What's the legal basis for calling bottled Drano and aluminum a bomb?

by **jordi** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:24 pm

Some dumb kids were caught making "Drano bombs" yesterday and are now facing felony charges. What I've never been able to figure out, is why these these are called a bomb?

The science is simple, the reaction create hydrogen gas, the gas expands and it make the bottle burst open with a loud bang. Then boys smile because they made a loud noise, yippie. But the bottle bursts with sub-explosive force. I don't remember the exact number, but at one time the ATF published a feet-per-second speed of a chemical reaction to legally call it "explosive". I think it was something over 9000fps, faster than a bullet and it was definitely over 3000fps, a fast-speed even for a bullet. One of these kiddie-bombs must rupture with a psi under 100, which assuming a 2L bottle of air, calculates to something around 300fps - on par with a BB gun by speed, but more foot-pounds by volume making it more damaging. Enough to break a few fingers. There are very simple mechanical ways of creating much larger 'explosions' measured by speed and energy output. I don't think putting a tank of non-flammable compressed air in your oven is called "a bomb", but it would deliver more energy than these do when it ruptures.

They are not Destructive Devices (ie military grenades). They are not legally "explosives" as there is no explosion. The chemical reaction of 2Al + 3H2SO4 ---> 3H2 + Al2(SO4)3 is not on the explosives listing at the ATF, so they are also not prohibited by Federal regulation (as far as I can tell).

I'm not disputing that making them is stupid, dangerous and potentially illegal. They also clearly fall under criminal mischief laws, which is a misdemeanor. But these things seem to be universally treated as a felony charge. So what is the legal rationale to calling these things bombs and charging kids with a felony for making them?

by **hussein** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:29 pm

The legal basis is state and/or federal law. The definition you provide is for federal law, but you didn't mention where this happened so I will have to go with a general definition as an example.

Dictionary.com defines an explosion as a violent expansion or bursting with noise. A works bomb can certainly fit that description under state law.

Charging someone with a felony is one thing, but convicting them of one is another. There is a very good chance the prosecutor will offer them a plea to a misdemeanor.

by **larry** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:30 pm

The legal basis is state and/or federal law. The definition you provide is for federal law, but you didn't mention where this happened so I will have to go with a general definition as an example.

Dictionary.com defines an explosion as a violent expansion or bursting with noise. A works bomb can certainly fit that description under state law.

Charging someone with a felony is one thing, but convicting them of one is another. There is a very good chance the prosecutor will offer them a plea to a misdemeanor.

you just stated a good case for the defense. you need to remember that the ATF only entraps decent gun owners and arrests people on BS crimes. they don't want to go after real criminals.

by **sceley** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:40 pm

Are you trying to ask if an ATF publication has any limit on what can be prohibited by a state legislature? There is no relationship at all.

by **montgomery69** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:44 pm

Because it blows up moron.

by **chen12** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:45 pm

We used 'The Works' back in the day.

by **voliny13** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:03 pm

because they can blow up and cause damage

they need a good lawyer

by **chen12** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:07 pm

The reality is they blow up hence a bomb. And yes trying to blow up a tank of compressed air would also be a bomb. Science and law are not the same thing, scientific terminology is not the same as legal terminology. I can make a bomb out of bisquick and some other home made chemicals which are legal but puttting them together to make them blow is illegal

by **khalid** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:15 pm

Any prosecutor that would would charge these kids with basically terrorism is grandstanding and abusing his office. I'll bet you anything the prosecutor as a kid made things go "bang." If they don't come off the charges then I suggest taking it to trial and see if you can get a jury to decide if these kids are terrorist, or just kids. Nobody in their right mind would convict. Bruce give you the definition but also said charging is one thing convicting is another. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the case but my initial thoughts are not to accept a plea.

by **tupac** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:26 pm

The simple reason is because the Drano Bomb can inflict serious injury or death. Not all bombs inflict their injury by explosive force.

In the case of Drano, one has to remember that Drano is highly acidic. Getting it on your skin will cause chemical burns. If anyone manages to ingest any during the explosion it could burn your insides potentially leading to fatal injuries.

Also, remember that when the explosion happens Drano will be spewed everywhere. If it happens to come in contact with other chemicals (i.e. cleaning agents) it could create a toxic cloud.

The definition of an explosion is a sudden, immediate release of stored energy. Just because a Drano bomb isn't a high explosive like a hand granade doesn't mean it isn't a bomb. It does explode and it does cause injury. It has the potential for death.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: