|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 3, 2006 1:42:50 GMT -5
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 agree the kind of thing you describe does happen. I just don't see it happening in this instance. 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 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that Terry doesn't get Jim's forgiveness. At least, we don't see that happening in the series. It's open to interpretation, but I would not characterize what happens at the end of "Up on the Roof" as Jim forgiving Terry. Even if you interpret it as Jim forgiving Terry, there is no further contact between Jim and Terry (that we know of), and therefore no way for Terry to know he has been forgiven. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 9:48:32 GMT -5
Wow. Too much to wrap my brain around right now (without much more coffee), so I'll just tackle a couple of points. Terry's actions cannot correctly be weighed against Dunbar's actions, or vice versa. Hmmm. I see this as one of the building blocks of the characters -- Terry's actions vs Dunbar's actions -- and deliberately used by the writers as an establishing factor. One element of that contrast is Blinded Hero versus Sighted Coward; we're meant to perceive Terry as the "lucky" one since he was physically uninjured. Dunbar does -- "All this time I thought he got off easy." -- before coming to realize (the epiphany, if you will), that Terry's damage was far more lasting and harder to come to terms with ("What would make a guy shoot himself in the arm?"). The relationship between Terry and Jim is all about contrast: one stepped up, one didn't. F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Action is character" applies, I think, for by their actions are we shown the character of these two men. Had Dunbar judged Terry, he would have been able to face Terry rather than actively avoiding Terry. Judging or not, I think we are clearly given the sense that Dunbar just plain didn't want to spend time with the man whose actions -- or lack thereof -- had led to his being blinded. Why not actively avoid the man? The last dealings Dunbar had with Terry consisted of grabbing a gun out of his sweaty little hand and doing what Terry couldn't. Of course he'd want to stay clear of the guy, if for no other reason than not having to suffer through any sort of pathetic apology, which is exactly what happens the first time they meet again. I'm just not seeing your point here, I'm afraid. 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 Maybe we need to be clearer on the use of the word judge? By judge I meant formed an opinion of, and I believe Dunbar has formed an opinion of Terry's behavior, which explains his avoidance of him. Of course Terry believes Dunbar has judged him as lacking -- or even responsible for his injuries -- which is why he so desperately wants to sway Jim with his apology. Have we been splitting hairs here? Mags |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 12:36:45 GMT -5
Terry's actions cannot correctly be weighed against Dunbar's actions, or vice versa. Hmmm. I see this as one of the building blocks of the characters -- Terry's actions vs Dunbar's actions -- and deliberately used by the writers as an establishing factor. One element of that contrast is Blinded Hero versus Sighted Coward; we're meant to perceive Terry as the "lucky" one since he was physically uninjured. Contrast makes for drama, makes for interest and keeps people coming back. Dunbar and Terry had different reactions. If we're meant to perceive Terry as the 'lucky one' then we should have gotten information that his life was fine and running smoothly. His first introduction is one of a man with trouble, and he only goes downhill from there while Dunbar's moving forward/up. It's one of the more interesting character contrasts that the guy who had to take a year off to relearn how to do everything, is moving forward and the one who went back to work right away, is still crumbling. Dunbar does -- "All this time I thought he got off easy." -- before coming to realize (the epiphany, if you will), that Terry's damage was far more lasting and harder to come to terms with ("What would make a guy shoot himself in the arm?"). The relationship between Terry and Jim is all about contrast: one stepped up, one didn't. F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Action is character" applies, I think, for by their actions are we shown the character of these two men. Dunbar thought what he chose to believe by enforcing ignorance through avoidance. Angry, sure. Anger is an emotional reaction, not a considered opinion. Fundamentally, we view the characters very differently and will never come to agreement upon many of the ideas surrounding them. For instance, I