Petition to drop charges against Kiera Wilmot
change.org
change.org
How much longer until we're (figuratively) cutting off the hands of orphans for stealing loaves of bread?
It* baffles me.
Ironic typo. How is an accidental shooting equate to murder? Manslaughter maybe, but it only escalates to that level in a case of negligence.
Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: "a bomb is a bomb"
How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?
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.
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 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?
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.
The hypocrisy is the most relevant point of all.
The actions were performed before school started (apparently). I call them 'actions' for a specific reason. Were these actions sponsored by a teacher? Were these actions an actual experiment? Were these actions performed within a science lab or somewhere else on school grounds? Were these actions associated with any curriculum the student was studying at the time?
Right now I feel that this could have very well be the scientific community rallying around someone who could've been doing something very dangerous that wasn't sanctioned by the school. I would love some answers so I could know whether the charge is fair or not.
I absolutely am OK with students doing things on school grounds not sponsored by a teacher, not an actual experiment, and generally faffing about in the name of curiosity and learning. Schools shouldn't be running on a whitelist principle.
IMO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm.
Even if she was being stupid and ignorant and planned to scare her friends, no harm was caused.
Harmless foolishness should not be a felony... harmless learning even less so!
Really? I mean, it would've been OK if she did this in the middle of a cafeteria during lunch? And, yes, much of chemistry is highly dangerous and that's the reason it is done in a lab with fume hoods and safety equipment.
MO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm.
The reason why I asked for more information is because we don't really know whether or not this wasn't her intent. Was she being bullied and was going to do this to someone else? I have a hard time associating this with 'science' because the narrative seems so one-sided.
Do what to someone else, hurt their ears? Have you ever actually seen a works bomb go off?
When I was in school stuff like this did happen in the cafeteria, though to my knowledge it only involved Mentos+Coke and no household chemicals. Kids would do it specifically to make a mess or prank other kids. But that's all it was, a prank, not a terrorist act.
Occasionally kids would mix household chemicals together outside to see what would happen. Families that hunted routinely had guns in their cars too. Nobody freaked out, nobody died, and the world kept spinning.
Again, barring malicious intent to cause significant harm, I don't think this is a felony.
The best punishment is, IMO, probably being stuffed in an AP chemistry class and taught how to do chemistry properly. If she likes it, good, if she doesn't like, well, she shouldn't have done dumb chemistry. :-)
Not in the USA and not on school grounds. The zero tolerance laws are enforced and have teeth. Just recently, an Eagle Scout and honor student was arrested and charged with a felony when he realized he left his hunting rifle in his car at school and did the right thing and called his parent to come pick it up[1].
[1] http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/05/02/libert...
I don't mind zero tolerance laws within reason. If a student forgets their hunting rifle in their car and tries to do the right thing I'm ok with giving them a pass. But a bomb is a bomb - hard to spin that to 'I didn't know any better'.
If she had been trying to kill students, then sure. But if she was just satisfying her own curiosity, a slap on the wrist is more than appropriate.
"She made a bad choice," principal Ron Pritchard told WTSP-TV on Wednesday. "Honestly, I don't think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked, too." "She is a good kid," he added. "She has never been in trouble before. Ever. She told us everything and was very honest. She didn't run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her."
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/florida...)
Everywhere you look lately, messed up adults are failing kids. Chew your Pop-tart into a gun shape? Suspension, because zero tolerance! Shake up some toilet cleaner? Expulsion, felony! Because...zero tolerance. Gangrape, humiliate, and bully? Hide that crap and try to cover it up until the community outrage gets too loud because...wait, what?
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).
The fact that the school principal has come to her defense suggests that people who were actually there didn't feel threatened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Call it what it was. It was a "works bomb".
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.
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".
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.
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.
Intentional ignition of an incendiary device via the combustion
of highly compressed explosive gas using a manually triggered
high voltage electrical discharge.
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.
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).
That little terrorist. She probably get the plans directly from Al-Qaeda.
I hate that we have two such extremes. On one end we have this hyper-militant, zero tolerance agenda that turns every little thing into a felony (kindergartners getting kicked out for gun shaped finger pointing). On the other side we have hyper sensitive, rights agenda that wants to let little billy express his creativity even if that means a few bottle bombs go off on school grounds once in a while.
Is this girl a felon? hell no. what a stupid over reaction. But let's not pretend she didn't do anything wrong.
You never support wrongful accusation on the matters that the person accused is guilty of "something". That's what gets the person pronounced guilty and now you share this sin and is going to rot in hell and everybody loses: you, the society, the wrongfully accused.
Surely there is something in the middle.
I was always assumed it was the hemlock, personally.
From the Hacker News guidelines:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This story has been adequately covered by the TV news and by news outlets all over the world. The petition doesn't add any "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" value to the Hacker News community.
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
This is actually something that kids did when I was in high school 10+ years ago (although never at school or during school hours). I don't think it is a good thing for kids to be doing, but I do think authorities are over reacting (pun intended), it is not a real explosion or bomb, just a bottle popping. However I do think someone could get hurt if they were right next to it when it pops.
Even if you fail to prevent reelection, you have a better chance of changing the behavior of the incumbents.
I mean, when I was a kid we used to shoot stuff (with a pellet gun) and blow stuff up (with fireworks) because shooting stuff and blowing stuff up was cool. But we didn't try to pretend we were "doing science", and we were smart enough to do it in my backyard, not at school.
Does she have a backyard?
I had a few altercations with my high school administrators. The first involved a student petition, the second involved formal letters from attorneys. Guess which one had more effect.
Edit: nevertheless, I have signed the petition in question.
The level of the "victories" do vary. But, in this particular case, I think a mass expression of support for this girl could actually encourage the local DA and school reconsider moving forward with prosecution.
Most of those victories can be chalked up to "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
It's hard to prove causation in any of these.
I say this not to tease about the goals and causes, but just that sending individual, targeted letters to the parties involved or a dollar to the family for their legal fund would do so much more. Internet petitions do nothing and are easily ignored.
Do they even sell those little chemistry labs in a box that you could buy 30 or so years ago, or has "homeland security" deemed that dangerous?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/27/do-modern-no-chem...