One dead after ‘intentional’ explosion near fertility clinic in Palm Springs
www.theguardian.com
FBI statement describes attack as ‘intentional act of terrorism’, adding that clinic was deliberately targeted

Police say explosion outside American Reproductive Centers fertility clinic was ‘an intentional act of violence’

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 “an intentional act of violence” 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 building’s staff were safe and physically unharmed.

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

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 day ago

    They’re happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so they’ve ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car.

    That’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 “terrorism” 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, it’s definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenant’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 it’s the correct one. They currently have the most information about the situation. This isn’t rhetorical, I genuinely don’t understand: do you want them quoting Trump’s unhinged rant about this bombing that I don’t think he’s even put out yet?

    And maybe it just turns out that it’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, it’s The Guardian. Here’s how they recently covered Tesla dealerships if you care to explain how it’s biased compared to this story.

    * By “first part of”, I mean the phrase “appears to be intended”. What it appears to be intended to do is the hard part.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      23·
      10 hours ago

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

      Maybe “The Technician” 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
        2·
        9 hours ago
        • I’ve shown you how The Guardian has quoted a statement from the police about the Tesla incendiary to the exact same effect. So “it sure does feel like a pattern” sure feels a lot like bullshit you made up with no evidence.
        • After an FBI statement called it an “intentional act of terrorism”, the Guardian article now references this three separate times (I think this was changed like a few hours after you wrote your comment).
        • You’re making up a ridiculous strawman about colloquial versus technical terminology, where in reality domestic terrorism’s legal definition is how it’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 “Now that’s how we should do detective work”?
        • “be[ing] very carefully precise with language” 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 “terrorism” in the immediate aftermath of a bombing where the perpetrator is dead is “very carefully precise”, then I hope high school essays and forum posts are the extent of your writing. If you want sensationalist bullshit, don’t rag on good outlets; go to Newsweek and consume your slop.
        • Not at all what sealioning is.

        I don’t know what you want except to make yourself look like a jackass who can’t learn from their mistake when gracefully given the opportunity.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        21 hours ago

        I’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 side’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 it’s not hard to see why that’s become so difficult.