The only reason this story is news is because, based on the info we have so far, it's appears to be a grand hypocritical overreaction. A kid mishandling a BB gun is arguably just as dangerous, or more so, than a kid playing with small amounts of household chemicals outside and away from others. The former killed someone and was not charged with anything, the latter harmed no one and gets felony charges.
The only difference is fear. People are not afraid of BB guns, but if you frame Drano+aluminum foil (from what I've read of the ingredients) in a small water bottle as a dangerous explosive or as a terrorist act, people will overreact and impose absurd punishments.
Do I really need to explain it? According to this attorney, accidentally setting off a small explosion that results in no physical harm being done warrants a felony while murder doesn't even warrant a slap on the wrist.
Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: "a bomb is a bomb"
A bomb is a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is irrelevant. However, even killing someone isn't always murder.
How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?
Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two. But I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to popping a paper sack behind someone's head. My comment of "a bomb is a bomb" is in regards to the fact that she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb. And everyone these days damn well knows you don't do that shit at school, nor even bring a rubberband gun to school. You'll get, at a minimum, expelled.
I never said I agreed with the felonies but this shouldn't be chalked up to some simple slap on the wrist. She knew what she was doing.
> A bomb is a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is irrelevant
Bull. Shit.
Is a dry ice bomb also "a bomb is a bomb" and therefore plainly as illegal as any other bomb? What if I use coke and mentos instead? What if I use alka-seltzer instead? What if I didn't use anything at all, and merely gave the bottle a good vigorous shake then slammed it down onto the curb? What if I use alka-seltzer but instead of a soda bottle use a film canister instead? What about popping a paper bag instead of a film canister?
Or is it merely the word "bomb" that makes something a considered a plainly illegal bomb to you? What if instead of a brown paper bag is is an origami paper bomb? Is a rubber water bomb now illegal? Is a non-pyrotechnic stink bomb a "bomb" on par legally with a hand grenade? Is making the hallway stink bad now a felony? Is itching powder a chemical weapon? Should students be wary of photo bombing each other?
This seemingly magical equivalence between "bombs" before the law only exists in your head. It is the product of an acceptance and internalization of the zero-tolerance mindset, not critical thinking.
> Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two.
You sure seem to think they are equivalent before the law... You keep on mindlessly repeating "a bomb is a bomb", what else could you possibly mean?
You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason. Nobody is questioning that some seem to think it is illegal; obviously the prosecutor thinks that it was illegal. We all know this. What we are upset with is this plainly abusive application of the law. Officially, the validity of application of the law will probably be decided in a courtroom. Unofficially, everyone here but you seems to recognize it is abusive and absurd. If they get away with it, it will be a travesty.
> I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to popping a paper sack behind someone's head.
You're right, she didn't pop a paper sack near somebody's head. She popped a soda bottle near nobodys' head...
> she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb
The first does not follow from the second, and she disputes the second. EVEN IF both of those are true, the reaction she has received is wildly out of line. Damn near everybody but you seems to realize this.
You are as naive as her to believe that setting this thing off at school shouldn't have consequences.
You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason.
I've never agreed with the felony charges. But you seem to think that because you think it's no big deal that there shouldn't be any punishment.
And you can keep twisting my "bomb is a bomb" quote into whatever you want but as far as the zero tolerance policy is concerned it doesn't matter. The problem with all you idiots on here defending her is that you are equating this to an anti-science thing where she's being kept down by "the man". One poster likened this to Socrates.
The other point is that she's an honor student yet didn't know it was dangerous and illegal? So what is she, the naive, stupid little fawn or the smart, intelligent student with a bright future?
Murder was the wrong word. I'm not a lawyer. I doubt it was premeditated. The fact remains that someone is dead, and the kid won't face any legal consequences and it was this ASA who made that decision. See the relevance? She can be as tough as she wants to and in the case of this curious 16 year old, she decided that trying her as an adult and bringing felony charges would be adequate. That's not right.
Other than the discourse that is usually followed on HN, comments typically need to be relevant to the conversation. An accidental shooting (with no link to any source BTW) is completely irrelevant to a bomb going off at school. The accidental shooting wouldn't even be relevant to a school shooting. The only link to either is a prosecutor that is deciding on the charges, which is again irrelevant.
