5 ms·

Immediately citing racism as the reason for her punishment isn't grasping at straws, it's ignorant. Did you read the part where she was creating _explosives_ o

by jstrate 13y ago

Immediately citing racism as the reason for her punishment isn't grasping at straws, it's ignorant. Did you read the part where she was creating _explosives_ on school property? Especially within two weeks of a major bombing involving household materials!?

sterlingross 13y ago
She could have very well mixed vinegar and baking soda and sealed the result in a weak bottle. Given the right amount of each ingredient, this mixture would "explode".
MikeAmelung 13y ago
Ignorant? You're going to say someone else is ignorant while comparing some mild gas expansion in a closed bottle to devices designed to maim and kill. It's almost like, why am I even writing this comment...
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  Technically the "device designed to maim and kill" also had a gas expansion inside of a closed vessel. I am just making this post to point out that what she was doing COULD have been dangerous or fatal, it just wasn't. Fortunately plastic containers will fail long before the buildup of pressure becomes too powerful. But in general, that kind of explosion does and can kill.
  - primelens 13y ago
    It's to do with intention. Even if she were to set off an explosion she'd not be guilty unless it were intentional and meant to hurt people. The most she deserves in this case is a rap on the knuckle. I'd say not even that - maybe a gentle talking to - "be inquisitive, explore ... but be a little more careful."
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    So does a shaken up bottle of champagne. COULD that be dangerous or fatal? Story at 11.
    - jstrate 13y ago
      The intent of opening and consuming a champagne bottle is different from the intent of mixing explosive chemicals in a sealed chamber, at a public school. I imagine if a child brought a champagne bottle to a school cafeteria, shook it up and threw it there would be significant consequences as well. Regardless of race.
- adventured 13y ago
  That's a very good comment. But I'd like to know what chemicals were in the bottle before going too far into a conversation on this, as that defines how dangerous her experiment was. There are certain household chemicals that you do not want to see in a reaction that generates a small explosion and smoke. Some that will burn the lungs severely or cause blindness.
- jstrate 13y ago
  Nowhere did I compare the two. Simply stating that event is very recent and would have an impact on the perception of the child making an explosive. What is ignorant is the fact that reddit/hn is willing to completely ignore the fact that the intent was to mix chemicals and make an explosive device. Ask any school administrator if a student of any race would be punished for that. Look at it from an administrators perspective, they are legally obligated to maintain a safe environment for children. If another student was injured it would be their job/income/family on the line.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
You're right. We should definitely sacrifice our principles, our values, our educational institutions, and our childrens' lives in response to fear.
- angersock 13y ago
  Think of the children!
- jstrate 13y ago
  Oh please, household chemicals have serious potential to react violently. Her intention was clearly to make something go bang. She was punished for it, maybe excessively, but immediately claiming racism is ridiculous.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    > Her intention was clearly to make something go bang. That is an allegation, what's your evidence? She enjoys the privilege of assumption of innocence as well as a trial, yet you've rushed to judgment based on what?
    - jstrate 13y ago
      > rushed to judgement I suppose based on the fact the kid mixed chemicals and sealed the chamber? I've done the same, multiple times. Never was I surprised at the result. I suppose OP could be correct and my racist views led me to believe her intentions were the same as mine when it was me mixing chemicals and sealing the chamber, somehow I doubt it.
wisty 13y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I doubt it was a decision based on race. She's obviously a "good" kid, and the cops and admin know it. What's bullshit is that she was doing a very low-risk "experiment". It doesn't really sound like a real experiment, just a curious kid trying something out. Or at worst, the kind of harmless prank everyone used to do. But it was harmless, and she was probably just doing it for fun, or because she was curious.
- 5555624 13y ago
  > She's obviously a "good" kid, and the cops and admin know it. The school officials might know it, but I'm not so sure about the cops. It seems she was expelled due to the school system's zero tolerance policy. What about the felony charges? That was a separate decision by the cops or the District Attorney. I doubt violating a school policy requires the filing of criminal charges.
  - 67726e 13y ago
    Well, any school administrator can level charges against you if they see fit. I once had a charge of "Disturbing Schools" for telling a vice principal to "piss off" (albeit with more vulgar wording) in her office. Most school administrators, in my experience at least, seem to be zealots and jump at the chance to put students "in their place".
- talaketu 13y ago
  You should check the "dictionary".
- Filligree 13y ago
  Mixing random household chemicals without knowing what they'll do? Oh, I have no doubt she was just trying something out, but it's hardly guaranteed to be harmless. Worst case, you might mix something like bleach and ammonia, and kill half the school. Can't tell without further details, but the fact that she was surprised is scary. I wouldn't expel her, though, just give her a long and serious talking-to.
chrischen 13y ago
So how many weeks after a major bombing would it become OK to do that?
arethuza 13y ago
I hope she didn't use more than 4 ounces of chemicals otherwise it would be a WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Crim...
- solistice 13y ago
  Wait, 4 ounces makes it a weapon of mass destruction? That is....ridiculous.
  - kefka 13y ago
    4 oz of botulism or some hemorrhagic flu is most CERTAINLY a weapon of mass destruction. I can only imagine someone with evil enough intent to put a canister like that in one of those Glade "bathroom smelly" devices. In a public restroom, you'd be spreading death.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      4 oz is ridiculous overkill for direct infection of certain diseases at the same time it's not enough explosives to harm much more than one room. It's a pretty useless threshold to have.
- uxp 13y ago
  You're kind of stretching the truth here. There really isn't a limit as to how much explosive material can be contained in a stationary "bomb" before it's considered a WMD because the definition itself takes in account intention of use. The Wikipedia article cites the FBI's definition of a WMD, which includes rockets that contain more than 4 ounces of propellant. For comparison, an Estes D size rocket engine is less than a single ounce (~0.8oz). It also states that any rocket with an incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce is a WMD, but if you actually read the statute and not Wikipedia's summary you'll read that the charge has to be a known explosive substance like C4 or ANFO, not something silly like Draino and aluminum foil or dry ice in a plastic bottle, unless there is a clear intention of causing harm, injury or death. Here's a video of 10 grams of C4, which is about a third of an ounce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhuR2rJJIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhuR2rJJIU These definitions of a WMD aren't that crazy.

