The charges may well get dropped when cooler heads prevail. The expulsion, I'm guessing, won't be, which is shameful. Ruining a kid's life because she put some chemicals in a bottle and didn't hurt anyone is heinous.

Cooler heads prevailing in Florida? I live in the deep south, I would be seriously concerned if I were her.

I actually had the same thought, but decided I was just being unfairly regionlist. I'll continue to hold my judgement on that count.

Everyone needs to be taught about jury nullification for cases like this.

I wonder how hard it would be to write a bot that would search twitter for people mentioning they've been summoned for Jury Duty and send them a tweet about Jury Nullification?

Just grabbed https://twitter.com/NullifyByJury, and did a search that suggests a steady stream of jurors: https://twitter.com/search?q=jury%20duty&src=typd.

Let's do it?

Actually, there must be some legal issues here... anyone willing to advise?

I think the courts don't like it at all. (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/jury-nullification-activ...). Please do it but also please speak with an actual lawyer first.

My understanding of jury nullification is that it applies to a different scenario, typically that of when the jurors share the sentiment that the law the defendant is accused of violating is unjust (or is being unjustly applied). I don't feel like looking up the exact phrasing of the laws pertaining to "possession/discharge of a weapon on school grounds and discharging a destructive device" in florida, but I would guess they mention intent, or culpability [1]. So unless it comes to light that she was aware the chemical mixture she used would create an explosion, I think the charges will be dismissed or she will be acquitted by jury, without having to apply jury nullification.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability

Yes I think you are right.

But also, my thinking is that recently the US seems to want to trample down many "criminals" for basically downloading things that someone regrets them downloading. I worry about a future where DA's are overzealous about going after people without any mens rea and/or well after the victims of a crime have expressed no interest in continuing the case. Since, in the US, jails are intended to punish instead of rehabilitate and having a felony conviction takes away many of your rights I think they need to be far more careful who they level charges against.

Possession of "weapons" charges are in the jurisdiction I reside in strict liability, no intent to use them needs to be shown just the actus rea of possession is sufficient. [Claimed] Ignorance of the nature of the weapon is not a valid defence.

I know practically nothing of the charges or pertinent laws here mind you.

One of the biggest issues with the justice system is that many criminals never get as far as the jury. They're told that they can accept a plea bargain and spend a few years in jail, or face a jury and in all likelihood be sentenced to decades.

Good point. Everyone needs to be taught about plea bargaining, too, but maybe we need some way to prevent the DA from piling on ridiculous charges.

Especially considering in America that's nearly equivalent to losing your citizenship.

Well it will be pled down to misdemeanor and juvenile record will be sealed, but yeah that pretty much ruins job applications.

How exactly would a sealed juvenile record affect job applications? They don't show up on any criminal background inquiry that companies have access to. Police and government (i.e., clearance or priors), yes. Juvenile charges are practically thrown out by everybody, minus things that require clearance or sensitivity. Regardless, the article says she's going to be tried as an adult, which means it's an adult charge. It'll stick, but...

Even an American adult, in most states, can make a felony disappear with some effort and the cooperation of the convicting judge. In other states, it becomes a charge but no conviction is recorded from the company's perspective, so you can say "no, I've never been convicted of a felony."

(I'm a felon with extensive experience in this area.)

As far as I know, employers aren't prevented from using Google?

Nobody does. I promise. My conviction made lots of news as well; has never come up since I got it expunged.

Typical BigCos get a standard background on you (these are measured in dozens of dollars), and any further investigation that involves a human being is reserved for a very, very rare candidate. HR and operations are expensive at scale.

Since everybody rational considers this news item ridiculous, I think we can safely say this girl will be alright. The expulsion is the thing she'll have to work around, but even a felony conviction is not a life-ender. Many companies specifically hire felons because they're a tax break if filed properly.

"Nobody does. I promise."

Entirely false.

Except if you have the misfortune of being convicted in New York State, which does not expunge or seal even misdemeanor records any amount of time after conviction, you're literally branded for life with it.

I've heard stories of employers using Google, but seems to me any company that did that would be opening itself up to a bunch of lawsuits. There are plenty of things you're not allowed to ask about at interviews because they are potentially discriminatory (for instance, asking candidates - particularly women - if they plan to have children), but you could potentially discover this information from a Google search.

That's why you contract out with a binary pass fail, and/or search for red flags, so the 3rd party replies if the dude is clean or perhaps mentions some areas requiring further study.

I can't be the only one here to have passed this process. I've done it a couple times. This vaguely resembles my military security clearance some decades ago in that my Army CO never had any idea I got picked up by the cops for truancy after skipping out of gym class in my sophomore high school year, but the clearance guy knew, didn't really care (I mean, come on, really?), and issued my clearance and that credential is good enough for my CO not to personally investigate my police record.

Needless to say the pass fail criteria provided to the 3rd party doesn't include things like "Is the candidate a jew?". They ARE often dumb, but not that dumb.

Usually it involves a lot of verification of resume "facts" like if the candidate claims no criminal record but a simple glance at a public facebook feed shows all manner of talk about his extensive time in jail, the red flag gets raised. No need to tell the company what church he attends, just warn them to take a second (first?) look at the criminal background report.

That is what happened in my case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5637272

There wasn't a news article about me so I don't have to worry about being Googled. I do feel bad for the girl because of that. However, so far employers have found my story amusing so I'm convinced that high school hijinks affect job prospects terribly.

So, let me get this straight: this girl was theoretically exploring science, and as a result, was admonished and forcibly removed from the one thing meant to inspire and represent education and learning.

Maybe "real life" immediate consequences but I can't help a strong sense of frustration at the "system" even more than sympathy for this one individual given the irony.

The thing is, they're not real life consequences. They're totally artificial consequences, established by the school without adequate rational basis. You could do this basically anywhere but a school, and nothing would happen to you (think fireworks). And there's no serious safety issue here (e.g.: what are the chances this happens again, regardless of the punishment?). It's not at all about safety; it's about the establishment of authority.

How Kafkaesque is that? "We made these rules just so that we can punish you if you don't follow them!"

Reminds me vaguely of http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/boy-who-played...