don't see the "one stepped up and one didn't" contrast as a focal point. Those are moments of action and reaction and don't make or break either character. That comes is in how each handles the fall-out of what he's done. I'm not familiar with Fitzgerald's stance on 'action is character' but can readily state that I do not believe a single action/reaction is the defining moment of a character. It's far too narrow of a focus. Judging or not, I think we are clearly given the sense that Dunbar just plain didn't want to spend time with the man whose actions -- or lack thereof -- had led to his being blinded. Why not actively avoid the man? The last dealings Dunbar had with Terry consisted of grabbing a gun out of his sweaty little hand and doing what Terry couldn't. Of course he'd want to stay clear of the guy, if for no other reason than not having to suffer through any sort of pathetic apology, which is exactly what happens the first time they meet again. I'm just not seeing your point here, I'm afraid. A year passed between the shootout and the opening episode. There is no way that I believe that the first time Dunbar and Terry see each other, is a full year later. Not a chance. They clashed early on. Both too wrapped up in their own problems to come to terms with each other, and still unresolved a year later. Maybe we need to be clearer on the use of the word judge? By judge I meant formed an opinion of, and I believe Dunbar has formed an opinion of Terry's behavior, which explains his avoidance of him. Of course Terry believes Dunbar has judged him as lacking -- or even responsible for his injuries -- which is why he so desperately wants to sway Jim with his apology. Have we been splitting hairs here? I don't think we're splitting hairs. I think we're so far different in how we view the characters and what's going on with them, that we don't have much common ground to work from. Terry's not, and never has been, responsible for Dunbar being blinded, and I don't believe that Dunbar ever believed that, either. Nor do I think Dunbar has judged - formed an opinion - regarding Terry. Dunbar can act on his opinions. He wasn't acting on an opinion regarding Terry, he was mentally and emotionally avoiding (running away from) Terry and coming to terms with their common past. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 14:44:18 GMT -5
More to chew on and I'll be back, but just a couple of quick reactions: It's one of the more interesting character contrasts that the guy who had to take a year off to relearn how to do everything, is moving forward and the one who went back to work right away, is still crumbling. Absolutely. I was being ironic (or attempting irony) which is why I put "lucky' in quotes. Terry's much more of a mess than Dunbar, which his subsequent actions prove. I'm not familiar with Fitzgerald's stance on 'action is character' but can readily state that I do not believe a single action/reaction is the defining moment of a character. It's far too narrow of a focus. Sorry, my bad: taken in the context of the quote, Fitzgerald meant actions, plural. It was one of his writing mottos, and meant that how a character acted -- or reacted -- in a situation was often more indicative of their character than what they said. It's a useful tip for writers, since you can also interpret it as a directive to avoid a lot of boring expository dialogue. Get 'em moving, in other words, and you'll see who they are. That bein' said . . . it is possible to posit that what happened at the bank was a single defining moment for both Terry and Jim. Certainly it was life altering for both men: Jim in the obvious way, Terry in that it no doubt undid the way in which he'd always seen himself, as a man and as a cop. I believe a single action or reaction, rather than representing a narrow focus, can be a defining moment if it comes out of -- and speaks to -- the base nature of the characters. But that's just me.  I don't think we're splitting hairs. I think we're so far different in how we view the characters and what's going on with them, that we don't have much common ground to work from. Terry's not, and never has been, responsible for Dunbar being blinded, and I don't believe that Dunbar ever believed that, either. Nor do I think Dunbar has judged -- formed an opinion -- regarding Terry. Dunbar can act on his opinions. He wasn't acting on an opinion regarding Terry, he was mentally and emotionally avoiding (running away from) Terry and coming to terms with their common past. Kyt Oh, there's got to be some common ground.  