One dead after ā€˜intentionalā€™ explosion near fertility clinic in Palm Springs
www.theguardian.com
FBI statement describes attack as ā€˜intentional act of terrorismā€™, adding that clinic was deliberately targeted

Police say explosion outside American Reproductive Centers fertility clinic was ā€˜an intentional act of violenceā€™

At least one person is dead after a car exploded near a reproductive facility in Palm Springs, California, according to local authorities.

Palm Springs Police spokesperson Mike Villegas told reporters the car explosion was ā€œan intentional act of violenceā€ but the investigation is ongoing.

Officials did not immediately say whether or not the person who died was associated with the car, but a facility official said all of the buildingā€™s staff were safe and physically unharmed.

At least also five people were injured in the explosion, ABC7 reported, citing law enforcement sources.

  • tburkhol@lemmy.world
    72Ā·
    19 days ago

    Theyā€™re happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so theyā€™ve ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car. The bar for ā€œterrorismā€ is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.

    Regardless, itā€™s definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenantā€™s very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating. And maybe it just turns out that itā€™s carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12Ā·
      19 days ago

      Theyā€™re happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so theyā€™ve ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car.

      Thatā€™s Criterion A and the first part of Criterion B* of domestic terrorism. There are three criteria, and the second part of Criterion B is the hardest.

      The bar for ā€œterrorismā€ is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.

      The bar for terrorism is as defined in what I just linked, and specifically Criterion B is where most of the uncertainty would lie.

      Regardless, itā€™s definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenantā€™s very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating.

      The Guardian is a UK-based center-left newspaper with a generally good track record of journalistic integrity. Yes, quoting the police lieutenant is a choice here, because itā€™s the correct one. They currently have the most information about the situation. This isnā€™t rhetorical, I genuinely donā€™t understand: do you want them quoting Trumpā€™s unhinged rant about this bombing that I donā€™t think heā€™s even put out yet?

      And maybe it just turns out that itā€™s carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.

      Dude, itā€™s The Guardian. Hereā€™s how they recently covered Tesla dealerships if you care to explain how itā€™s biased compared to this story.

      * By ā€œfirst part ofā€, I mean the phrase ā€œappears to be intendedā€. What it appears to be intended to do is the hard part.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6Ā·
          19 days ago

          Iā€™m not going to rag on NJSpradlin or tburkhol; I tried to debunk what they said on a factual, dispassionate basis. Their comments to me are examples of what happens when one side is never held to account for and is constantly rewarded for taking the easy path and spreading disinformation that makes them feel better, while the other side is punished with more lies to correct and is never rewarded for enduring the other sideā€™s firehose of falsehoods, tediously researching their points, and speaking up for truth. These well-meaning comments are made by victims of their environment.

          Now more than ever, everyone needs to be a vanguard of the facts, but itā€™s not hard to see why thatā€™s become so difficult.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        24Ā·
        19 days ago

        Do you get so excited when someone says, 'My house was robbed"? Houses, of course, canā€™t be robbed. They can be burgled; only people can be robbed. Legally. Colloquially, we all know what theyā€™re talking about.

        Maybe ā€œThe Technicianā€ does, but insisting that people be very carefully precise with language outside of the specific technical domain is a form of sealioning.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2Ā·
          19 days ago
          • Iā€™ve shown you how The Guardian has quoted a statement from the police about the Tesla incendiary to the exact same effect. So ā€œit sure does feel like a patternā€ sure feels a lot like bullshit you made up with no evidence.
          • After an FBI statement called it an ā€œintentional act of terrorismā€, the Guardian article now references this three separate times (I think this was changed like a few hours after you wrote your comment).
          • Youā€™re making up a ridiculous strawman about colloquial versus technical terminology, where in reality domestic terrorismā€™s legal definition is how itā€™s used colloquially. You did read what I linked, right? Four hours after the bombing, where was the evidence the police were supposed to present showing it was terrorism in the colloquial sense? That it happened at a fertility clinic? Did you play Ace Attorney and think ā€œNow thatā€™s how we should do detective workā€?
          • ā€œbe[ing] very carefully precise with languageā€ is 1) exactly what the police should be doing and consequently 2) exactly what any reputable newspaper should be reporting in the immediate aftermath absent additional sources, and 3) not even what was happening here; if you think not throwing around ā€œterrorismā€ in the immediate aftermath of a bombing where the perpetrator is dead is ā€œvery carefully preciseā€, then I hope high school essays and forum posts are the extent of your writing. If you want sensationalist bullshit, donā€™t rag on good outlets; go to Newsweek and consume your slop.
          • Not at all what sealioning is.

          I donā€™t know what you want except to make yourself look like a jackass who canā€™t learn from their mistake when gracefully given the opportunity.