Comments:Convicted murderer Leonard Peltier again denied parole

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Read Peter Matthiessen's book IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE, for an accurate insight into this travesty of justice.

What a shame...

Truly sad. I just don't think he's guilty. Calebrw (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The bullets don't match the gun!

How long is this country going to keep an innocent man in jail. Peltier is our Mandela!

That is an insult to Mandela. --SVTCobra 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Mandela supports Peltier's claims I rather doubt he would be offended. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier

Please do not call Leonard Peltier a murderer. Leonard did NOT murder those to men. The only murder that took place that day was when the FBI murdered Joe Stuntz in cold blood. A murder that has yet to be ivestigated.

He has been convicted of murder, so that is what he is. I am sorry if you disagree with the conviction. He wouldn't be up for parole if he wasn't convicted. --SVTCobra 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't always that simple, and you know it isn't. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is that simple, "convicted murderer" is not an evaluation of guilt or innocence, or even whether the trial was fair. It is a simple statement of fact that he was convicted by a court for murder. The title isn't "confessed murderer" now is it? --SVTCobra 10:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I bear no issue with the title; but when you disagreed with the first comment suggesting the man was innocent, your response was that if convicted he must be guilty. While we can usually take this as true, the newsworthy aspect is that this is in some doubt. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misread what the IP meant, but I took it as commentary on the title. But no I didn't say he was guilty, just that convicted was a necessary part before parole (again with focus on the title only). Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)