> 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.
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?
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.