Kiera Wilmot, student who caused small explosion, won't face charges(orlandosentinel.com)
orlandosentinel.com
Kiera Wilmot, student who caused small explosion, won't face charges
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-kiera-wilmot-no-prosecution-20130515,0,4556500.story
13 comments
As someone who has been prosecuted for a crime in Florida (it was semi-serious) and has had a few friends enter the pre-trial diversion program there I would like to point a few things out.
Pre-trial diversion isn't cheap if you are of limited means. You have monthly fees you have to pay and you likely have fines and penalties to pay too. A lapse in any of those payments can result in what is called a "writ" being issued. It is essentially a bench warrant for your arrest. I have had this happen to me. It sucks.
Kiera is 14 and so I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is not a drug user. However, if she is she better get clean soon. Florida loves to drug test people in an attempt to violate them on their probation. A failed drug test will have you removed from the diversion program and you will face the original charges in court.
Finally, if the diversion program is completed without incident there are some lasting effects. Even though the charges will ultimately go away there are some things that wont. For instance, a friend of mine recently applied for a job that did not simply ask if he had been convicted of a felony. It asked specifically if he had ever pleaded guilty, nolo contendere, or entered a pre-trial diversion program. Completing the program smoothly does not necessarily mean that this incident will be completely over for her.
Shame on the DA in this county for moving forward in this way. The police were stupid to arrest her in the first place but hey, that's what they do. Proceeding with criminal charges, particularly in a case where no one was hurt and no property was damaged, is completely at the discretion of the DA.
This is bullshit and no one should be pleased with this outcome.
Pre-trial diversion isn't cheap if you are of limited means. You have monthly fees you have to pay and you likely have fines and penalties to pay too. A lapse in any of those payments can result in what is called a "writ" being issued. It is essentially a bench warrant for your arrest. I have had this happen to me. It sucks.
Kiera is 14 and so I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is not a drug user. However, if she is she better get clean soon. Florida loves to drug test people in an attempt to violate them on their probation. A failed drug test will have you removed from the diversion program and you will face the original charges in court.
Finally, if the diversion program is completed without incident there are some lasting effects. Even though the charges will ultimately go away there are some things that wont. For instance, a friend of mine recently applied for a job that did not simply ask if he had been convicted of a felony. It asked specifically if he had ever pleaded guilty, nolo contendere, or entered a pre-trial diversion program. Completing the program smoothly does not necessarily mean that this incident will be completely over for her.
Shame on the DA in this county for moving forward in this way. The police were stupid to arrest her in the first place but hey, that's what they do. Proceeding with criminal charges, particularly in a case where no one was hurt and no property was damaged, is completely at the discretion of the DA.
This is bullshit and no one should be pleased with this outcome.
This is disgusting. Is this really how Florida treats its own? I grew up in Southern California and I blew out the circuits on my junior high's science building once. I got a firm talking to, a two-day suspension, and a uncool nickname out of it, but that was it.
It is worse than you think, here is a small excerpt about Florida students: In Florida, students have been arrested for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, throwing an eraser, and drawing a picture of a gun. The eleven-year-old who allegedly brought a plastic butter knife to school was handcuffed, taken to jail, and charged with a third-degree felony. Legislation recently passed unanimously by the Florida Senate could change all that by prohibiting schools from calling the police for nonviolent misdemeanors. "Throw an eraser and they want to call it throwing a deadly missile, which is a felony," said state Sen. Stephen Wise (R-Jacksonville), the senate sponsor of the legislation, which has yet to clear the state house. "When you get into the juvenile justice system everybody thinks your sins are forgiven when you turn 18, and I will assure you that doesn't happen. It's a blemish on your record." http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2009/june09/zero-tolerance...
I am personally aware of two FL elementary cases one where a student was charged for throwing a deadly missle, which was a paper ball, and the other a boy kissed a girl on the school playground and was charged with sexual harassment. I wish I could say I am joking...
I am personally aware of two FL elementary cases one where a student was charged for throwing a deadly missle, which was a paper ball, and the other a boy kissed a girl on the school playground and was charged with sexual harassment. I wish I could say I am joking...
Good thing the sea levels are rising..
> I got a firm talking to, a two-day suspension, and a uncool nickname out of it, but that was it.
Was this before, or after, the Columbine school shootings in 1999 and the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001?
Was this before, or after, the Columbine school shootings in 1999 and the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001?
I realise you haven't directly stated that you support these actions, I would like to make the following comment since it seams to me that you think school shootings and terrorist attacks are valid reasons for this behaviour.
I believe while you are under the impression your government and law enforcement agencies are just doing more to protect you, you are actually relinquishing your freedom in exchange for false hope and allowing your government to nerf the world, and allowing the terrorists to win.
Arresting 11 year olds for bringing a plastic knife to school is ridiculous behaviour and should not be allowed (or encounraged) under the guise of "protecting us from school attacks and terrorists".
(I say 'your' because I am actually a UK citizen. While the ridiculous behaviour of the Americans is not really a concern of mine, I worry that other countries and governments will follow suit. That said, we're not dumb enough to allow rampant legal gun ownership. Sorry.)
I believe while you are under the impression your government and law enforcement agencies are just doing more to protect you, you are actually relinquishing your freedom in exchange for false hope and allowing your government to nerf the world, and allowing the terrorists to win.
Arresting 11 year olds for bringing a plastic knife to school is ridiculous behaviour and should not be allowed (or encounraged) under the guise of "protecting us from school attacks and terrorists".
(I say 'your' because I am actually a UK citizen. While the ridiculous behaviour of the Americans is not really a concern of mine, I worry that other countries and governments will follow suit. That said, we're not dumb enough to allow rampant legal gun ownership. Sorry.)
> we're not dumb enough to allow rampant legal gun ownership
I respectfully submit that much of Europe's "enlightenment" in this area (including the UK) is not due to the wisdom and foresight of its leaders, but due to the historical accident that it was already densely populated when firearms were invented.
Widespread gun ownership was a reasonable decision in the US at the colonies' inception, and once it's implemented, the switching costs of changing to restricted ownership permanently become high. I'll elaborate on this:
When the US colonies first started, they had a tiny population trying to hold their own, spread out in a vast wilderness. A gun can be used to defend against criminals, hostile natives, or can be used for hunting. Remember, homes were often miles apart, there were no telephones to dial 911, and the nearest police force might be in one of relatively few cities or forts, tens or hundreds of miles away. Not letting people own weapons would have made the colonists' lives much harder.
Once enough guns are out there, it gets harder and harder to argue that they should be outlawed, because:
(1) A culture of gun ownership develops, which will be upset if you try to take them away
(2) A sizable number of guns will presumably escape the confiscation program and enter the hands of criminals
Add to this, the country's experiences during the war of independence convinced its founders of the benefits of empowering the citizens to rise up against foreign invaders or an oppressive government.
As for why there's not more support for "common-sense regulation," no less a hacker than Eric S. Raymond has recently given a cogent explanation [1] [2].
[1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912
[2] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939
I respectfully submit that much of Europe's "enlightenment" in this area (including the UK) is not due to the wisdom and foresight of its leaders, but due to the historical accident that it was already densely populated when firearms were invented.
