The criminalization of our children continues

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Did you actually read the article?

http://www.theledger.com/article/201...NEWS/304235005

I have now. Doesn't change anything. Still hard to tell if an arrest was warrented, but that's up to the cops. Trying to detonate something on school grounds might be an automatic arrest. Anyway, the school definetely needs to take action or else it allows every kid to "experiment" at school with various chemicals to see what they can blow up. You can't seriously be ok with that.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I have now. Doesn't change anything. Still hard to tell if an arrest was warrented, but that's up to the cops. Trying to detonate something on school grounds might be an automatic arrest. Anyway, the school definetely needs to take action or else it allows every kid to "experiment" at school with various chemicals to see what they can blow up. You can't seriously be ok with that.

You can't seriously be ok with a zero tolerance policy, and yet you are. And, according to the article, the girl claims that she thought it would lead to smoke, not an explosion, so you either still haven't read the article or you're choosing to ignore that part of it.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You can't seriously be ok with a zero tolerance policy, and yet you are. And, according to the article, the girl claims that she thought it would lead to smoke, not an explosion, so you either still haven't read the article or you're choosing to ignore that part of it.

So it's okay for teenagers who have no idea what they're doing to mix chemicals causing an explosion at school as long a they were only trying to create chemical smoke? That's your position on chemical induced explosions at high schools?

Let's just let kids bring chemicals onto school grounds and mix them together to satisfy their curiosity. If they explode, it's okay as long as A) nobody gets hurt AND B) the kids are only trying to get the chemicals to start smoking. As long as any explosions resulting from untrained teenagers mixing chemicals together before school are unintentional, there will be no consequences. This policy is stern but fair.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So it's okay for teenagers who have no idea what they're doing to mix chemicals causing an explosion at school as long a they were only trying to create chemical smoke? That's your position on chemical induced explosions at high schools?

Let's just let kids bring chemicals onto school grounds and mix them together to satisfy their curiosity. If they explode, it's okay as long as A) nobody gets hurt AND B) the kids are only trying to get the chemicals to start smoking. As long as any explosions resulting from untrained teenagers mixing chemicals together before school are unintentional, there will be no consequences. This policy is stern but fair.

Should she be in trouble? Yes. Should she be expelled? Probably. Should she be expelled forever? No. Should she be arrested and charged with “possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device"? Hell no.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by loochy

Should she be in trouble? Yes. Should she be expelled? Probably. Should she be expelled forever? No. Should she be arrested and charged with “possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device"? Hell no.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. That said, this story is clearly written with a bias, comes from a very questionable source, and is severely lacking in detail. Experience tells me that, when you read something like this that makes the authorities look this ridiculous, there's probably more to the story.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. That said, this story is clearly written with a bias, comes from a very questionable source, and is severely lacking in detail. Experience tells me that, when you read something like this that makes the authorities look this ridiculous, there's probably more to the story.

My issue is with it being called a weapon. It's not a weapon. It was an idiotic thing to do, but at worst it was negligent and dangerous behavior, not malicious behavior.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by loochy

My issue is with it being called a weapon. It's not a weapon. It was an idiotic thing to do, but at worst it was negligent and dangerous behavior, not malicious behavior.

That may be. Then again, we don't really know what it was. The police had to provide a reason. It's up to the justice system to actually pursue charges. The article doesn't say if they have decided on formal charges. It doesn't say anything, really.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

comes from a very questionable source, and is severely lacking in detail.

I saw it on a CBS news site earlier but the story is gone now. May be BS.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So it's okay for teenagers who have no idea what they're doing to mix chemicals causing an explosion at school as long a they were only trying to create chemical smoke? That's your position on chemical induced explosions at high schools?

Let's just let kids bring chemicals onto school grounds and mix them together to satisfy their curiosity. If they explode, it's okay as long as A) nobody gets hurt AND B) the kids are only trying to get the chemicals to start smoking. As long as any explosions resulting from untrained teenagers mixing chemicals together before school are unintentional, there will be no consequences. This policy is stern but fair.

You're not the only one doing this, but I'm going to pick on you anyway.

Where in the hell in that story does it say anything about an "explosion"?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

You're not the only one doing this, but I'm going to pick on you anyway.

Where in the hell in that story does it say anything about an "explosion"?

