8 thoughts on “Wednesday Writs: United States v. Leonard Peltier

  1. I feel old.

    Back when the “Free Mumia” people were showing up at the Iraq War Protests, I always found myself wondering why Mumia became the touchstone rather than Leonard Peltier.Report

  2. WW3: The marketing angle against Remington has a big problem, which is that the shooter was never a Remington customer. Now matter how Remington marketed rifles to young men (who since antiquity have made up the bulk of all military forces), the fact remains that the weapons used in the massacre were purchased by, belonged to, and were kept locked up by the shooter’s mother, a middle-aged white mom. Even if the judge and the defense fully accepts the plaintiff’s arguments that Remington targeted young men, those arguments don’t directly apply to the case before the court, but to some other hypothetical case where the young male shooter ran out and spent his money on a Remington. I doubt Remington ever ran an ad that said “Kill your mom, break into her gun safe, and steal me!”Report

  3. WW9: The Country Club appears to be insured and being defended by the insurance company, and I believe the language in a conventional CGL policy would cover and provide defense to the employee for his or her negligence within the scope of duties. I sense a fake lawsuit intended to create certain optics during the trial. Just a hunch.Report

Comments are closed.