Leonard Peltier’s Innocence Leonard Peltier was a Native American man arrested for supposedly killing two FBI agents on Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota. There have been many debates about the integrity of the court cases and the lawfulness of Peltier’s arrest. Many FBI supporters would claim that there were eyewitness accounts and various other pieces of material evidence that show that Peltier was the culprit. However, Peltier supporters would rebut the evidence, saying that the eyewitness accounts aren’t legitimate and the court decision was politically influenced. I will consider both sides of the argument, and show that Peltier’s innocence is evident because the evidence provided against Peltier was falsified and the FBI used disingenuous methods in charging Peltier for murder. …show more content…
The burden of proof is on the side making the positive claim. Probable cause must exist for a legal arrest. Additionally, the positive claim that Leonard Peltier murdered two officers, puts the burden of proof on his accusers, namely the FBI. In more familiar terms, Peltier is innocent until proven guilty. The pro-Peltier side simply has to refute the evidence of their opponents to prove Peltier’s legal innocence. It is true that Peltier isn’t beyond criticism; his alibis on several different occasions have slight inconsistencies and he defends the murderer of the agents, whomever that is (No Parole Peltier Association). However, using this to call Peltier a murderer would be a blatant use of argumentum ad logicam. No matter how much Peltier lies, it does not follow that his conclusion is wrong. Thus, unless the faulty alibis can be used to show evidence that he is the murderer, all they prove is that he told lies. Using Peltier’s status as a liar to infer his status as a murderer is an ad hominem attack on