By fundamental differences, however, do you mean that I find Dunbar's actions and subsequent behaviors more to be condoned than condemned? Are we back to our original and individual perceptions of Dunbar as sympathetic versus obnoxious?! As for whether or not Dunbar and Terry met during that missing year, it's supposition since the only information we have is that Jim's been ducking Terry's calls, and we're never told for how long. Wrapped up in his own problems, sure -- I'll give you that one (a few feet of common ground?). But considering all Dunbar had on his plate -- learning to navigate in a severely changed world, having to sue the department to get his job back, unwanted media attention, and marital problems -- I just can't blame the guy for not wanting to deal with Terry face-to-face. "We both know what happened that day -- don't you make it worse for both for both of us" sounds to me like Dunbar has judged him. He's had a year to brood, and I find it hard to believe that in all the time he spent flipping a ball against his living room wall (he's clearly perfected his technique), he didn't come to some sort of conclusion other than mere anger. It's two sides of a coin: avoiding Terry is running away, or avoiding Terry is acting on a considered opinion/judgement. I suppose it depends on how you want to look at it, really. By the way, if I ever gave the impression that I felt Dunbar blamed Terry directly for his being blinded, than I misspoke. I never thought Dunbar blamed anyone but the gunman for his injury: I think he blamed Terry for putting him in a situation where he was forced -- as he saw it, of course -- to act. (Even then, he is not without empathy, as we know from his telling Karen that you never know how you're going to react in that kind of situation.) I think, given what we know of the Jim Dunbar, that once he wrested the gun from Terry's hand and walked down that sidewalk, he took full responsibility for what transpired . . . and no small amount of pride in ending a situation that could have claimed more lives. Mags |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 3, 2006 15:59:23 GMT -5
It's open to interpretation (isn't everything about this issue?  , but I think we're meant to infer from the scene between Jim and Terry in the Pilot that the two men hadn't spoken since the shooting. Jim's statement that he "wasn't ready to talk" may be a way of avoiding what he really wants to say, but it also has the ring of truth. In addition, I doubt Terry would be so intent on having Jim hear him say he's sorry -- which is his stated purpose, after all -- if they had talked before. If they had spoken, wouldn't Terry have said that already? Finally, Terry seeking out Jim on his first day back at work, where Jim couldn't avoid him, tells me this was his first opportunity to speak to Jim. |
|
|
|
Post by greenbeing on May 3, 2006 17:36:19 GMT -5
Off-subject, as you three seem to have this topic covered...
"I took a bullet for four cops..."
Living or dead? Are these the cops who got killed? Or ones on the scene, like Terry and the guys in the cruiser that got the tires shot out?
--GB
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 18:09:50 GMT -5
More to chew on and I'll be back, but just a couple of quick reactions: It's one of the more interesting character contrasts that the guy who had to take a year off to relearn how to do everything, is moving forward and the one who went back to work right away, is still crumbling. Absolutely. I was being ironic (or attempting irony) which is why I put "lucky' in quotes. Terry's much more of a mess than Dunbar, which his subsequent actions prove. Clarify, then, what you mean by: "Blinded Hero versus Sighted Coward; we're meant to perceive Terry as the "lucky" one since he was physically uninjured." If Terry's perceived as more of a mess than Dunbar, how does the above apply? I believe a single action or reaction, rather than representing a narrow focus, can be a defining moment if it comes out of -- and speaks to -- the base nature of the characters. But that's just me. Okay. If we all agreed, things would be boring. we don't have much common ground to work from Oh, there's got to be some common ground. Sure. We use the same reference points and then go different directions. By fundamental differences, however, do you mean that I find Dunbar's actions and subsequent behaviors more to be condoned than condemned? Are we back to our original and individual perceptions of Dunbar as sympathetic versus obnoxious?! More than that. You're defining the characters based on a single moment; I don't. Furthermore, we define the moment quite differently. As for whether or not Dunbar and Terry met during that missing year, it's supposition since the only information we have is that Jim's been ducking Terry's calls, and we're never told for how long. In light of missing information, supposition is all we have. I don't have the slightest doubt that they talked, face-to-face. Wrapped up in his own problems, sure -- I'll