|
|
Post by mlm828 on Apr 29, 2006 15:13:06 GMT -5
I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable, passing judgment on Terry. I'm sure that, in the same situation, I would have been cowering in the safest place I could find -- and probably would have refused to budge, even after the shooting stopped. Of course, I can rationalize by saying I'm not a police officer with the training, weaponry and, arguably, the duty to take on the bad guy. Still, I now wonder if Jim was only being evasive when he told Karen you never know how you'll react in that kind of a situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duchess of Lashes on Apr 29, 2006 16:26:15 GMT -5
I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable, passing judgment on Terry. I'm sure that, in the same situation, I would have been cowering in the safest place I could find -- and probably would have refused to budge, even after the shooting stopped. Of course, I can rationalize by saying I'm not a police officer with the training, weaponry and, arguably, the duty to take on the bad guy. Still, I now wonder if Jim was only being evasive when he told Karen you never know how you'll react in that kind of a situation. Watching that bank scene, I have always wondered how Jimmy seemed to be so able to keep his cool, even when the gunman turned the semi-automatic weapon around on the car. He never changed expression, took everything in around him, very calmly sized up the situation and had no reason to doubt his own abilities. Terry, on the other hand, seemed to be handling the situation, not with the same level of calm as Jim but still able to perform, until the uniform he was escorting away from his fallen partner was riddled with bullets. That's when Terry seemed to lose it, panicked, scrambling away from the action, hiding behind anything that might provide him some measure of cover, seeming to be unable to do anything more than crouch down, back to the action and clutch that gun in his fist. "Maybe Terry could have stepped up a little more." Surely, if he hadn't been paralyzed by fear, he could have stepped up so much more. It was obvious who was the stronger character of the two, mentally tough, able to react under pressure, to keep his cool in an extremely daunting situation. "You never know how you're going to react in a situation like this." I would guess they had never before faced a situation that tested their limits quite the way this one did. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Apr 29, 2006 16:36:43 GMT -5
Wouldn't they have taken all the guns in to test ballistics, especially since it was an officer involved shooting? They would have found that it was Terry's gun that did the kill shot, not Jim's. Then the powers that be would have questioned Terry as to why Jim had used his gun , since Jim obviously wasn't in any position to tell them why? Even if Terry had managed to retrieve his weapon and put Jim's gun with him, they still would have known.
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Apr 29, 2006 18:01:43 GMT -5
I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable, passing judgment on Terry. But passing judgement on Terry is what we do so well here! (Or at least I do. Heh.) For me, this is the first and arguably most persuasive example we were given of the difference between the two men: Dunbar, who acts and suffers the consequences, and Terry, who doesn't act and suffers the consequences. It's a wonderful contrast, skillfully devised, and the establishing subtext to "I'd rather lose my sight than my courage." I have always felt that it was entirely appropriate to pass judgement on Terry, since he had the clear shot and a loaded gun, and, by his physical and mental cowardice, put his partner in a untenable situation only resolved by the kind of "once more unto the breach" bravery that inevitably results in tragedy. The stated purpose of the NYPD -- indeed, of all cops -- is "To protect and serve." Jim did both. I couldn't tell you if it came down to Marty's "balls of steel," mental toughness, or a severely macho personality, but Jim acted according to his training and experience that day. He did what was required to end a fearsome situation. ("I took a bullet for four cops.") So I was a little stunned when he told Karen in UOTR that "you never know how you're gonna react in that sort of situation." I thought it an infinitely generous remark, given what had transpired. Evasive? Maybe, but it showed that he had an inkling of what Terry had gone through, and that to me spells honor, and character. And Hoosier, as for your question re ballistics, I refer you to mlm88's earlier posts today. A number of theories have been posited, and the one that works for me is that all Terry had to do, after, was say that Jim took his gun because he was out of ammo and had the clearer shot. To grab a partner's loaded gun when you're out of ammo would be regarded as smart, making the best of a bad situation, within the realm of accepted behavior. The gunman was dead, and Jim had used Terry's gun; I doubt it would have gone further. This may be why there are now 10,000 posts on this board, and why we're still hotly passionate almost a year after Blind Justice left the air: We go around the corners and examine the angles, and after all this time we all have a different emotional and intellectual take. And ain't it fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Apr 30, 2006 16:05:06 GMT -5
It's all about passing judgement on Terry. If the show boils down to one thing, it is passing judgement on Terry. He caused our hero to be permanently physically disabled.