She was arrested. That means she must have almost leveled the school with her pop bottle.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So it's okay for teenagers who have no idea what they're doing to mix chemicals causing an explosion at school as long a they were only trying to create chemical smoke? That's your position on chemical induced explosions at high schools?

Let's just let kids bring chemicals onto school grounds and mix them together to satisfy their curiosity. If they explode, it's okay as long as A) nobody gets hurt AND B) the kids are only trying to get the chemicals to start smoking. As long as any explosions resulting from untrained teenagers mixing chemicals together before school are unintentional, there will be no consequences. This policy is stern but fair.

Any punishment should be tailored to the individual and the circumstances. A 'zero tolerance' policy is the kind of stupidity that gets kids 6 year old kids suspended because of a butter knife in their backpack. Also, despite all the talk about how this was at school, the reality is that today's schools are trying to apply their rules and zero tolerance policies to things that happen off campus. It's all part of the same police state encroachments supported by the sort of useful idiots who think the world needs to come complete with hospital corners and that any law or rule that purports to be about safety is a good one.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Any punishment should be tailored to the individual and the circumstances. A 'zero tolerance' policy is the kind of stupidity that gets kids 6 year old kids suspended because of a butter knife in their backpack. Also, despite all the talk about how this was at school, the reality is that today's schools are trying to apply their rules and zero tolerance policies to things that happen off campus. It's all part of the same police state encroachments supported by the sort of useful idiots who think the world needs to come complete with hospital corners and that any law or rule that purports to be about safety is a good one.

Zero tolerance policies are dumb, anti-nature, anti-learning, anti-science, and anti-human.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Any punishment should be tailored to the individual and the circumstances. A 'zero tolerance' policy is the kind of stupidity that gets kids 6 year old kids suspended because of a butter knife in their backpack. Also, despite all the talk about how this was at school, the reality is that today's schools are trying to apply their rules and zero tolerance policies to things that happen off campus. It's all part of the same police state encroachments supported by the sort of useful idiots who think the world needs to come complete with hospital corners and that any law or rule that purports to be about safety is a good one.

Zero tolerance for arson? Zero tolerance for assault? Zero tolerance for rape? Zero tolerance for assaulting a teacher?

Some things are pretty black and white.

What if this girl gets off with a warning only to come back and do it again causing serious injury? I'll tell you "what then": the same people bitching about using common sense not to punish a kid for "experimenting" with chemicals will be bitching about ignoring obvious warning signs.

The same hyperbole that leads an agenda-driven writer to say, "poor little kid was arrested for popping the cap on a water bottle" will turn to " students maimed by poisonous gas explosion after police ignored troubled student's previous attempts to detonate a container filled with dangerous chemicals on school grounds".

The school did what it had to do. You bring chemicals onto school property and mix them in a container in an attempt to cause some unknown reaction? Get the **** out and explain it to the authorities. They can handle it. They can decide whether this was a harmless lapse in judgement or a dangerous action that was fortunate not to cause serious injuries. You want your kid to randomly mix chemicals and seal them in bottles? Do it away from my kid.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Zero tolerance for arson? Zero tolerance for assault? Zero tolerance for rape? Zero tolerance for assaulting a teacher?

Some things are pretty black and white.

History has shown us, again and again, that almost nothing is black and white. Assault and rape certainly aren't black and white issues.

Originally Posted by Saul Good

What if this girl gets off with a warning only to come back and do it again causing serious injury? I'll tell you "what then": the same people bitching about using common sense not to punish a kid for "experimenting" with chemicals will be bitching about ignoring obvious warning signs.

Unless the story changes, that position would be just as stupid as your current position.

Originally Posted by Saul Good

The same hyperbole that leads an agenda-driven writer to say, "poor little kid was arrested for popping the cap on a water bottle" will turn to " students maimed by poisonous gas explosion after police ignored troubled student's previous attempts to detonate a container filled with dangerous chemicals on school grounds".

The irony here being, of course, that you were being hyperbolic in the previous paragraph and are clearly pushing an agenda here.

Originally Posted by Saul Good

The school did what it had to do. You bring chemicals onto school property and mix them in a container in an attempt to cause some unknown reaction? Get the **** out and explain it to the authorities. They can handle it. They can decide whether this was a harmless lapse in judgement or a dangerous action that was fortunate not to cause serious injuries. You want your kid to randomly mix chemicals and seal them in bottles? Do it away from my kid.

Always great to hear from people who are in favor of a police state. They always serve as a great reminder of why I'm so opposed to one.