by jstrate 13y ago

sterlingross 13y ago

She could have very well mixed vinegar and baking soda and sealed the result in a weak bottle. Given the right amount of each ingredient, this mixture would "explode".

MikeAmelung 13y ago

Ignorant? You're going to say someone else is ignorant while comparing some mild gas expansion in a closed bottle to devices designed to maim and kill. It's almost like, why am I even writing this comment...

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
Technically the "device designed to maim and kill" also had a gas expansion inside of a closed vessel. I am just making this post to point out that what she was doing COULD have been dangerous or fatal, it just wasn't. Fortunately plastic containers will fail long before the buildup of pressure becomes too powerful. But in general, that kind of explosion does and can kill.
- primelens 13y ago
  It's to do with intention. Even if she were to set off an explosion she'd not be guilty unless it were intentional and meant to hurt people. The most she deserves in this case is a rap on the knuckle. I'd say not even that - maybe a gentle talking to - "be inquisitive, explore ... but be a little more careful."
- pessimizer 13y ago
  So does a shaken up bottle of champagne. COULD that be dangerous or fatal? Story at 11.
  - jstrate 13y ago
    The intent of opening and consuming a champagne bottle is different from the intent of mixing explosive chemicals in a sealed chamber, at a public school. I imagine if a child brought a champagne bottle to a school cafeteria, shook it up and threw it there would be significant consequences as well. Regardless of race.
adventured 13y ago
That's a very good comment. But I'd like to know what chemicals were in the bottle before going too far into a conversation on this, as that defines how dangerous her experiment was. There are certain household chemicals that you do not want to see in a reaction that generates a small explosion and smoke. Some that will burn the lungs severely or cause blindness.
jstrate 13y ago
Nowhere did I compare the two. Simply stating that event is very recent and would have an impact on the perception of the child making an explosive. What is ignorant is the fact that reddit/hn is willing to completely ignore the fact that the intent was to mix chemicals and make an explosive device. Ask any school administrator if a student of any race would be punished for that. Look at it from an administrators perspective, they are legally obligated to maintain a safe environment for children. If another student was injured it would be their job/income/family on the line.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