Terry was a wimp. He did not step up. He did not protect or serve. He screwed up at a crucial time, it is as simple as that. We are asked to judge him. We are required to judge him; and judge him we will - rather harshly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Apr 30, 2006 16:11:38 GMT -5
The least Terry could have done was admit that he froze and take responsibility for his actions. Had he done that I would have had a little easier time forgiving him. As it is, it's his lack of courage and respect for himself and for Jim that makes me judge him.
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Apr 30, 2006 18:32:59 GMT -5
It's all about passing judgement on Terry. If the show boils down to one thing, it is passing judgement on Terry. He caused our hero to be permanently physically disabled. Well said, Housemouse. I wonder if this is why the two episodes I've watched the most are The Pilot and "Up on the Roof?" They are the bookends; they finish each other. Despite what the critics thought (did they think?) Blind Justice was a show about relationships, and maybe the most important relationship was that between Jim and Terry. It caused the most irreparable damage, the most repercussions; and was the most complex and painful to resolve. And they finished it off at episode four. Another reason to admire the swiftness with which this show went through plot lines and characters -- a lesser show would have dragged the Jim and Terry thing out all . . . season . . . long. I almost wish they had. The intensity of the scenes between these two characters was amazing. As for judging Terry, we do. We have and we will continue to do so. But did Jim? Initially, yes. In the end? I think he pitied Terry and understood him, far better than Terry understood himself. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 1, 2006 4:32:09 GMT -5
"Terry, he's empty, take the shot" says to me that, from where Dunbar's was positioned, he believed Terry had a clear shot when he didn't without leaving cover. The "Terry, look at me," is necessary when Terry doesn't respond. It's only when Dunbar realizes that Terry has frozen that he acts. Again, I never got the sense that Jim expected Terry to leave cover. You've got a clear shot, I don't, you do it. And Terry didn't. Dunbar was firing fine until he ran out of ammo. If Terry had cover good for firing from, then Dunbar should have been able to take advantage of it once he made it across the open space. Can you be fired for perceived cowardice? (Sounds like the British Army c. 1895.) Conduct unbecoming an officer? Failure to act? I don't know the dept. statutes or language in this case. A case for cowardice would have to be proven and the biggest hurdle would be proving that Terry should have walked out into the open and gotten shot instead of Dunbar. As for the gun? As evidenced by their dialogue, Jim and Terry are the only ones who knew "what happened that day" -- which tells me that the gun was handled in a way that didn't raise suspicions within the department. I interpreted that as meaning only that Dunbar and Terry knew the extent to which Terry had frozen. I wasn't thinking that Terry would necessarily have been fired. Rather, if the whole story were known, it might have been impossible for him to stay on the job. He may have gotten the counseling he was sorely in need of. Given the focus on the Terry/Semple partnership, I took that as clear indication by the writers that Terry wasn't entirely trusted within the department. They couldn't fire him, but they didn't have to reward him, either. I'm asking here, because I'm not entirely certain. I thought that, at this particular point, it did not matter whether anyone had or did not have cover. The gunman was out of ammunition and had not had time to go for another weapon. Anyone could have stood up and shot him. If Dunbar had not emptied his own gun, he could have easily shot him. Terry also could have easily stood, turned, and shot him at no risk - although he would have had to take Dunbar's word for that, not an easy thing to do in that situation. That was a short span of time to assume the gunman was weaponless and fire. Terry lost precious time by having information relayed to him, and there was risk. He had no way to know the gunman wasn't still armed. Dunbar got into trouble because, during the time that it took him to yell at Terry, run over, get Terry's gun, and get into position, the gunman had pulled out his other weapon. Dunbar got into trouble because he walked into the line of fire. I think Terry would have known the gunman's weapon was empty, because he tried to fire it, and it clicked. Then he threw it away. As far as I can tell, Terry could have seen this from his vantage point. Curious how you're viewing Terry's vantage point since he'd run from the gunman and hid behind an electrical box. Since he wasn't poking his head out as a target, how would he have seen the action? He might not've heard the click over his own heartbeats. ...I watched the shoot-out scene, and it made me wonder. Why did Jim step out in the open to fire at the gunman? By the time he stepped out into the open, Jim must have known the gunman had another gun; he pulled it out as Jim was running to Terry's