Widespread gun ownership was a reasonable decision in the US at the colonies' inception, and once it's implemented, the switching costs of changing to restricted ownership permanently become high. I'll elaborate on this:
When the US colonies first started, they had a tiny population trying to hold their own, spread out in a vast wilderness. A gun can be used to defend against criminals, hostile natives, or can be used for hunting. Remember, homes were often miles apart, there were no telephones to dial 911, and the nearest police force might be in one of relatively few cities or forts, tens or hundreds of miles away. Not letting people own weapons would have made the colonists' lives much harder.
Once enough guns are out there, it gets harder and harder to argue that they should be outlawed, because:
(1) A culture of gun ownership develops, which will be upset if you try to take them away
(2) A sizable number of guns will presumably escape the confiscation program and enter the hands of criminals
Add to this, the country's experiences during the war of independence convinced its founders of the benefits of empowering the citizens to rise up against foreign invaders or an oppressive government.
As for why there's not more support for "common-sense regulation," no less a hacker than Eric S. Raymond has recently given a cogent explanation [1] [2].
[1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912
[2] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939
Nor did it indirectly state it. It's certainly true that those events resulted in increased sensitivity towards school violence and explosions, so it's worth asking what context the GP's actions happened in-- doesn't imply the sensitivity is a good idea. I don't believe you can read any value judgement out of csense's comment at all. Don't put words in other people's mouths and then lecture them about it.
Edit: clarity
Edit: clarity
You read so much of your own bias into parent's comment it is not funny. Nowhere is it stated, explicitly or implicitly, that poster believes those events to be valid justifications. His point is that in current American society, those events are used as justifications for restrictive laws, which is undeniably true.
To parrot your sentiment, arresting random girls for wearing fancy dresses around the time of the royal wedding is ridiculous behaviour and should not be allowed (or encouraged) under the guise of "imminent breach of the peace".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/19/arrest-w...
My point is, please drop your anti-American superiority complex. You Brits do plenty of ridiculous things too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/19/arrest-w...
My point is, please drop your anti-American superiority complex. You Brits do plenty of ridiculous things too.
I will say in predominantly minority schools in Florida it has always been like this. If you were a certain race, class, or acamdemic level you were treated differently. A friend of mine (white and ESL, or gifted) threw some acid in my face one time by accident and we had a class discussion on lab safety. Another friend (poor, black, and academically behind) was suspended from school for using the face washer. No class discussion on lab safety in that case.
Columbine wasn't the first school shooting[0], and 9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_sec... (The list begins with an incident in 1853)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_sec... (The list begins with an incident in 1853)
Columbine had a major effect on the way US schools deal with violence, threats or even just weird kids.
9/11 had a profound effect on how the US deals with terrorism, threats of terrorism or even just brown people.
Certainly not the first, but probably the events with the most lasting effects.
9/11 had a profound effect on how the US deals with terrorism, threats of terrorism or even just brown people.
Certainly not the first, but probably the events with the most lasting effects.
it changed everything dont you see
(why do you hate america)
(why do you hate america)
> It asked specifically if he had ever pleaded guilty, nolo contendere, or entered a pre-trial diversion program. Completing the program smoothly does not necessarily mean that this incident will be completely over for her.
That is shady. It seems like there should be a law preventing them from asking that. The whole point is so the record goes away if it doesn't, might as well fight it in court.
I have seen these questions on forms. Usually phrased as "have you ever been arrested?". Interesting. Even speed tickets have an entry as "date of arrest" even though there is not physical arrest going on. Does that qualify? Can someone not be arrested but charged with a crime, tried and serve jail time? I don't know of all the technicalities.
Also think about this, how do these "background check" companies find out about this supposedly sealed and then expunged record?
That is shady. It seems like there should be a law preventing them from asking that. The whole point is so the record goes away if it doesn't, might as well fight it in court.
I have seen these questions on forms. Usually phrased as "have you ever been arrested?". Interesting. Even speed tickets have an entry as "date of arrest" even though there is not physical arrest going on. Does that qualify? Can someone not be arrested but charged with a crime, tried and serve jail time? I don't know of all the technicalities.
Also think about this, how do these "background check" companies find out about this supposedly sealed and then expunged record?
It is a little shady. The job application on which my friend encountered that question was actually for a public sector job with the state. I have been asked the same thing for a private sector job. My girlfriend has also been asked the same thing to work for a pre-school. All in Florida.
Edit: I'd like to add that I have moved back to New York (where I am from). My girlfriend is moving in January. Fuck Florida.
Edit: I'd like to add that I have moved back to New York (where I am from). My girlfriend is moving in January. Fuck Florida.
> Also think about this, how do these "background check" companies find out about this supposedly sealed and then expunged record?
In a case like this, they would have a whole bunch of news articles to go on. It is likely to show up on Google for quite some time.
In a case like this, they would have a whole bunch of news articles to go on. It is likely to show up on Google for quite some time.
In this case it may be a good thing. Anyone who reads this account (anyone reasonable at least) will think. "Bright student with an interest in science trying a fun science experiment." Then they'll hire her, or not, based on her qualifications. At least in a perfect world...
In and ideal world this would happen. Most likely they won't even bother with the context, just see there was an arrest made and filed it under rejected.
I think background checks are usually done at the point when you've decided to make an offer, and take the form of "is there something she's not telling us?". At that point, she will have had a chance to disclose the incident in context, so at least the context is considered.
According to this article[1], the employer has to "have a legal release form completed by the applicant, inform that person of his/her rights, and provide that applicant with a copy of the report, as well as adverse actions communications".
If she's rejected on the back of an incident that's not on her criminal record, but found on Google, she's going to have a pretty good case against the employer.
1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-...
According to this article[1], the employer has to "have a legal release form completed by the applicant, inform that person of his/her rights, and provide that applicant with a copy of the report, as well as adverse actions communications".
If she's rejected on the back of an incident that's not on her criminal record, but found on Google, she's going to have a pretty good case against the employer.
1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-...
In at will employment states this will be close to impossible. Simple loophole -- hire her first, then fire next month due to "urgent restructuring" or "non-performance" good luck with that.
The original worry was not over that the evidence of her actions might be used against her, it was that they might be used without the context, presumably by an algorithm or a mindless HR drone.
If you go through the trouble of hiring someone, you'll have the context. I can't immediately think of a job where it'd reasonable count against her, but it's not inconceivable that a such could exist - and if it did, she'd be wrong to withhold it.
If you go through the trouble of hiring someone, you'll have the context. I can't immediately think of a job where it'd reasonable count against her, but it's not inconceivable that a such could exist - and if it did, she'd be wrong to withhold it.
I would just like to say, as someone who has gone through a similar probation program, that dopamean is absolutely correct.
This may be better than a conviction, but Kiera is not out of the woods and this moment of hijinks at age 14 may follow her for life. At least she has popular support and the attention of the media, many young Americans face these laws without that benefit and it is a scary road to walk.
This may be better than a conviction, but Kiera is not out of the woods and this moment of hijinks at age 14 may follow her for life. At least she has popular support and the attention of the media, many young Americans face these laws without that benefit and it is a scary road to walk.
