Sean Patrick Palmer, of Oklahoma, arrested after explosive device found last week near porch of Satanic Temple in Massachusetts

An Oklahoma man was arrested on Thursday morning in last week’s bombing attempt of a Satanic Temple in Massachusetts.

Sean Patrick Palmer, 49, of Perkins, Oklahoma, was arrested on charges of “using an explosive to cause damage to a building used in interstate or foreign commerce”, the United States’ attorney office for the district of Massachusetts said in a statement.

The Satanic Temple does not actually worship the devil or believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural, but rather uses Satan as a symbol of free will, humanism and anti-authoritarianism. It regularly angers rightwingers and Christians.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “Allegedly” my ass,

    They have his dna. They have a note, from the bomber saying he was there to proselytize before and they refused to repent.

    They have him walking away from the temple, in the same clothes as the bomber, including the tactical vest,

    They know he bought the materials to build it.

    They know he’s a terrorist.

    But they won’t say that.

    • gimpchrist
      link
      541 month ago

      I mean… that’s because you guys have a justice system and he has to go through that part first… innocent until proven guilty…you know, in a court of law, not on the streets.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        presumed innocent.

        The fact of guilt is independent of one’s status as suspected, accused, indicted or convicted.

        I’d agree it’s a very important procedural mandate; though he is guilty. We can say as much- and should- here.

        Also, he needs to be charged for hate crimes. This is a hate crime. The dude’s a domestic terrorist not a vandal who just happened to use a bomb.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      401 month ago

      I get the irritation but this is 100% normal practice for any news outlet. They leave off “allegedly” and if the defendant is found not guilty they can sue for defamation.

      • Promethiel
        link
        31 month ago

        The irritation, however, stays in the collective gripe-o-meter section of public consciousness because of the many ways news outlets can shape public opinion in other ways (and often do) but sure seem to bend over backwards for a certain class of criminal, more often than they sure as fuck ought to, I opine.

        You can maintain someone’s presumption of innocence via non-libelous writing and still make it clear that editorial considers them a poorly regulated threat to a cohesive and social contact abiding society (or whatever it is editorial is saying and no, there never was and never has been true unbiased news; a good outlet merely attempts to expose multiple views, but humans in the editorial process can’t help but introduce slant towards one of those views however small.)

        The wealth of nuance in my previous statement, for example, allows for both of these following interpretations to be attributed within a statement exposing the facts that allegedly tie Mr. Palmer, 49, of OK with the alleged criminal findings (while still avoiding a tort and leaving further reinforcing of the narrative possible through the rest of the hypothetical article) if the article writer is crafty and has a purpose:

        ‘Mr. Palmer from OK, 49, is an example of why, you, similar dear reader, need to please consider revisiting your stance maybe, it’s not okay to make pipe bombs to fight the unbelievers’

        and

        ‘Mr. Palmer from OK, 49, is a demented lunatic in layman’s terms, and an example of why, you, similar dear reader (if you actually exist, please don’t), need to chill the fuck out before taking a nap and drinking a juice box because you’re a fucking child who is allowed to buy whatever you want from the hardware store, so show responsibility’

        Or damn near anything else in-between. While still (the subject is our news outlet shaped strawman standing in for The Media, recall) allegedly not shaping the course of public discourse in ways that best aligns with the totally not commands and orders to not interfere with the owner(s) of the organization or their interests.

        Words have power. Their selection matters.

        The organizations whose existence is predicated upon this know this (the many humans within went to ‘word’ school as a rule). The politicians who are ever either condemning or praise the press know this. The billionaire owners of the media conglomerates know this.

        They have a responsibility no matter how deeply a court of law can find them to be disingenuous, lying, cowards. Allegedly.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 month ago

      Well, yes. Allegedly. He’s not convicted, just accused. It’s almost definitely him, but he’s not been determined to be guilty yet.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        -11 month ago

        The fact of guilt is actually independent of one’s status as suspected, accused, indicted or convicted of any crime.

        The presumption of innocence is a very important procedural mandate, but you don’t become suddenly guilty when you get convicted.

        He did these things. The evidence is overwhelming.

        The problem here is he’s basically being undercharged. He committed hate crimes. Acts of domestic terrorism. He’s not being so-charged.

        He is a terrorist. But they’re not treating him like a terrorist. He’s alleged to only be a vandal (and using explosives to vandalize property.)