position. Could Jim have fired at the gunman from behind the electrical box? If not, then Terry couldn't have fired at the gunman without leaving cover, either. Exactly. Of course, regardless of whether Terry had to leave cover, he still had the opportunity to fire before the gunman pulled out his handgun. Of course, this is all based on post-knowledge - Dunbar had time, so Terry should have. Terry didn't know that and Dunbar was acting invincible. But the other thing: is Terry as fast and/or as good of a shot as Dunbar under normal conditions? Dunbar knows he's only going to get one split-second opportunity to take this guy out, and he has to be in the best position whatever the risk. Once he's put himself in the position of kill or be killed, he didn't have much choice but to make the ultimate best shot he could, eh? Wouldn't they have taken all the guns in to test ballistics, especially since it was an officer involved shooting? There wouldn't have been any reason to. Unless there's a question and a reason to find out who made the kill-shot, performing ballistics tests takes valuable time, money and resources from those crimes that aren't solved. The stated purpose of the NYPD -- indeed, of all cops -- is "To protect and serve." Jim did both. ...He did what was required to end a fearsome situation. Dunbar went above-and-beyond the call of duty. Both Dunbar and Terry expected more of Terry than he gave. But Dunbar went overboard the other way, so the base measure is skewed in either direction. It's all about passing judgement on Terry. If the show boils down to one thing, it is passing judgement on Terry. No, it's not. Even Dunbar didn't fall into that trap, nor was the audience expected to. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on May 1, 2006 12:35:37 GMT -5
"Terry, he's empty, take the shot" says to me that, from where Dunbar's was positioned, he believed Terry had a clear shot when he didn't without leaving cover. The "Terry, look at me," is necessary when Terry doesn't respond. It's only when Dunbar realizes that Terry has frozen that he acts. Again, I never got the sense that Jim expected Terry to leave cover. You've got a clear shot, I don't, you do it. And Terry didn't. Dunbar was firing fine until he ran out of ammo. If Terry had cover good for firing from, then Dunbar should have been able to take advantage of it once he made it across the open space. But Jim didn't ever make it across the open space - he was shot in the head on his way over. Correct? That was a short span of time to assume the gunman was weaponless and fire. Terry lost precious time by having information relayed to him, and there was risk. He had no way to know the gunman wasn't still armed. How long does it take to scream "He's empty Terry take the shot"? Maybe 5 seconds? While it is lost time, I don't think it is enough to be of consequence here. Dunbar got into trouble because he walked into the line of fire. When Jim walked into the line of fire, the only info he had was that the shooter was empty. He did not know the fellow had another weapon hidden. Curious how you're viewing Terry's vantage point since he'd run from the gunman and hid behind an electrical box. Since he wasn't poking his head out as a target, how would he have seen the action? He might not've heard the click over his own heartbeats. A cop in the middle of a shoot out is full of adreneline and every bit of him is tuned into the action. There is no way Terry, even crouched behind that electrical box, was unaware of what was going on. It's all about passing judgement on Terry. If the show boils down to one thing, it is passing judgement on Terry. No, it's not. Even Dunbar didn't fall into that trap, nor was the audience expected to. Kyt I think Dunbar did fall into that trap. He could hardly bring himself to talk to Terry. He was being a man about it, but you bet he judged Terry. Up until his epiphany in UotR about who really had it worse, Jim constantly judged Terry a screw-up. I also think the writers meant for the audience to see him that way. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 1, 2006 13:52:48 GMT -5
But Jim didn't ever make it across the open space - he was shot in the head on his way over. Correct? Actually, no. He ran across to where Terry was crouching, took Terry's gun, then stepped out into an exposed position before firing and being shot himself. When Jim walked into the line of fire, the only info he had was that the shooter was empty. He did not know the fellow had another weapon hidden. The shooter pulled out his handgun as Jim was running to Terry's position. Assuming Jim looked at the shooter while he was running (I think he did), he would have seen the gun, and would have known the shooter had another weapon, before he took Terry's gun and stepped out from behind the electrical box. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on May 2, 2006 17:03:48 GMT -5
Looking at it again,there seems like there was actually little space for Jim to get behind the electrical box and fire at the gunman with Terry crouched the way he was. He would either have had to fire from the other side of the box , probably with less success, or somehow try and straddle Terry and still try to shot at the gunman.