It's already fucked her life. This fiasco is going to be the top result of any future searches potential employers will see. This is just a pure god damn disgrace to humanity and the DA, the cops, fucking EVERYONE involved should be prosecuted for the bullshit they're putting this poor student through. This is not right.
True, but I expect that for a number of potential employers, it will increase her chances. Not everyone who goes a Google search on her name and finds things like this will immediately stop consider hiring her. Some will actually think it's positive.
I could, for instance: it's certainly a demonstration that she has intellectual curiosity, which is good in some jobs. In some of the better jobs, actually. These jobs could be a minority, but in the end, you usually have only one job at a time anyway...
I could, for instance: it's certainly a demonstration that she has intellectual curiosity, which is good in some jobs. In some of the better jobs, actually. These jobs could be a minority, but in the end, you usually have only one job at a time anyway...
I hope not, I hope that anyone that googles her is as outraged as we are and won't hold it against her. If she is interviewed by right minded people it might even be a nice thing to talk about.
This would have never reached the extent it did if most people were right minded. We are not the norm in America.
Sounds like name-changing time.
Though don't get me wrong, I do think it's absolutely disgusting to punish someone so disproportionately for something that should have been handled by a swift telling off.
Though don't get me wrong, I do think it's absolutely disgusting to punish someone so disproportionately for something that should have been handled by a swift telling off.
Yep. So, she has pled guilty, been placed on probation, will have to comply with the probation terms, been kicked out of her high school and sent to another school for child-criminals where I'm sure the education will be absolutely stellar, and there's probably about a 50% chance that this criminal record will follow her around for the rest of her life (somehow, it seems that a lot of these supposedly-sealed convictions end up on adult criminal background checks).
Job well done. One scientist eliminated from useful society.
Job well done. One scientist eliminated from useful society.
Her first statement while being interviewed was that she was performing a science experiment. That story changed under interview, and she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it. The outpouring of support from renowned scientists and legal funds happily ignored that point, and stuck with the "science experiment" angle.
So, no, this is not an anti-science campaign by the government, regardless of how really hard we want to believe that she's aspiring to science. These things will blind you and take limbs off if you mishandle them. They have blown up on police officers after being left in an alley because they didn't detonate when kids make them. Then they just leave them for other people to clean up.
Even if you buy the science experiment angle, which she herself went back on, this is a safety issue from the completely reckless way in which she performed a "science experiment", similar to detonating a pipe bomb on school property just to see what happens. Oh, how the narrative would be different if she had built a pipe bomb instead.
Honestly, guys, we have this one wrong. Here's several other cases for your consideration, showing how big this problem is (the reason arrests are picking up is because LEOs are communicating about this, now that kids are starting to do it more):
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/04/grosse_p...
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=... (from TODAY)
http://www.ktvb.com/news/crime/Five-more-plastic-bottle-expl...
http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Police-warn-about-plastic-bo...
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
This is a serious problem, not an opportunity to "win another scientist," and the narrative around this case has been disgusting. Reckless behavior and endangering yourself and others intentionally is not the hallmark of a scientist, no matter how much you want the science angle to be true.
So, no, this is not an anti-science campaign by the government, regardless of how really hard we want to believe that she's aspiring to science. These things will blind you and take limbs off if you mishandle them. They have blown up on police officers after being left in an alley because they didn't detonate when kids make them. Then they just leave them for other people to clean up.
Even if you buy the science experiment angle, which she herself went back on, this is a safety issue from the completely reckless way in which she performed a "science experiment", similar to detonating a pipe bomb on school property just to see what happens. Oh, how the narrative would be different if she had built a pipe bomb instead.
Honestly, guys, we have this one wrong. Here's several other cases for your consideration, showing how big this problem is (the reason arrests are picking up is because LEOs are communicating about this, now that kids are starting to do it more):
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/04/grosse_p...
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=... (from TODAY)
http://www.ktvb.com/news/crime/Five-more-plastic-bottle-expl...
http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Police-warn-about-plastic-bo...
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
This is a serious problem, not an opportunity to "win another scientist," and the narrative around this case has been disgusting. Reckless behavior and endangering yourself and others intentionally is not the hallmark of a scientist, no matter how much you want the science angle to be true.
No, we have it right. People like you need to stop convicting everybody in our society for momentary instances of foolish behavior. Who cares if it was a ad-hoc experiment or something she saw on YouTube that her friends were trying to get her do? It's still science, and performing it without all the permissions and safety precautions doesn't change that. Even if it just a bunch of kids who just wanted to see something blow up. It's cause and effect. Learning and growing. Yeah, it was stupid, but you learn from stupid things.
Regardless of all that, the charges are completely over the top. Community service, detention, suspension, sure. But the county was trying to charge her with a felony! I did stuff like that in junior high too, because I wanted to see the reaction. I learned from it though, and grew, because I didn't become an instant criminal and have my entire life ruined.
Congratulations, now we just put another young person into the system that strips away the chance to succeed and condemns her, for life, to one childhood mistake.
Regardless of all that, the charges are completely over the top. Community service, detention, suspension, sure. But the county was trying to charge her with a felony! I did stuff like that in junior high too, because I wanted to see the reaction. I learned from it though, and grew, because I didn't become an instant criminal and have my entire life ruined.
Congratulations, now we just put another young person into the system that strips away the chance to succeed and condemns her, for life, to one childhood mistake.
Endangering yourself for curiosity is pretty much the absolute definition of a scientist. By definition, when you do something where you're not sure what it will do - that is, science - it's possibly dangerous.
Let's keep in mind: this incident, where no one was injured or harmed in the slightest, is being punished infinitely more severely than destroying the entire world financial system has been. Because, hey, poor black girl in Florida.
Interestingly, of all your links, not one caused even the slightest injury or slightest property damage. Injuries seem to be rather rare (and plastic shrapnel would lose velocity within a couple of feet).
Let's keep in mind: this incident, where no one was injured or harmed in the slightest, is being punished infinitely more severely than destroying the entire world financial system has been. Because, hey, poor black girl in Florida.
Interestingly, of all your links, not one caused even the slightest injury or slightest property damage. Injuries seem to be rather rare (and plastic shrapnel would lose velocity within a couple of feet).
I can think of another female who endangered herself for curiousity's sake, and the body of scientific knowledge this world possesses is infinitely better for it.
In that particular person's case she wasn't arrested. Instead, it resulted in her becoming the only person ever to receive two Nobel prizes in two separate areas of science.
Go figure.
In that particular person's case she wasn't arrested. Instead, it resulted in her becoming the only person ever to receive two Nobel prizes in two separate areas of science.
Go figure.
Did she (or anyone else) realise the magnitude of the danger at the time though? I'd imagine she would have taken more precautions if so. Even now, her papers require protective clothing and cautious handling due to their contamination.
Oh please, I've blown up so much stuff when I was younger, and it was instrumental in encouraging me to learn about science.
Did people get hurt? No.
Was she doing it to hurt people? No.
Was she doing it for attention? No.
She was doing it out of curiosity. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a criminal.
We must look at this in terms of mens rea.