You're right. We should definitely sacrifice our principles, our values, our educational institutions, and our childrens' lives in response to fear.

angersock 13y ago
Think of the children!
jstrate 13y ago
Oh please, household chemicals have serious potential to react violently. Her intention was clearly to make something go bang. She was punished for it, maybe excessively, but immediately claiming racism is ridiculous.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  > Her intention was clearly to make something go bang. That is an allegation, what's your evidence? She enjoys the privilege of assumption of innocence as well as a trial, yet you've rushed to judgment based on what?
  - jstrate 13y ago
    > rushed to judgement I suppose based on the fact the kid mixed chemicals and sealed the chamber? I've done the same, multiple times. Never was I surprised at the result. I suppose OP could be correct and my racist views led me to believe her intentions were the same as mine when it was me mixing chemicals and sealing the chamber, somehow I doubt it.

wisty 13y ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I doubt it was a decision based on race. She's obviously a "good" kid, and the cops and admin know it. What's bullshit is that she was doing a very low-risk "experiment". It doesn't really sound like a real experiment, just a curious kid trying something out. Or at worst, the kind of harmless prank everyone used to do. But it was harmless, and she was probably just doing it for fun, or because she was curious.

5555624 13y ago
> She's obviously a "good" kid, and the cops and admin know it. The school officials might know it, but I'm not so sure about the cops. It seems she was expelled due to the school system's zero tolerance policy. What about the felony charges? That was a separate decision by the cops or the District Attorney. I doubt violating a school policy requires the filing of criminal charges.
- 67726e 13y ago
  Well, any school administrator can level charges against you if they see fit. I once had a charge of "Disturbing Schools" for telling a vice principal to "piss off" (albeit with more vulgar wording) in her office. Most school administrators, in my experience at least, seem to be zealots and jump at the chance to put students "in their place".
talaketu 13y ago
You should check the "dictionary".
Filligree 13y ago
Mixing random household chemicals without knowing what they'll do? Oh, I have no doubt she was just trying something out, but it's hardly guaranteed to be harmless. Worst case, you might mix something like bleach and ammonia, and kill half the school. Can't tell without further details, but the fact that she was surprised is scary. I wouldn't expel her, though, just give her a long and serious talking-to.

chrischen 13y ago

So how many weeks after a major bombing would it become OK to do that?

arethuza 13y ago

I hope she didn't use more than 4 ounces of chemicals otherwise it would be a WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Crim...

solistice 13y ago
Wait, 4 ounces makes it a weapon of mass destruction? That is....ridiculous.
- kefka 13y ago
  4 oz of botulism or some hemorrhagic flu is most CERTAINLY a weapon of mass destruction. I can only imagine someone with evil enough intent to put a canister like that in one of those Glade "bathroom smelly" devices. In a public restroom, you'd be spreading death.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    4 oz is ridiculous overkill for direct infection of certain diseases at the same time it's not enough explosives to harm much more than one room. It's a pretty useless threshold to have.
uxp 13y ago
You're kind of stretching the truth here. There really isn't a limit as to how much explosive material can be contained in a stationary "bomb" before it's considered a WMD because the definition itself takes in account intention of use. The Wikipedia article cites the FBI's definition of a WMD, which includes rockets that contain more than 4 ounces of propellant. For comparison, an Estes D size rocket engine is less than a single ounce (~0.8oz). It also states that any rocket with an incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce is a WMD, but if you actually read the statute and not Wikipedia's summary you'll read that the charge has to be a known explosive substance like C4 or ANFO, not something silly like Draino and aluminum foil or dry ice in a plastic bottle, unless there is a clear intention of causing harm, injury or death. Here's a video of 10 grams of C4, which is about a third of an ounce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhuR2rJJIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdhuR2rJJIU These definitions of a WMD aren't that crazy.