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.
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?
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).
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.
