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

Think of the children!

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.

> 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?

> 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.

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...

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.

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."

So does a shaken up bottle of champagne. COULD that be dangerous or fatal? Story at 11.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Worst case, you might mix something like bleach and ammonia, and kill half the school."

Wow, alarmist much? Two seconds of googling suggests that it makes chloramine, which isn't exactly mustard gas ( http://chemistry.about.com/od/toxicchemicals/a/Mixing-Bleach... ).

As for not knowing what the mixture will do--well, there's a really obvious way to find out, right? We're all about TDD here.

>Worst case, you might mix something like bleach and ammonia, and kill half the school.

No way would that kill half the school. Might hospitalize some people in the room, but that's the worst realistic scenario.

> 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.

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".

You should check the "dictionary".

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".

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

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#Crim...

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

These definitions of a WMD aren't that crazy.

I think it's pretty crazy that the term WMD is used for devices of that scale.

Wait, 4 ounces makes it a weapon of mass destruction? That is....ridiculous.

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.

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.