Student Defends Max Karson, Says Comments Taken Out Of Context

An anonymous student from Max Karson's "Historical and Contemporary Issues of Black Women" class defended the comments he made that led to his arrest last week after the VT massacre:

One student who's in the women's-studies course — who said the class has about 25 women and four men — thinks Karson's comments were taken out of context.

"Max is honest, and people aren't always willing to hear what he has to say," said the student, who didn't want her name published.

She said Tuesday's debate started as an effort to understand how someone could go on a killing spree like the Virginia gunman's.

Karson — who circulates a controversial underground publication called The Yeti on the campus — told his peers that he thinks institutions provoke anger in people, which eventually causes them to "crack," the student said.

"He said, 'Anyone who has walked on this campus and hasn't wanted 30 people dead is lying to themselves,'" she said.

When Karson was asked why institutions make him so mad, the student said Karson used the women's-studies class to illustrate his point: The room was in a basement and had unfinished walls and fluorescent lights.

According to a police report, Karson said: "The basement room with fluorescent lights and the unfinished wall make him angry enough to kill people."

"But I didn't feel threatened," the student said. "He was just theorizing in an intellectual discussion about why people kill."

Police said one of the more-serious comments students reported Karson making that day came as an answer to the question, "Are you going to do something Thursday?"

Karson's reply: "Well, not necessarily this Thursday," according to police.

But the student said that wasn't the end of Karson's statement. She said he added, "Or any other day."

"Generally, Max makes the class uncomfortable, and they disagree with him often," the student said. "But I think people were reacting in fear because 30 people had just died, and they don't want to be one of those people."

This revelation does not immediately exonerate Karson, but certainly contextualizes some of his statements. The case will certainly examine what types of statements constitute enough of a threat to engender fear--and justify the arrest on "interference" charges. If the case is weak, and it looks like it very well could be, then the CUPD arrested Karson for exercising his free speech rights, however off-color or speculative they might be.

Playing The "Chickenhawk" Argument On The VT Massacre

John Derbyshire, Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle are conservative chickenhawks on the VT massacre? April says no, and I agree.

Shaidle--not blaming the victims, but the doctrine society operates under.

Max Karson's Arresting Comments--Overreaction And Censorship Or Sensible Precaution?

CU student Max Karson's ill-timed comments (the question of legality is to be decided, as you will see below) have earned him notoriety, an arrest for "interference", and suspension from school pending his trial:

A University of Colorado student has been arrested after making "threatening" comments in class that seemed sympathetic toward the gunman who killed 32 students at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

Max Karson of Denver was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an education institution.
. . .
University police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said that during a class discussion of the Virginia Tech massacre, Karson "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people."

Several witnesses told investigators Karson said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people," according to a police report.
. . .
Karson has also produced a video on youtube that ends in a deadly shooting he called a comedy.

The film has been made private since I viewed it; it depicted Karson as a jokester given three minutes to make another guy laugh--he is ultimately unsuccessful, and the other individual shoots him. His site is still up for now. The class, for what its worth, was a women's black studies course.

His father, a University of Denver professor, argues that his son's words, however ill-advised, we're neither illegal nor threatening. The school, in his opinion, has violated his free speech rights. Attorney David Lane, of Ward Churchill fame, suggests that a violation of free speech may have occurred, but his ambiguous statement about killings are questionable, and context is important.

What were Karson's words? There is little detail, other than this purported quote:

"If anyone in here says that they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying," Karson said, according to a statement made by a CU faculty member.

People say stupid things all the time; in the heat of passion, words become weapons. Most people would readily admit that in a particularly angry state they have made some statement along the lines of "I am so angry I could do . . . to that person." But serious contemplation of killing innocent people (not in self-defense)? Highly unlikely. Context is important, as is the state of mind of the person making such a declaration. Karson's intent is clearly in question.

In this case, Karson's words unsurprisingly disturbed his classmates and teacher. His previous record of antagonizing CU's administration and fellow students gives a picture of Karson as an agent provacateur, willing to engage others with (to his mind) alternative points-of-view. My defense of his writings last November (a search of his name yields more on his past).

In light of the events at VT, his statements threw up all the usual red flags, and earned him his arrest and suspension. They may earn him more than just notoriety. They also call attention to the heightened state of emotion following the VT massacre--Karson's words, if made in class just last week, would have perhaps raised eyebrows and snickering from his fellow students. This week, he went to jail.

The debate over how to prevent future Columbines and VT massacres includes the discussion of intervention when "red flags" are apparent. Is the fear justified or is Karson's audience overreacting? Second-guessing becomes the name of the game following any tragedy. One can understand CUPD's desire to protect students and faculty from potential harm. People across the country would be hopping mad if the CUPD heard complaints about Karson and failed to take action.

So which is it? Can we have it both ways--unfettered free speech (unless inciting violence, which is at question here) or the "mask" of safety in charging those with disturbing thoughts and expressions with crimes, so as to prevent larger catastrophes?

Karson has earned himself, rightly or wrongly, a day in court. The context of his statements will be revealed in more detail. Is having disturbing (to others) thoughts a crime? Is he victim of of his own poor judgment and timing? Or has CUPD averted a future massacre? It is doubtful the court decision will render a definitive answer, but the outcome will assuredly lead to more questions on how or if we can avoid yet another Columbine or VT massacre.

Cartoonists Blame Gun Culture, NRA, 2nd Amendment, Bush And Iraq War For VT Massacre

No mention of the perpetrator(s) (and these cartoons may indeed have been completed before Cho Seung-Hui was identified), but these editorial cartoonists begin by blaming the Iraq War, America's "gun culture", the NRA and even (inevitably?) President George W. Bush:


Iraq War moral equivalency.


Terror: Made in USA.


That stubborn 2nd Amendment.


Blaming the NRA.


NRA as special interest peddler to legislators.


The triumvirate: Bush, NRA, and gun rights legislators.


Attacking John McCain and the ridiculous! 2nd Amendment.


He should be putting that sticker on, not scraping it off--Cho Seung-Hui killed those VT students and faculty, not his weapons.


America's gun culture gets its due.


More of the same.


America's guns guarantee freedom, something the unarmed citizens were unable to achieve under the oppressive Communist regimes, and severely limited their ability to fight back against the rampaging Nazis. Liviu Librescu had seen violence before, and displayed heroism in defending his students. He wasn't a victim of "random gun violence" but a psychopathic killer who showed no respect for human life.