Hacker News Reader

Comment by akavi | Hacker News Reader

In the interest of balance, I'd like to point out that Ms. Wilmot was almost certainly intending to make an explosive (A weak one, but one nonetheless). Ie, this was not simply a science experiment gone wrong and she was not just "practicing chemistry". And intentionally creating an explosive on school grounds definitely merits punishment.

That said, felony charges are clearly ludicrous (The set of actions a teenager could commit, barring actual malice, that merit a felony charge is in my mind vanishingly small).

View on HN

> "intending to make an explosive"

That is a meaningless statement by itself, and "making an explosion" does not merit punishment in and of itself. You may as well say "Stan was clearly intending to make a fire (A small one, but one nonetheless). ...intentionally creating a fire on school grounds definitely merits punishment)" What do we mean by fire? Did he set his desk ablaze, or did he light a wooden splint? "He intentionally set a fire" gives us no basis to make a blanket judgement.

Explosions do not inherently merit punishment, just as fires do not. The massive range of intended harm and magnitude that could be encompassed by the general description "explosion" or "fire" means that these acts cover everything deserving of "a stern look from the teacher" to "lock them away and throw away the key".

Edit to add: When I was in 10th grade my physics class was making alka-seltzer rockets in the football field. A few of us threw a bunch into a 12-oz pop bottle and blew it up. We got an eye-roll from our teacher; it wasn't even considered worth a comment.

I'm not sure fire is a great example. Fire can get out of hand and grow. Just as I don't want you playing with matches in my house, you probably shouldn't be playing with matches in school.

In the end, it all comes down to intent. If you lit some paper on fire and threw it in a trashcan to cause a disturbance that's an issue and a serious one. I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug

The problem with an IED (perfectly fine name for what was made) is that it's affects are much less controllable. Many could be hurt and very quickly. I think it might warrant a very stern response and possibly legal punishment. Once again, to me it somewhat comes down to intent, although with IEDs I don't think the law really cares.

> I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug

For highschool students I think the usual 'good' reason is "Well we already have this bunsen burner going for this lab, we are bored, we have all of these extra wooden splints, and we are teenagers." There really is little to no harm that is going to come of that sort of situation so, although the rules clearly forbid it, any reasonable teacher is just going to ignore them or tell them to knock it off. Zero-tolerance attitudes benefit nobody.

> IED (perfectly fine name for what was made)

You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction.

> IED (perfectly fine name for what was made)

You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction.

IED stands for "improvised explosive device". It might be emotional to you, however, it's exactly what was made. It's a device that is improvised from household materials with the entire point of exploding. It explodes via pressure but in no way does the IED label require it to be a brick of C4 detonated via a burner cell phone.

If you honestly thought that was a perfectly innocent term for what was made, with no emotional baggage, you would not have immediately, preemptively, defended your use of the term.

Call it what it was. It was a "works bomb".

I'm assuming you aren't an American because I have never heard the term "works bomb" before. It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states:

Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps.

If you think IED has no emotional baggage, try the word "bomb". When I was in college I had the misfortune of being in a bathroom when a pipe burst in the ceiling. Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.

[1] http://chemistrytwig.com/2009/08/21/the-works-bomb/

> I'm assuming you aren't an American because I have never heard the term "works bomb" before.

Funny, I was assuming the same about you... I am American, and so is everybody that I have ever known to play around with them. If you haven't heard of the term that is fine, but I do not believe for one second that you could not think of a more appropriate term than "IED".

> "It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states: Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps."

Yes... and? What is your point?

> If you think IED has no emotional baggage

The opposite actually..

> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.

So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?

Everyone knows that these (whether they be called "works bombs" or "Drano bombs") are illegal and you'll get in trouble if caught. And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.

So, my point is that you'd have to be naive to think there wouldn't be repercussions setting one of these off in a school.

> If you think IED has no emotional baggage The opposite actually..

Typo. I incorrectly added the "no".

> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police. So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?

No, they really didn't care about the pipe, those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall. Damage happens with 100 18-year olds on one dorm floor. But the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".

> Everyone knows that these (whether they be called "works bombs" or "Drano bombs") are illegal and you'll get in trouble if caught.

I have addressed this already.

> And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.

Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.

> those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall

You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?

> the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".

I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken, but even if you are neither that does nothing to say that the treatment of this girl is reasonable.

I have addressed this already.

Yet you still seem to be shocked that she is being punished. Your previous posts equate this to just 'kids bring kids'.

Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.

I have never once, in all my replies, said this deserves a felony. I have defended the zero tolerance policies in schools but I don't think an expulsion is the same as being a felon.

This might deserve a misdemeanor with a fair amount of community service. She should do it at a vet home to see the consequences of real explosives and why they aren't to be played with.

You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?

I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken

I tell a personal anecdote and I'm either lying or mistaken? You are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. You couldn't possibly imagine that there were overzealous campus police when you are commenting on a story where we are obviously seeing overzealous prosecution? What a double standard.

Right, and lighting a cigarette with a $1 convenience store butane lighter can be described innocuously as:

  Intentional ignition of an incendiary device via the combustion
  of highly compressed explosive gas using a manually triggered
  high voltage electrical discharge.

Edit: while you're technically correct that if what was made was designed to explode then it is an IED, you could also say that blowing air into a Ziploc bag, sealing it, and then stomping on it is also an IED. Are Ziploc bags designed for this use? No, thus it was improvised. Did it explode? Yes. Was it a device? Yes. The problem is that IED is such a loaded term and its use in this case can be quite misleading.

Perfectly fine description of what was done! /s

Edit for your edit: Pictured: A man about to detonate an IED behind his friend's head: http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/025/942/iFF/shuttersto...

"A bomb is a bomb" and the law apparently does not care about intent when an IED is involved. Somebody please send that man to jail.

but... smoking at school is not allowed so it doesn't really matter how you describe it. Oh... unless maybe you were just conducting an experiment... then it would be ok... I guess?

Well then in that case lets arrest all of those delinquent smokers for attempted arson.

The issue here is proportionality of response (and, local to this particular thread, the use of absurdly loaded language to exaggerate the nature of an offense in order to justify disproportionate responses).

Again... there does not have to be an "all or nothing" situation. There is punishment less than felony conviction. I don't believe this girl is a felon and I don't believe she should go on without consequence.

What do you think would be an appropriate punishment?

I'd go with detention. Maybe something creative like 2 weeks cleaning up the science lab after school.

Yes, let's equate the popping of any pressurized plastic bottle to roadside mines, that's totally reasonable.

That little terrorist. She probably get the plans directly from Al-Qaeda.

Agreed. There were a number of times I intended to do something that was similar to this, and even at school without supervision. I was punished on occasion, I was rewarded at other times. This does not make it a felonious offense. I am grateful today to the educators I had at the time who understood I was intelligent, curious and, frankly, stupid. If they had done what this school has decided to do to Ms. Wilmot I would not be where I am today. I hope the spirit of justice will win out and allow this student to continue to study and learn, become a contributor to society, and hopefully make many more intended discoveries in her life, without a felony record or imprisonment.

Agreed, it seems like some kind of punishment should be in order. Like detention.

The fact that the school principal has come to her defense suggests that people who were actually there didn't feel threatened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com