She needs a stern talking to, and probably at least a suspension from school. If they really want to escalate this to an expulsion, fine, but criminal consequences? Probation? Jail? Completely ridiculous.
Like there aren't enough actual criminals to prosecute.
Did people get hurt? No.
Was she doing it to hurt people? No.
Was she doing it for attention? No.
She was doing it out of curiosity. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a criminal.
We must look at this in terms of mens rea.
She needs a stern talking to, and probably at least a suspension from school. If they really want to escalate this to an expulsion, fine, but criminal consequences? Probation? Jail? Completely ridiculous.
Like there aren't enough actual criminals to prosecute.
>That story changed under interview,
You go be a 17 year old kid who's never been in trouble before and let's see how tough you are in an interview room with a few cops for a few hours.
You go be a 17 year old kid who's never been in trouble before and let's see how tough you are in an interview room with a few cops for a few hours.
now that kids are starting to do it more
Do you have citations to show that this was a bigger problem now then it was 10/20/30/40 years ago? Plenty of folks blew shit up during my day.
she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it
Link? I hadn't head this and 5 minutes of Googling hasn't turned anything up.
Do you have citations to show that this was a bigger problem now then it was 10/20/30/40 years ago? Plenty of folks blew shit up during my day.
she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it
Link? I hadn't head this and 5 minutes of Googling hasn't turned anything up.
Starting to do it more?
15 years ago, the grocery stores in my home town wouldn't sell The Works to teenagers.
15 years ago, the grocery stores in my home town wouldn't sell The Works to teenagers.
About the same time the store workers in my town would call the police / fire department when we bought aqua net and/or starter fluid. (I guess 5 teenage dudes buying multiple cans of hairspray was a bit obvious.)
Never did get in trouble with our potato guns. I'm sure I'd already be in jail if it were this day.
Never did get in trouble with our potato guns. I'm sure I'd already be in jail if it were this day.
Your advocacy for throwing kids into the heavy handed justice system is a much bigger menace to society than Kiera.
You are correct about the probation portion, but she did not plead guilty to enter diversion, it is typically no contest to the charges until she completes the diversion program (probation) then the no contest is converted to either a "nolle prosecution" or "withhold of adjudication". Otherwise I agree with you this is not the same as the State dropping the charges, but this is not the same as a guilty plea or conviction.
Additionally, the record is not erased, but she would have the option to seal or expunge her record after a period of time governed by Florida Statute. Of course both military and Feds can always see sealed/expunged records (not that the public will not generally remember this name for some time to come) and if she ever wanted to join a bar (despite being interested in science now, this experience may encourage her to become an attorney fight this kind of injustice on a daily basis), they generally make you unseal your record.
Additionally, the record is not erased, but she would have the option to seal or expunge her record after a period of time governed by Florida Statute. Of course both military and Feds can always see sealed/expunged records (not that the public will not generally remember this name for some time to come) and if she ever wanted to join a bar (despite being interested in science now, this experience may encourage her to become an attorney fight this kind of injustice on a daily basis), they generally make you unseal your record.
True, charges were not dropped. I'm mad that she had to sign a guilty plea. Even if the terms are light, as I'd expect and as they should be, she shouldn't have to plead guilty to anything.
These "zero tolerance" policies turn into decisions with zero judgement and sense. Indeed, they're intended to remove human judgement from the equation.
These "zero tolerance" policies turn into decisions with zero judgement and sense. Indeed, they're intended to remove human judgement from the equation.
I think you're incorrect about this, and would appreciate a source. From my understanding of pre-trial diversion, it does not involve any admission of guilt... If the defendant does not complete the probation period successfully, the charges are reinstated and dealt with in court. Guilt is not pre-determined.
You are correct there is no admission or guilty plea involved.
Dude, did you read the article:
>"The pending case has been dismissed. No formal charges will be filed," read the office's statement.
>"The pending case has been dismissed. No formal charges will be filed," read the office's statement.
The assholes at the state attorney's office gave her a "diversion of prosecution" instead of completely dropping the matter. And the school district is still considering further disciplinary actions.
The state attorney and the school district are the ones that should be expelled.
The state attorney and the school district are the ones that should be expelled.
> The source article is a much more complete and informative story http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ki....
Indeed. From that article, it's not an unconditional dropping of charges:
> The office of State Attorney Jerry Hill, whose jurisdiction includes Polk, said that it extended "an offer of diversion of prosecution to the child." That typically means a probationary-like program that allows the youngster to perform community service or meet other conditions and then avoid a criminal record.
> Brian Haas, an assistant state attorney and spokesman for the office, said he could not provide details of the diversion-program agreement reached in a juvenile's case. But he said the teenager and her guardian had signed the agreement.
Indeed. From that article, it's not an unconditional dropping of charges:
> The office of State Attorney Jerry Hill, whose jurisdiction includes Polk, said that it extended "an offer of diversion of prosecution to the child." That typically means a probationary-like program that allows the youngster to perform community service or meet other conditions and then avoid a criminal record.
> Brian Haas, an assistant state attorney and spokesman for the office, said he could not provide details of the diversion-program agreement reached in a juvenile's case. But he said the teenager and her guardian had signed the agreement.
The arbitrariness of the prosecution in the US is just staggering. Here you have this young lady who did something stupidly dangerous, pled guilty, and has been shipped off to an "alternative school" (read: school for criminals-in-training).
On the other hand you have the Texas Tech explosion, (http://www.csb.gov/texas-tech-university-chemistry-lab-explo...), where a fifth-year grad student (!) was told to prepare 100 mg of a genuinely fickle explosive, but instead cooked up 10 grams, which he then ground in a mortar (!!), and it predictably exploded, injuring the fellow gravely.
His fellow students had concerns about his working habits, which are on the record, and neither the student, nor his supervisor were charged with anything. This isn't correct.
On the other hand you have the Texas Tech explosion, (http://www.csb.gov/texas-tech-university-chemistry-lab-explo...), where a fifth-year grad student (!) was told to prepare 100 mg of a genuinely fickle explosive, but instead cooked up 10 grams, which he then ground in a mortar (!!), and it predictably exploded, injuring the fellow gravely.
His fellow students had concerns about his working habits, which are on the record, and neither the student, nor his supervisor were charged with anything. This isn't correct.
Ah, beg to differ. The young lady in question is of the duskier race and therefore the prosecution was not arbitrary; but according to long and traditional standards designed to maintain the social hierarchy without which society would crumble.
//satirical if that's not obvious.
//satirical if that's not obvious.
While I don't think she ought to have been charged as a criminal, calling this "an unauthorized science experiment which lightly damaged an eight ounce plastic water bottle" is blatantly dishonest. As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up. People could have been injured (google drano bombs). Again, I don't condone legal action against her, but praising her as a scientist doesn't seem like the right course of action either.
Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with explosions - 'for science' or otherwise. I have a problem with explosions on school property, unsanctioned by professors, and without proper (or any) safety equipment.
Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with explosions - 'for science' or otherwise. I have a problem with explosions on school property, unsanctioned by professors, and without proper (or any) safety equipment.
Blowing something up--even for only the sake of seeing what happens (exclusive of malicious intent)--is at it's core a scientific endeavor. From DNLee at the Scientific American blog[1]:
>I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps.
