DISQUS

Ruthie · 2 years ago

It's unfortunate that even though there is an indictment today, the New York Times feels constrained to call this "an obscure killing" instead of "an unprosecuted murder." That probably went through their legal department, what do you think?

Benjamin T. Greenberg · 2 years ago

Yes, I think you're correct that the "obscure killing" language is legal minded. Since Fowler's defense is that he shot Jimmie Lee Jackson in self-defense, it is arguably inappropriate to call the killing a murder. BUT, "obscure killing" does downplay the significance of the incident--for Jimmie Lee Jackson's family, for the civil rights activists who were brutalized en masse during those demonstrations of February 1965 and for history. It seems ludicrous to call the killing "obscure" when it was, as mentioned in the article, the catalyst for one of the most significant demonstrations and marches in the entire history of the United States of America. I understand that Jimmie Lee Jackson is not well known, but his murder was in effect a shot heard round the world...

Brandon · 2 years ago

I hope it has some significance for the family. This country has a putrid sense of justice.