts or mistrials due to prosecutorial misconduct, judges order a permanent “stay” of proceedings and the cases are never retried. A catholic bishop, Hubert O’Connor, was convicted of rape in the mid-1990s but the conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. A second rape that O’Connor committed was never prosecuted at all. He died and his victims were never given justice because of incompetent and lazy police and courts.
Oh dear, first they came for Mabus, then…
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Click here to find out!