I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions.
[1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2
>I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps.
I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions.
[1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2
My highschool physics teacher used to say that children are the world's youngest scientists. Every time they throw something, drop their food on the floor, climb something, fall down, etc. they are conducting an experiment to study the laws of physics.
So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right?
Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'?
There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.
Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'?
There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.
Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons.
Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?
You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons.
Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?
> Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.
No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive.
It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.
No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive.
It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.
I was referring mainly to Hacker News and similar communities. Everybody condemning her has been downvoted to oblivion on these threads.
I condemned her for what she did, but I also said that it was stupid for the school to involve police, and that it was something that should have been dealt with in school.
I was not downvoted.
I was not downvoted.
Yes, if you're curious what a pipe bomb explosion would be like, then I think you should investigate that curiosity safely with safeguards in place.
If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place.
And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity.
And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.
If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place.
And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity.
And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.
Comparing a pipe bomb to a plastic bottle pressure "bomb" is like comparing a gun shot to a nerf dart.
>Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent,
I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't.
>Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work,
That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.
I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't.
>Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work,
That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.
Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.
It was your idea. You were blowing things way out of proportion too, and I don't really mean it. I'm sorry. Now come down from there.
If you knew inhaling anthrax powder would kill you, why did you suggest it in the first place?
To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.
To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.
Most of the backlash comes from the over reaction of the school and the DA. While her decision was not wise and definitely had some risk, I do not know exactly how she cared out this demonstration so the amount or risk is rather unknown to me, she is faced with punishment that could reasonably cripple her future.
To answer these questions in the order they were posed: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
To be as blunt as possible, if you take "blowing stuff up" off the table of inquiry then you are stunting intellectual curiosity by an enormous degree.
Lest we forget, the most prestigious prizes in all of science, the Nobels, were created by a man who invented explosives.
Lest we forget, the most prestigious prizes in all of science, the Nobels, were created by a man who invented explosives.
The Nobel prize was specifically invented so Nobel would be remembered for something other than blowing things up, after he read an obituary describing him as "the merchant of death"
The funny thing is that by far the bulk of commercial explosives have always been used in industry, not in war.
To add another person into the equation, consider Fritz Haber. He invented a process to synthesize ammonia on commercial scales cost effectively. In doing so he made explosives and gun powder far more economical, but also fertilizer. His work is responsible for a significant escalation in the efficiency and lethality of warfare (he also pioneered chemical warfare, as an aside) but also for feeding roughly half of the entire population of Earth at this point.
That's the nature of science, it's not easy it's not safe it's not without risk, it's not without moral quandaries. The way to attack these problems is not to try to neuter intellectual curiosity, to replace everything in a chemistry set with water, to replace tools with their nerf equivalents, to put people in jail when they venture too close to danger. The correct way is to ensure that people learn from their mistakes, and to make sure that people acquire a sense of what sorts of things tend to be dangerous and how to be properly prepared for handling those situations, or, when warranted, avoiding them.
The same lessons apply to using computers. It's simply not possible to have a robust curiosity about programming, systems, or computing in general without acquiring dangerous knowledge. And it's extremely unlikely for folks to go through their formative years of learning these things without one or more excursions into dangerous behavior.
To add another person into the equation, consider Fritz Haber. He invented a process to synthesize ammonia on commercial scales cost effectively. In doing so he made explosives and gun powder far more economical, but also fertilizer. His work is responsible for a significant escalation in the efficiency and lethality of warfare (he also pioneered chemical warfare, as an aside) but also for feeding roughly half of the entire population of Earth at this point.
That's the nature of science, it's not easy it's not safe it's not without risk, it's not without moral quandaries. The way to attack these problems is not to try to neuter intellectual curiosity, to replace everything in a chemistry set with water, to replace tools with their nerf equivalents, to put people in jail when they venture too close to danger. The correct way is to ensure that people learn from their mistakes, and to make sure that people acquire a sense of what sorts of things tend to be dangerous and how to be properly prepared for handling those situations, or, when warranted, avoiding them.
The same lessons apply to using computers. It's simply not possible to have a robust curiosity about programming, systems, or computing in general without acquiring dangerous knowledge. And it's extremely unlikely for folks to go through their formative years of learning these things without one or more excursions into dangerous behavior.
It is a strange world we live in when making Drano bombs at a high school is compared to the work of Alfred Nobel.
Dude, everyone starts somewhere. She was 16 year old honor student when she did this. With the interest and aptitude she will go somewhere.
You or your friends didn't do anything destructive in high school and get away with it? I did...
You or your friends didn't do anything destructive in high school and get away with it? I did...
The point is that the spirit of scientific inquiry cannot be divorced from risk, danger, and even the occasional mischief. As we've heard over and over and over again, it is commonplace for folks who are going through their formative years and interested in science to do things like create experiments which go horribly awry or even to get up to dangerous mischief. As I mentioned elsewhere, there are appropriate ways to ensure that people learn the right lessons about potentially dangerous activities. And the right way is not "don't ever do it, don't even think about it, you'll be punished severely".
[deleted]
I think that once you charge someone with a felony for something that is pretty clearly not felonious, you basically eliminate the possibility of a middle ground. She'll be glorified or vilified (or both), but I think the ship has sailed for anything else. It would be nice if we could all sit down and have a rational discussion about just when it's OK to blow stuff up and what was right and wrong about this instance, but it seems to be essentially impossible now.
She is 16. I made far larger explosions when I was younger and older. Of course, I didn't do it on school property, but it's clear her interests were not at all sinister. Criminal charges are ridiculous. I would think detention would be more appropriate or calling her parents.
Have you ever tried making a drano bomb?
It's dangerous because its possible to lose some digits if you hold the thing in your hand too long, but if someone were intentionally trying to lose a finger that way, they would find it more difficult than they imagined.
It's dangerous because its possible to lose some digits if you hold the thing in your hand too long, but if someone were intentionally trying to lose a finger that way, they would find it more difficult than they imagined.
I blew up all kinds of stuff when I was a kid. Why? because I was interested in seeing what woud happen. That doesn't make me a criminal.
I completely agree. She went back on her story that she was doing a science experiment while being interviewed, but everybody wants to stick to that story anyway. It's almost like everybody in the world wants her to be a scientist, and I pay dearly every time I raise this point here. I don't get it.
I don't get it.
Maybe it's because actual, grown-up scientists who nurtured their youthful interest in science by blowing things up were hoping that she'd be impressed by their support and decide to become a scientist herself.
Maybe it's because actual, grown-up scientists who nurtured their youthful interest in science by blowing things up were hoping that she'd be impressed by their support and decide to become a scientist herself.
And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people? Reckless is not a quality of a scientist. Why didn't we, the public, extend an invitation to "become a scientist" and pour support and legal defense funds to the Novato teenagers arrested for making the exact same thing OFF school property[1]? It's a felony charge in California, as well.
> But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.
Let me be clear: mishandling one of these devices can blind you and remove limbs, and even if you buy the "I'm doing a science experiment" angle, she's doing it without training or safety considerations. This is a safety issue, not a science-hating issue, and there have been many charged and convicted before this young lady. I hate that we absolutely cannot have an objective conversation about this.
