When a bomb threat happens at a school, things get a little crazy, even when it turns out to be a scatological reference, a mass-mailed oblique threat to multiple schools, or a vague Instagram post.  One would have to expect then that things would even get a bit crazier if an explosive device actually went off in a local school. 

That happened Monday at Newaygo High School, where initial reports on what happened were all over the place regarding an explosive device and the amount of people hurt.  By the time officials released better updates the next day, we had a better understanding of what happened and why  it happened.

(WILX) - Five students and a teacher in West Michigan are dealing with a range of injuries this morning after a homemade bomb exploded at a high school.

Police say a 16-year-old built the explosive and brought it to Newaygo High School on Monday, where it then went off. investigators describe the incident as an “accident” and “bad judgment” not a deliberate act...  The 16-year-old is listed as seriously injured while four other students and their teacher were treated for minor injuries.

This follows the general narrative of the many other media covering this story in that:

a) the student built the explosive at home

b) the student took it to school

c) the explosive 'accidentally' went off

d) the student had no intent, it was either accidental or did with poor judgment

By Tuesday afternoon, the investigation stepped up with the police carrying their investigation into the young man's home and making an arrest, this morning we have an update on that:

(WKZO AM/FM) — A 33-year-old man is now charged with manufacture or possession of explosives (Molotov cocktails) and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

It’s related to an explosion at Newaygo High School earlier this week. Judge Melissa Dykman told David Saylor his reckless behavior struck fear in residents of the county. Saylor was arraigned yesterday after a search of his home following his 16-year-old son detonating the explosive he brought to school.

The teenager told police he and his father would build explosives and set them off at home and authorities say the school explosion was accidental. The Michigan State Police Bomb Squad found several explosives at the home during a search.

Bond for Saylor is set at $100,000 dollars.

Under analysis, it first should be noted that:

a) the Molotov cocktail that exploded may not have been built by the father

b) the father did not take the explosive to school

c) the father did not ignite the Molotov cocktail's wick, nor did he shatter the bottle

d) nothing in the record, even in the arraignment, suggests he had his son intentionally take the explosive to school and ignite it

The best defense going forward for David Saylor may be to show that his maimed son is the better target for overzealous county prosecutors seeking blood.  But if he doesn't take that tact, he would be well served in showing that neither charge is applicable based on the facts released already in the existing record.  

To be found guilty of manufacture or possession of Molotov cocktails, the prosecutor must by law (MCL 750.211a(1)(b)) prove an 'intent to frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person, or with the intent to damage or destroy any real or personal property without the permission of the property owner'.  The State's star witness, his son, has admitted that they set these off at home, nowhere else, and any kind of malicious intent has not been provided, nor is it likely to be found, at least on the father's part. 

A Molotov cocktail needs to be lit before it will go off; how was Mr. Saylor able to ignite the wick and force his son to set it off when he wasn't anywhere near campus?  Yet, this prosecutor wants to charge the father with a felony that could have the accused be imprisoned for life and a $25,000 fine, as they noted in court that the son had lost both of his thumbs in the explosion which is a 'serious impairment'.   

Likewise, one cannot consider the contributing to the delinquency of a minor misdemeanor (MCL 750.145) charge seriously due to the statements made by public officials that the son's actions were either accidental or due to poor judgment, and not intentional (i.e criminal) on his part.  No charges have been contemplated to be filed on the minor acting without deliberation, so how can the father be charged for contributing substantively to delinquency, when no delinquency has been found on the son's part in this incident? 

What David Saylor appears to be guilty of is not having a meaningful talk with his son about interacting with police and basic Miranda rights, a talk which the lawyer above does in under three minutes.  One could believe, however, that a 16 year old who lacks the common sense notion of not taking, not igniting and not exploding a Molotov cocktail at school, may have ignored such advice if it was given.  Because of that bad judgment, he may have not only lost his thumbs for the rest of his life, but also the ability to see his father as a free man for the rest of his life.

Views: 249

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I doubt the father can be convicted for his sons stupidity but there may be a case for convicting him of reckless endangerment by teaching his son how to manufacture the cocktail. What the father is really guilty of is being as stupid as his son, a genetic trait no doubt. It is not necessary to light the stopper in a Molotov cocktail to have the fuel ignite. If the bottle is dropped and broken or if the fumes leak out of the bottle it is a good possibility that static electricity can cause the spark that sets it off. Static electricity is a common cause of fires at the gas station pumps. I can't emphasize this enough, the level of stupid here is mind boggling. A father teaching his kid how to make a gasoline bomb is insane. I think they both have learned an important lesson. Think before you act! Jail time is not going to help in this situation, unless the father has a history of bomb making for terrorist activities.

Your right about not talking to the police until you have legal representation. Guilty or not one should always keep their mouth shut.

I ruled out the possibility that the bottle may have been dropped and may have had some self-igniting chemicals in it, when the injuries suffered by the son was losing his thumbs.  If it was a typical 'Molly', you would have had to had the wick ignited and then have the bottle contents catch flame.  I guess there is a possibility that static electricity might have caught a gas-soaked wick on fire with the son not having a properly sealed bottle caused an explosion, but it seems improbable the major damage to thumbs makes it more unlikely, while the media reports (muddled though they are) don't indicate that sort of accidental discharge took place.

If the full story doesn't come out over the next few days, I'll send a FOIA over to our friends in Newaygo.  Thanks for the additional possibility; if you have any indications of such an accidental explosion from Mollies through static electricity alone taking place, I would appreciate that info.  I couldn't locate anything on a basic internet search of that happening, not that the internet would be loaded with Molotov cocktail anecdotes.

I'm wondering if it was a something other than a Molotov. It seems that if both hands were badly injured by holding the bomb then he should have had serious frontal injuries as well,  including facial disfiguring. If it was a Molotov and he dropped it he could have been trying to catch it before it hit the ground. I'm sure that the word Molotov triggers attention by the authorities who are keeping track of what is discussed on the web. I found information about static charge ignition for gas pumps but none for Molotov's.

Another option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU-odCVdgLY&t=146s

Also youtube Molotov cocktail fails. Most are age restricted.

The self-igniting Molotov cocktails (SIMC) I previously referred to, typically has a chemical reaction igniting the gasoline or other flammable liquid, and is definitely safer, but it also doesn't seem to fall within definition of a Molly in MI law, since there is no 'wick, fuse, or device' igniting it.  It could explain, however, why thumbs were blown off and the student is said to have exercised poor judgment--if the explosion was a result of him uncapping the bottle and swishing it around.  

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service