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 2, 2006 17:35:54 GMT -5
I took that as clear indication by the writers that Terry wasn't entirely trusted within the department. They couldn't fire him, but they didn't have to reward him, either. On this point we agree absolutely. There was definitely something in the wind, as evidenced by the partnership with "that fat hump" Glen Semple, the very antithesis of Jim Dunbar. Dunbar went above-and-beyond the call of duty. Both Dunbar and Terry expected more of Terry than he gave. But Dunbar went overboard the other way, so the base measure is skewed in either direction. Call it going overboard if you want you, but I know which man I'd want covering my lily-white whatever. By "going overboard" that day, Dunbar ended the shootout and saved numerous lives. And I think you can argue that Dunbar didn't expect any more of Terry than he did of himself. It's all about passing judgement on Terry. If the show boils down to one thing, it is passing judgement on Terry. No, it's not. Even Dunbar didn't fall into that trap, nor was the audience expected to. Kyt But Dunbar did judge him, until what Housemouse so eloquently termed his "epiphany" in "Up on the Roof." I believe we were also meant to judge him, if for no other reason that the character of Terry underscored Dunbar's courage by contrast. Their first meeting after a year all about Dunbar judging Terry.  At least Terry believes Dunbar is judging him -- and finding him lacking -- or why would he have showed up at the Eighth for the sole purpose of apologizing? Mags |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 0:35:04 GMT -5
But Jim didn't ever make it across the open space - he was shot in the head on his way over. Correct? Actually, no. He ran across to where Terry was crouching, took Terry's gun, then stepped out into an exposed position before firing and being shot himself. When Jim walked into the line of fire, the only info he had was that the shooter was empty. He did not know the fellow had another weapon hidden. The shooter pulled out his handgun as Jim was running to Terry's position. Assuming Jim looked at the shooter while he was running (I think he did), he would have seen the gun, and would have known the shooter had another weapon, before he took Terry's gun and stepped out from behind the electrical box. Right, mim, on both counts. The gunman was also raising his weapon as Dunbar was approaching and survival was a matter of who got off the first and truest shot. How long does it take to scream "He's empty Terry take the shot"? Maybe 5 seconds? While it is lost time, I don't think it is enough to be of consequence here. A fraction of a second counts. Five seconds is an easy ten shots, a complete gun battle and plenty of time to be killed in. It's certainly enough time to lose any potential advantage. A cop in the middle of a shoot out is full of adreneline and every bit of him is tuned into the action. There is no way Terry, even crouched behind that electrical box, was unaware of what was going on. Dunbar was the fight portion of the fight-or-flight response. Terry the flight. Terry's ability to track what was going on around him, was already hampered. What he heard and what he didn't hear, did not enable him to return to the fight mode. Call it going overboard if you want... That's not a judgment call and it's not based on preference. The moment Dunbar walked into the line of fire to protect others, he was acting above-and-beyond the call of duty. By "going overboard" that day, Dunbar ended the shootout and saved numerous lives. With everyone behind cover, it's impossible to say what could have happened with two new units, if they'd worked together. Dunbar took it upon himself to play maverick and accomplished his goal at a price. His strategy won't be taught to upcoming academy classes as something to emulate. And I think you can argue that Dunbar didn't expect any more of Terry than he did of himself. Was he asking Terry to shoot an unarmed man? That could have put Terry off the force and possibly in prison. Was he asking Terry to shoot a man who was armed, and Terry could fire from behind cover? Fair request. Was Dunbar asking Terry to step into the line of fire? Not Dunbar's right. Regardless of what Dunbar, himself, chose to do. Terry's actions cannot correctly be weighed against Dunbar's actions, or vice versa. I think Dunbar did fall into that trap. He could hardly bring himself to talk to Terry. He was being a man about it, but you bet he judged Terry. Up until his epiphany in UotR about who really had it worse, Jim constantly judged Terry a screw-up. I also think the writers meant for the audience to see him that way. But Dunbar did judge him, until what Housemouse so eloquently termed his "epiphany" in "Up on the Roof." I believe we were also meant to judge him, if for no other reason that the character of Terry underscored Dunbar's courage by contrast. Their first meeting after a year all about Dunbar judging Terry. Not at all. Dunbar was angry at Terry and Dunbar was avoiding Terry. Neither action is synonymous with judging Terry. Had Dunbar judged Terry, he would have been able to face Terry rather than actively avoiding Terry. What you call an epiphany was Dunbar finally facing the details, gathering the facts, and gaining comprehension of what had happened. He didn't judge Terry in the end, either. At least Terry believes Dunbar is judging him -- and finding him lacking -- or why would he have showed up at the Eighth for the sole purpose of apologizing? Even Terry doesn't appear to believe Dunbar's judged him, but if so, certainly not with a sense of finality. If Dunbar had, Terry wouldn't believe he could sway Dunbar. Terry's still looking for a way out of his own past, a reason to believe he didn't freeze. And if Dunbar buys into that and supports it, Terry may believe he can have some type of absolution. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 3, 2006 1:05:11 GMT -5
Was he asking Terry to shoot an unarmed man? That could have put Terry off the force and possibly in prison. I think it's unlikely any elected DA who wanted to stay in office would have prosecuted Terry for shooting a guy who had killed or seriously injured several cops, especially since he was in fact armed with another weapon, the handgun. Even if Terry didn't know about the handgun at the moment he fired (if he had fired when Jim yelled, "Take the shot"), he couldn't safely assume the gunman didn't have another gun. At least Terry believes Dunbar is judging him -- and finding him lacking -- or why would he have showed up at the Eighth for the sole purpose of apologizing? Even Terry doesn't appear to believe Dunbar's judged him, but if so, certainly not with a sense of finality. If Dunbar had, Terry wouldn't believe he could sway Dunbar. Terry's still looking for a way out of his own past, a reason to believe he didn't freeze. And if Dunbar buys into that and supports it, Terry may believe he can have some type of absolution. I think one person who has judged Terry is Terry himself. I believe he has judged his own conduct and concluded he did not measure up. Outwardly, he tries to excuse himself, but in his heart, he believes he failed. Otherwise, he would not be so consumed by guilt. He tells Jim he isn't asking for forgiveness, but he needs Jim's forgiveness in order to forgive himself. He doesn't get it, not even after Jim realizes, at the end of "Up on the Roof," that he'd rather lose his sight than his courage. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 1:24:27 GMT -5
Was he asking Terry to shoot an unarmed man? That could have put Terry off the force and possibly in prison. I think it's unlikely any elected DA who wanted to stay in office would have prosecuted Terry for shooting a guy who had killed or seriously injured several cops, especially since he was in fact armed with another weapon, the handgun. Even if Terry didn't know about the handgun at the moment he fired (if he had fired when Jim yelled, "Take the shot"), he couldn't safely assume the gunman didn't have another gun. By 'unarmed,' I meant it literally: unarmed (a theory that's been thrown around a time or two as a potential belief). All it takes is a video camera showing the gunman tossing down his gun, no proof of another weapon, a mom or someone screaming "murder, my boy was unarmed" and it's very possible for a cop to be tossed off the force, at the very least. "Reasonable fear for his safety or the safety of others" is being outweighed with slow-mo video and all the time in the world for non-participants to carefully study the split-second actions and reactions, and then judge. I think one person who has judged Terry is Terry himself. I believe he has judged his own conduct and concluded he did not measure up. Outwardly, he tries to excuse himself, but in his heart, he believes he failed. Otherwise, he would not be so consumed by guilt. He tells Jim he isn't asking for forgiveness, but he needs Jim's forgiveness in order to forgive himself. If Terry honestly believed he'd measured up, he'd never be looking for absolution by swaying Dunbar's viewpoint. Terry's not asking for forgiveness, as he said. What he's looking for, is for Dunbar to buy into his reasonable explanation of the past. If he can swing that, he can, for all intents and purposes, erase the error from his conscience. He doesn't get it, not even after Jim realizes, at the end of "Up on the Roof," that he'd rather lose his sight than his courage. Who doesn't get what? Kyt |
|