[1]: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
> But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.
Let me be clear: mishandling one of these devices can blind you and remove limbs, and even if you buy the "I'm doing a science experiment" angle, she's doing it without training or safety considerations. This is a safety issue, not a science-hating issue, and there have been many charged and convicted before this young lady. I hate that we absolutely cannot have an objective conversation about this.
[1]: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people?
God damn it this is the whole point! Obviously if she had killed other people the story would be different. But she didn't. She blew shit up in an open place for reasons that were not sinister.
Motive matters. The reason she's getting so much support is because what she did resonates with so many of us, and we sense a kindred spirit.
Maybe you see her as a little terrorist-in-training who will use her new-found knowledge to blow up a marathon or something, but I have no reason to think that. I see a kid who heard about this from someone and thought "Wow, if I mix these ingredients in a plastic bottle there will be an explosion. Cool!" And then because she got off her ass and actually DID something rather than watch youtube videos or TV, she's far ahead of her peers.
I lived at a dorm at MIT which was known for several times a year making a coffee-mate bomb. The explosion was loud and the flames leapt up 5 stories, and then everyone would scatter before the MIT police inevitably arrived. It was fun.
God damn it this is the whole point! Obviously if she had killed other people the story would be different. But she didn't. She blew shit up in an open place for reasons that were not sinister.
Motive matters. The reason she's getting so much support is because what she did resonates with so many of us, and we sense a kindred spirit.
Maybe you see her as a little terrorist-in-training who will use her new-found knowledge to blow up a marathon or something, but I have no reason to think that. I see a kid who heard about this from someone and thought "Wow, if I mix these ingredients in a plastic bottle there will be an explosion. Cool!" And then because she got off her ass and actually DID something rather than watch youtube videos or TV, she's far ahead of her peers.
I lived at a dorm at MIT which was known for several times a year making a coffee-mate bomb. The explosion was loud and the flames leapt up 5 stories, and then everyone would scatter before the MIT police inevitably arrived. It was fun.
How many people out there didn't do something reckless in their youth? By the standards modern society seems to be applying to youth, the vast majority of present day adults should have been charged with felonies in their teens.
From your link: Police said no one in Novato has been injured by a bottle bomb so far. But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.
Note that nobody was hurt, and that the teenagers were using an open space. That sounds like the teenagers were following reasonable safety precautions.
From another HN thread on the subject: ... 2Al + 3H2SO4 -> 3H2 + Al2(SO4)3 is not on the prohibited list of reactions that are federally impermissible without a license. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636823)
What felony would these kids be guilty of committing?
You know who should have been arrested? The guy I knew years ago (whose dad was a sheriff letting him off the hook, and who was definitely not a friend) who threw a Drano+foil bomb at a pedestrian and drove off. His favorite part of the story was the "hilarious" screams of the victim as the bomb exploded: "It burns!"
From your link: Police said no one in Novato has been injured by a bottle bomb so far. But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.
Note that nobody was hurt, and that the teenagers were using an open space. That sounds like the teenagers were following reasonable safety precautions.
From another HN thread on the subject: ... 2Al + 3H2SO4 -> 3H2 + Al2(SO4)3 is not on the prohibited list of reactions that are federally impermissible without a license. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636823)
What felony would these kids be guilty of committing?
You know who should have been arrested? The guy I knew years ago (whose dad was a sheriff letting him off the hook, and who was definitely not a friend) who threw a Drano+foil bomb at a pedestrian and drove off. His favorite part of the story was the "hilarious" screams of the victim as the bomb exploded: "It burns!"
Can you point to any specific incident of anyone anywhere on Earth at any time in human history being blinded or losing a limb, or even a finger, by either a dry ice bomb, draino bomb, or an HCL bomb in a plastic bottle?
As duaneb below points out, her intentions were not sinister. Negligence can be a crime, but do we really charge minors with crimes of negligence? Isn't that part of the problem of being a minor?
Given that it wasn't done with malicious intent, this is a matter for school disciplining, not court time.
Given that it wasn't done with malicious intent, this is a matter for school disciplining, not court time.
As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up.
Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
True, but in this case, they were, because she was blowing something up... not conducting a science experiment. Which was the point of his post.
"Experiment" in this case has, I think, a somewhat fuzzy definition. From her perspective, calling it a "science experiment" probably makes perfect sense.
Yeah, maybe cooking meth is a science experiment too in a certain light.
OK, well call it what it really is then: a science demonstration.
Her first statement while being interviewed was that she was performing a science experiment. That story changed under interview, and she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it.
That story changed under interview
You've mentioned that a couple of times here. Can you point us to a link?
You've mentioned that a couple of times here. Can you point us to a link?
How is the former different from the latter? Is that not still science? Are you not doing science if a teacher directs you to perform experiments for a grade?
You mean, aside from the one being empirical, and the other just being a pyrotechnics demo?
It makes no difference with respect to her punishment. It was unfair no matter what. I'm just pointing out the technicality.
It makes no difference with respect to her punishment. It was unfair no matter what. I'm just pointing out the technicality.
The point of mixing the chemicals and doing the procedure yourself is to understand it properly. Just being told about it in vague terms is far inferior in terms of learning.
It becomes a mere 'demo' once you're well-practiced in the specific procedure. And she wasn't.
It becomes a mere 'demo' once you're well-practiced in the specific procedure. And she wasn't.
@dylan -- no kidding, that's why my comment says "With respect to her punishment"
[deleted]
I'm curious, what is your underlying motivation for taking a contrarian position in this discussion?
Edit: I ask because I'd like to think that a thread on HN can come to some kind of understanding instead of an escalating spiral of heated arguments.
Edit: I ask because I'd like to think that a thread on HN can come to some kind of understanding instead of an escalating spiral of heated arguments.
Look around at the replies to me and the downvote beating I'm taking for sharing my opinion. Turn on showdead for an even more depressing trip through my replies. Then ask yourself if this can ever come to an understanding without me seeing the "error of my ways" and adopting the "acceptable" position of this community. Then, go even further, and ask yourself if it matters one iota of a shit more than the several minutes I've already spent subjecting myself to this beating, including someone telling me I should play with anthrax and die for fuck's sake. Then turning it around on me and calling it my fault after I called him out on it (and got downvoted yet fucking again for doing so!).
The answer is, very clearly, absolutely not on all accounts. Hacker News does not tolerate dissenting opinion and that should scare you. The continued existence of this community and any contribution is plainly pointless, and while I'd invest a little time demonstrating that to you, I know that nobody will listen, I'll turn light gray, and this community will go back to having a grand old time patting themselves on the back throwing money at a Florida teenager they have never, and will never, meet nor hear about ever again.
One of the (many) problems in our discourse today is that there is no middle. No compromise. Ever. Look at American politics for an example. Even in this discussion here, there was no possible suggestion that I might be a little right, no possible seeking of an understanding, no middle ground. You either think this girl deserves our showering of praise and affection or you suffer the consequences and get grayed to nonexistence.
