

Petition to drop charges against Kiera Wilmot - rmah
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bartow-police-and-bartow-high-school-drop-charges-against-kiera-wilmot

======
mindstab
I imagine arresting teenagers and throwing them in jail for practising
chemistry will continue to help the US's already stellar rankings in science
compared to other nations...

------
noonespecial
We're getting awfully close to an upper class imposing lifelong penalties on
lower class members for stepping out of line. A felony is a lifelong handicap
to the working class.

How much longer until we're (figuratively) cutting off the hands of orphans
for stealing loaves of bread?

~~~
bconway
Which teachers and administrators at the school do you feel are a part of this
"upper class?" There are certainly no millionaires handing down decrees at the
schools near me.

~~~
tomjen3
That is because they are the upper classes in terms of power, not money (there
is some overlap, but not as much as there have been, historically.

------
guelo
The police report* says it was Assistant State Attorney Tammy Glotfelty that
initially came up with the two felony charges.

* <http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest>

~~~
CoachRufus87
Just last week, this ASA decided not to prosecute a teenager named Taylor
Richardson who accidentally shot and killed his younger brother with a BB gun.

~~~
Zimahl
And how is that relevant?

~~~
CoachRufus87
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.

It* baffles me.

~~~
Zimahl
_I 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.

~~~
jlgreco
> _"How is an accidental shooting equate to murder?"_

Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: _"a bomb is a bomb"_

How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?

~~~
Zimahl
_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.

~~~
jlgreco
> _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.

~~~
Zimahl
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?

------
Zimahl
Does anyone have any links to better articles on this situation? I feel like
we've only heard one side of this from the media. Now, the media could just be
portraying the truth or they could be distorting the facts. Here are the
questions I've yet heard answered:

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.

~~~
pnathan
From what I can tell, much of chemistry is highly dangerous. The only real
question, afaict, is whether the person knows how to correctly handle the
danger.

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!

~~~
Zimahl
_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._

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.

~~~
jlgreco
_"Was she being bullied and was going to do this to someone else?"_

Do what to someone else, hurt their ears? Have you ever actually seen a works
bomb go off?

~~~
Zimahl
I've seen one on Youtube and they are all fine and dandy when everyone is
aware what is going to happen and moves away. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be
anywhere next to one when they went off and possibly get Drano or toilet
cleaner in my eyes.

~~~
jlgreco
Surely if you were going to intentionally cause harm in such a way you would
save yourself a lot of trouble and just throw Drano at the person.

------
akavi
In the interest of balance, I'd like to point out that Ms. Wilmot was almost
certainly _intending_ to make an explosive (A weak one, but one nonetheless).
Ie, this was not simply a science experiment gone wrong and she was not just
"practicing chemistry". And intentionally creating an explosive on school
grounds definitely merits punishment.

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).

~~~
jlgreco
> _"intending to make an explosive"_

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.

~~~
Zimahl
I'm not sure fire is a great example. Fire can get out of hand and grow. Just
as I don't want you playing with matches in my house, you probably shouldn't
be playing with matches in school.

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.

~~~
jlgreco
> _I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other
> than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug_

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.

~~~
Zimahl
_> 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._

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.

~~~
biot
Right, and lighting a cigarette with a $1 convenience store butane lighter can
be described innocuously as:

    
    
      Intentional ignition of an incendiary device via the combustion
      of highly compressed explosive gas using a manually triggered
      high voltage electrical discharge.
    

Edit: while you're technically correct that if what was made was designed to
explode then it is an IED, you could also say that blowing air into a Ziploc
bag, sealing it, and then stomping on it is also an IED. Are Ziploc bags
designed for this use? No, thus it was improvised. Did it explode? Yes. Was it
a device? Yes. The problem is that IED is such a loaded term and its use in
this case can be quite misleading.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
but... smoking at school is not allowed so it doesn't really matter how you
describe it. Oh... unless maybe you were just conducting an experiment... then
it would be ok... I guess?

~~~
jlgreco
Well then in that case lets arrest all of those delinquent smokers for
attempted arson.

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).

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Again... there does not have to be an "all or nothing" situation. There is
punishment less than felony conviction. I don't believe this girl is a felon
and I don't believe she should go on without consequence.

~~~
fancyketchup
What do you think would be an appropriate punishment?

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I'd go with detention. Maybe something creative like 2 weeks cleaning up the
science lab after school.

------
jack-r-abbit
Why do they just gloss over the location of this "experiment"? Was it in the
science lab? doesn't sound like it. Was it out in the school yard? sounds like
it. Was it being supervised by a teacher? nope. Was it assigned by a teacher?
doesn't sound like it. I think context matters. I can think a few bad things
to do that could simply be labeled as an "experiment" when you get caught.