No, nitrogen. I'm done. You guys can have your polarized, pointless discussion, and I will go back to keeping my opinions to myself. Just like I'm pretty much done with this industry, as well, because it seems like the number of intolerable people that I have to spend nine to five arguing with, over pointless shit like this, continues to multiply until I don't want to listen any more.
I started this account when a good guy, Jesse Noller, had has life threatened by the very people in this industry for daring to intervene in the PyCon situation. I hoped that maybe, just maybe, I could effect some change and get people to see that there is a middle, there is a compromise, there is an opportunity for discussion. When I follow the community, I am rewarded with heaps of karma -- including one comment with dozens of upvotes for saying what HN wants to hear. When I dare speak against the community, as I have here, I am reminded why I keep my distance and why those of us who think rationally consider this community a heaping pile of arrogant shit. You should hear what people outside HN say about it, based on discussions like this. Congratulations, HN. You're now Slashdot. You're now the community that in a single thread compared a teenager that built a bomb in a two-liter bottle to Alfred Nobel and Marie Curie.
In the hours since you left this question for me, I went to see a film and forgot about Hacker News for four hours, and it was four glorious, wonderful hours I intend to repeat. Continuously, for the rest of my days.
The answer is, very clearly, absolutely not on all accounts. Hacker News does not tolerate dissenting opinion and that should scare you. The continued existence of this community and any contribution is plainly pointless, and while I'd invest a little time demonstrating that to you, I know that nobody will listen, I'll turn light gray, and this community will go back to having a grand old time patting themselves on the back throwing money at a Florida teenager they have never, and will never, meet nor hear about ever again.
One of the (many) problems in our discourse today is that there is no middle. No compromise. Ever. Look at American politics for an example. Even in this discussion here, there was no possible suggestion that I might be a little right, no possible seeking of an understanding, no middle ground. You either think this girl deserves our showering of praise and affection or you suffer the consequences and get grayed to nonexistence.
No, nitrogen. I'm done. You guys can have your polarized, pointless discussion, and I will go back to keeping my opinions to myself. Just like I'm pretty much done with this industry, as well, because it seems like the number of intolerable people that I have to spend nine to five arguing with, over pointless shit like this, continues to multiply until I don't want to listen any more.
I started this account when a good guy, Jesse Noller, had has life threatened by the very people in this industry for daring to intervene in the PyCon situation. I hoped that maybe, just maybe, I could effect some change and get people to see that there is a middle, there is a compromise, there is an opportunity for discussion. When I follow the community, I am rewarded with heaps of karma -- including one comment with dozens of upvotes for saying what HN wants to hear. When I dare speak against the community, as I have here, I am reminded why I keep my distance and why those of us who think rationally consider this community a heaping pile of arrogant shit. You should hear what people outside HN say about it, based on discussions like this. Congratulations, HN. You're now Slashdot. You're now the community that in a single thread compared a teenager that built a bomb in a two-liter bottle to Alfred Nobel and Marie Curie.
In the hours since you left this question for me, I went to see a film and forgot about Hacker News for four hours, and it was four glorious, wonderful hours I intend to repeat. Continuously, for the rest of my days.
I'm glad you took the time to write this response. Part of the problem with this thread is that people defending Kiera Wilmot aren't just defending her, they're defending themselves. They did similar (or more extreme) things, and they know their lives would have been ruined by the kind of response demonstrated by school and government officials in her case. They know that society might lose decades of valuable contribution from a healthily curious girl, and think of what their lives would be like if their youthful indiscretions had destroyed their own careers.
People implicitly defending their own identities have a much harder time backing down or seeing the implicit defense of identity in the other side's arguments, so you have two sides escalating to ever more extreme examples until the discussion devolves into shouting and namecalling.
There were some deplorable comments that will no doubt be cited by others as examples of HN's terribleness (though you should note that you're the one who brought up anthrax). But there was also an inspiring rally around someone who looked like she could use some support. Sadly, not everyone who deserves this kind of attention gets it (like the Novato teenagers you mentioned in another comment).
In the end, your life will be perfectly fine without HN, HN will carry on without you, and eventually it'll either get better, or reach the point where everyone interested in rational discussion will leave. But if not HN, where? HN seems to have much less of a hivemind than, say, Groklaw. What other community is as consistently articulate (outside of stories about Apple ;-P), even if they're articulately vile and wrong?
People implicitly defending their own identities have a much harder time backing down or seeing the implicit defense of identity in the other side's arguments, so you have two sides escalating to ever more extreme examples until the discussion devolves into shouting and namecalling.
There were some deplorable comments that will no doubt be cited by others as examples of HN's terribleness (though you should note that you're the one who brought up anthrax). But there was also an inspiring rally around someone who looked like she could use some support. Sadly, not everyone who deserves this kind of attention gets it (like the Novato teenagers you mentioned in another comment).
In the end, your life will be perfectly fine without HN, HN will carry on without you, and eventually it'll either get better, or reach the point where everyone interested in rational discussion will leave. But if not HN, where? HN seems to have much less of a hivemind than, say, Groklaw. What other community is as consistently articulate (outside of stories about Apple ;-P), even if they're articulately vile and wrong?
If it means anything, in my opinion, we are observing a selection bias here: sociopaths and psychopaths feel the need to demonstrate the acceptable social behavior and, as additional safety measure, outrage over deviant behavior. Since they cannot tell either of these they end up mimicking each other and going ballistic over anything that differs from themselves.
If you take them seriously it's rather disgusting. However, I look at this as teenagers talking about sex (that they have not had yet), when everyone thinks he is the only virgin and is vigorously trying to hide this fact from his peers (who are doing exactly the same).
Can you be seriously offended by them? I cannot.
If you take them seriously it's rather disgusting. However, I look at this as teenagers talking about sex (that they have not had yet), when everyone thinks he is the only virgin and is vigorously trying to hide this fact from his peers (who are doing exactly the same).
Can you be seriously offended by them? I cannot.
> That story changed under interview,
You've said that before. Do you have a cite for it please?
You've said that before. Do you have a cite for it please?
Well I'm gonna write some letters.
Jerry Hill, contact info on the right side: http://www.sao10.com/
Bartow High contact information (it seems that Ronald Pritchard would be the person to contact): http://www.bartowhighschool.com/Contact%20Us.html
Note: I'm all for writing letters, but civil letters will get you the farthest.
Jerry Hill, contact info on the right side: http://www.sao10.com/
Bartow High contact information (it seems that Ronald Pritchard would be the person to contact): http://www.bartowhighschool.com/Contact%20Us.html
Note: I'm all for writing letters, but civil letters will get you the farthest.
Finally, some good news today. And a victory for common sense. I, for one, am very happy about this news. But there's still the issue of her high-school education, to be resolved.
She is already at a new high school. Looks like she will be ok.
Now if only someone could charge the original instigating teachers and officials for wasting police time or even better, place them in an institute for the criminally stupid...
Now if only someone could charge the original instigating teachers and officials for wasting police time or even better, place them in an institute for the criminally stupid...
She is already at a new high school.
The Orlando Sentinel story linked in the OP says she "is now attending classes at an alternative school." Is that "alternative" as in "another" or "alternative school" as in "remedial school geared toward at-risk youth"?
The Orlando Sentinel story linked in the OP says she "is now attending classes at an alternative school." Is that "alternative" as in "another" or "alternative school" as in "remedial school geared toward at-risk youth"?
I took it as the latter. "Alternative school", in my experience, is a very specific term and not just a synonym for "another, different school".
No, she's been placed in an "alternative" school. That's not a place for learning, it's a place where the state sticks kids that have to be educated but aren't in prison at that moment, to keep them away from the normal system. The law says you can't just stay home and play video games all day just because you got expelled from your normal school, so they have to stick them somewhere. She might turn out OK, especially because she'll probably transfer to a normal school after this academic year, but this is still a travesty of justice.
I can't believe that with all the outrage and coverage this matter got, she will still face expulsion from school. Isn't there anyone sane there? Could this prosecutor drop the case by any chance.
I don't consider her completely innocent, but still this was nothing that would require such severe penalties.
I don't consider her completely innocent, but still this was nothing that would require such severe penalties.
I donated to her defense fund - assuming there's money left over, I hope they just give her the cash. I've sent a message to that effect to the person organising the fundraising.
I donated, too, I believe the plan from the start to convert it into an educational trust.
I know that in this unfair world, we should be happy enough that her life has been spared and that she can live the life of an average teen, whether it's in science or not. But in my Hollywood version of life, this day will be a poignant flashback 10 years later when Kiera invents cold fusion.
Scientists, blowing things up,
losing fingers, eyes? Does it happen?
I mean with serious scientists, I mean
the most serious?
Hmm?????
Try
http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
From chemistry lab, remember the Bunsen burner? Yup, there was a Bunsen, a chemist. He was blind in one eye, from some chemistry experiment gone wrong.
They called him 'fingers' because on one hand he didn't have any -- one of his science experiments blew off his fingers.
The PDF above, it's a total, thigh slapping, laugh yourself dizzy riot! It's about the chemistry research for liquid rocket fuels, not really for the huge US Saturn moon rocket (just kerosene and liquid oxygen) but for smaller rockets such as anti-aircraft missiles. It's a riot: The stories of "red fuming nitric acid" mixed with all kinds of stuff they could dream up, using mostly just the TIFO method -- try it and find out -- blowing holes in the roofs of labs, creating stinks that make a skunk smell like roses, doing things in cities that should only be done in deserts 100 miles from anyone, doing things in deserts, e.g., creating a column of smoke two miles high, that maybe shouldn't be done this side of Pluto, is a total SCREAM. Then there were the 'mono-propellents' -- no mixing or ignition required. Some were weak, say, for just gentle orientation of a spacecraft. Others were attempted for lots of thrust. Alas, once the reaction starts, might it just quickly move to the whole supply of mono-propellent? Yup, darned right. And, then, right -- kaBOOM.
It's standard: Have much curiosity about chemistry, and some things will likely go BOOM. It's true at 14, 40, with a chemistry Ph.D. or not.
I was never injured, but not for lack of a lot of chances. For one, apparently I didn't use enough KNO3 with my C and S! Dad had a 100 pound bag of NH4NO3 to make the lawn green. It REALLY made the lawn green. Put that stuff on and get some rain and have to mow the lawn every other day, and it's a DARK green. AMAZING stuff. It was readily available because the surrounding areas were full of cotton farms, and it did great things for cotton.
I only worked with about a 1/2 cup of NH4NO3 at a time and got nothing out of it. Good thing: I might have lost a hand.
Once actually learn some real chemistry, then see (1) even if know a lot of chemistry, messing with such energetic reactions, where the reactions or some unintended byproducts might be wildly unstable, and, as of the time of the PDF above, even good chemistry can't predict what will/will not be unstable, can be dangerous and (2) if its not dangerous, then just do the energy calculations on paper and f'get about mixing up the actual ingredients.
Still, Al and NaOH drain cleaner, just gather the whole school together and tell them -- just do NOT do such things because you or someone else might lose a hand, eye, etc. Then DROP it. For the DA, hmm, add him to the list with the person in Boston who went after Aaron.
Hmm?????
Try
http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
From chemistry lab, remember the Bunsen burner? Yup, there was a Bunsen, a chemist. He was blind in one eye, from some chemistry experiment gone wrong.
They called him 'fingers' because on one hand he didn't have any -- one of his science experiments blew off his fingers.
The PDF above, it's a total, thigh slapping, laugh yourself dizzy riot! It's about the chemistry research for liquid rocket fuels, not really for the huge US Saturn moon rocket (just kerosene and liquid oxygen) but for smaller rockets such as anti-aircraft missiles. It's a riot: The stories of "red fuming nitric acid" mixed with all kinds of stuff they could dream up, using mostly just the TIFO method -- try it and find out -- blowing holes in the roofs of labs, creating stinks that make a skunk smell like roses, doing things in cities that should only be done in deserts 100 miles from anyone, doing things in deserts, e.g., creating a column of smoke two miles high, that maybe shouldn't be done this side of Pluto, is a total SCREAM. Then there were the 'mono-propellents' -- no mixing or ignition required. Some were weak, say, for just gentle orientation of a spacecraft. Others were attempted for lots of thrust. Alas, once the reaction starts, might it just quickly move to the whole supply of mono-propellent? Yup, darned right. And, then, right -- kaBOOM.
It's standard: Have much curiosity about chemistry, and some things will likely go BOOM. It's true at 14, 40, with a chemistry Ph.D. or not.
I was never injured, but not for lack of a lot of chances. For one, apparently I didn't use enough KNO3 with my C and S! Dad had a 100 pound bag of NH4NO3 to make the lawn green. It REALLY made the lawn green. Put that stuff on and get some rain and have to mow the lawn every other day, and it's a DARK green. AMAZING stuff. It was readily available because the surrounding areas were full of cotton farms, and it did great things for cotton.
I only worked with about a 1/2 cup of NH4NO3 at a time and got nothing out of it. Good thing: I might have lost a hand.
Once actually learn some real chemistry, then see (1) even if know a lot of chemistry, messing with such energetic reactions, where the reactions or some unintended byproducts might be wildly unstable, and, as of the time of the PDF above, even good chemistry can't predict what will/will not be unstable, can be dangerous and (2) if its not dangerous, then just do the energy calculations on paper and f'get about mixing up the actual ingredients.
Still, Al and NaOH drain cleaner, just gather the whole school together and tell them -- just do NOT do such things because you or someone else might lose a hand, eye, etc. Then DROP it. For the DA, hmm, add him to the list with the person in Boston who went after Aaron.
Hilarious, change names and this could be a story from soviet union 50 years ago.
Diversion is a plea bargain in which you plead guilty to the charges and receive probation. If you meet probation terms such as random drug testing and so forth, then your conviction record is "erased". Sometimes how this is handled procedurally is the signed guilty plea is held in a separate file and not entered into the main system, and at the end of diversion the file stays in the separate file if you have complied with all terms, or is entered into the main system if you haven't complied with all terms.
Calling this "dropping charges" couldn't be further from the truth - this is a forced guilty plea. Since she "signed the agreement", the matter is over - she has admitted to charges and is legally guilty and has received probation, and that's the end of it.