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.

~~~
guard-of-terra
The only result of you "not pretending she didn't do anything wrong" is she
becoming a felon.

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.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I said the felony was an overreaction. Your statement really confuses me. Are
you saying there is only two outcomes: 1) she suffers 0 punishment or 2) she
is a felon

Surely there is something in the middle.

~~~
guard-of-terra
No there isn't unfortunately. Courts do not work that way. They either let you
go or you suffer fixed punishment not necessarily related to severity of your
crime. That's what killed Socrates.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Fixed punishment is tied to the level of crime you are convicted of. There are
many levels of "crime" that this could fall into. I don't think it has to be
felony or nothing.

~~~
guard-of-terra
These days of zero-tolerance (that is, most days on the planet except mid-
twentieth century) it is too easy to just go with the flow and convict of
whatever is brought to the eyes of justice. You need luck, good lawyer or both
to get fair treatment, especially if the public thinks you're guilty of
"something".

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Well, the answer to zero tolerance is not "ALL tolerance". If those are my
only choices and I am absolutely forced to pick one of those two sides, then
I'm going to go with the side that doesn't foster an environment of "do as you
please... we'll tolerate anything". That is a pretty slippery slope to get on.
We have to have _some_ amount of rules and punishment.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Well then, you are wrong and you are going to rot in hell for that sin as I
told.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
well that escalated quickly. sheesh.

------
tokenadult
I think the charges are ridiculous. But I also think Hacker News can do better
for content than hosting a link to every change.org petition that comes by, as
the great majority of change.org petitions are a lot more ridiculous than this
petition. And even when the petition urges a sensible position, the petition
is almost never the best means to achieve the desired result.

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.

~~~
JoeKM

      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.
    

If an article is on the front page it's because the community wants it on the
front page.

------
oftenwrong
<http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp>

~~~
angersock
What ever happened to just dry ice and water? Drano...really? Kids these days.
:\

~~~
jlgreco
Where I grew up local stores would not sell either dry ice or "the works" (the
favored brand, apparently) to kids. The effect is the same, which you choose
is probably just a matter of which is available.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
When the thing bursts and sends liquid splattering all about... would you
prefer it to be water with dry ice? or Drano? I know dry ice has some safety
concerns but I can't imagine it is worse than getting sprayed with Drano. But
I could be wrong about just how dangerous dry ice is.

~~~
jlgreco
I wouldn't want to be sprayed by drano, but I wouldn't want to be next to
either anyway. I have never heard of anyone actually being hurt by these
things. Considering how popular they are, if they presented any appreciable
danger you would think lots of people would be getting hurt by them.

------
dccoolgai
Signed...wish there was some way to donate to a scholarship fund or something
for her...anyone know?

~~~
mindstab
yes actually, I'd think about donating except that what would the US gov think
of people donating money to a bomber? we all might get a check in our files
for supporting terrorism... :(

~~~
SoftwareMaven
That would be good. _Everybody_ should strive to get that check next to their
name. Then it becomes a useless bit of information.

------
seles
I would guess that what she was doing was causing the bottle to pop by doing a
chemical reaction inside it that creates lots of gas as a by product of the
chemical reaction, enough to cause a significant increase in pressure until
the bottle pops.

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.

------
amattn
Petitions aren't as effective as campaigns to elect the opponents of those
mentioned in the petition.

Even if you fail to prevent reelection, you have a better chance of changing
the behavior of the incumbents.

------
joelgrus
Like everyone else, I don't think this should result in a felony. But
(apparently) unlike everyone else, I don't think it's particularly appropriate
to build a small bomb at school, and I am pretty skeptical of the "I was just
doing a science experiment" explanation.

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.

~~~
Anechoic
_we were smart enough to do it in my backyard_

Does she have a backyard?

------
rhizome
What have been the most significant real-world effects of change.org
petitions?

~~~
rmah
While I understand (and often share) your cynicism, change.org has won some
victories in the past: <http://www.change.org/victories>

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.

~~~
rhizome
So merely asking how effective they are is "cynicism," got it.

Most of those victories can be chalked up to "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

~~~
corin_
Perhaps steer clear of questioning whether he was correct to guess your
meaning when following it with a line that confirms you were indeed being
cynical. Not saying you are wrong to be cynical, but you are (as am I).

~~~
rhizome
Still not cynical (nor hypocritical in case that's what you're implying), and
many change.org victories being _post hoc_ instances is demonstrable.

------
sultezdukes
We have a hyper-sensitive populace and so-called educators and "authorities"
that are continually trying to nanny-fy the U.S. Thirty years ago something
like this would have been laughed at as jr. mad scientist kid doing what jr.
mad scientist kids do.

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?

~~~
sehugg
They still sell them, but everything in them must be edible (seriously):

[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/27/do-modern-no-
chem...](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/27/do-modern-no-chemical-
chemistry-kits-for-kids-take-the-fun-out-of-science/#)