give you that one (a few feet of common ground?). But considering all Dunbar had on his plate -- learning to navigate in a severely changed world, having to sue the department to get his job back, unwanted media attention, and marital problems -- I just can't blame the guy for not wanting to deal with Terry face-to-face. "We both know what happened that day -- don't you make it worse for both for both of us" sounds to me like Dunbar has judged him. He's had a year to brood, and I find it hard to believe that in all the time he spent flipping a ball against his living room wall (he's clearly perfected his technique), he didn't come to some sort of conclusion other than mere anger. It's two sides of a coin: avoiding Terry is running away, or avoiding Terry is acting on a considered opinion/judgement. I suppose it depends on how you want to look at it, really. That's part of the fundamental differences I mentioned. You find judgement, I don't. Not only is it not 'two sides of a coin', it's not even the same monetary system. By the way, if I ever gave the impression that I felt Dunbar blamed Terry directly for his being blinded, than I misspoke. I never thought Dunbar blamed anyone but the gunman for his injury: I think he blamed Terry for putting him in a situation where he was forced -- as he saw it, of course -- to act. I see the lines you're drawing. Don't agree, but I see them. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 18:22:37 GMT -5
It's open to interpretation (isn't everything about this issue? , but I think we're meant to infer from the scene between Jim and Terry in the Pilot that the two men hadn't spoken since the shooting. Jim's statement that he "wasn't ready to talk" may be a way of avoiding what he really wants to say, but it also has the ring of truth. In addition, I doubt Terry would be so intent on having Jim hear him say he's sorry -- which is his stated purpose, after all -- if they had talked before. If they had spoken, wouldn't Terry have said that already? Finally, Terry seeking out Jim on his first day back at work, where Jim couldn't avoid him, tells me this was his first opportunity to speak to Jim. There's no way these two guys didn't talk shortly after Dunbar was recovering from the shooting. They didn't resolve anything, and then Dunbar ducked his calls, so this is Terry's first opportunity to corner Dunbar. If we're meant to infer something (ie: they didn't talk), the writers failed completely in my case. They provided a solid background of friendship between two cops who were also friends and partners. Not a chance I'd believe the two men wouldn't talk after one was shot. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 18:25:36 GMT -5
Off-subject, as you three seem to have this topic covered... "I took a bullet for four cops..." Living or dead? Are these the cops who got killed? Or ones on the scene, like Terry and the guys in the cruiser that got the tires shot out? --GB Never saw four dead cops, so I'd guess two down, two up (one unknown and Terry). And at least two newly arrived, but Dunbar probably didn't count them. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 18:46:13 GMT -5
It's open to interpretation (isn't everything about this issue? , but I think we're meant to infer from the scene between Jim and Terry in the Pilot that the two men hadn't spoken since the shooting. Jim's statement that he "wasn't ready to talk" may be a way of avoiding what he really wants to say, but it also has the ring of truth. In addition, I doubt Terry would be so intent on having Jim hear him say he's sorry -- which is his stated purpose, after all -- if they had talked before. If they had spoken, wouldn't Terry have said that already? Finally, Terry seeking out Jim on his first day back at work, where Jim couldn't avoid him, tells me this was his first opportunity to speak to Jim. At this point it’s worth examining the transcript of Jim and Terry's -- arguably -- first meeting after a year (with heartfelt thanks to bjobsessed for the audio description CD). For me, it answers innumerable questions and firms up some of the points under discussion. (Comments I could not resist are in Italics. ;D) Terry: Jimmy! Jim: Hey, Terry. Terry: Your first day back? Jim: Yeah. Terry : How’s it goin’? Jim: Can’t complain, but I’m working a case so . . . I gotta go. Terry: Listen, can we talk, um, somewhere private, just for a minute? (Cut to the break room) I called you a couple of times; I don’t know if you got my messages. Jim: I did. I guess I just wasn’t ready to talk yet. Terry: Well, look, it’s not like I been tryin’ to become friends again, like we were. Jim: What are you looking for, then? (Oh, expiation, redemption, the usual.)Terry: Look, this whole thing? you’re the one who suffered. I never forgot that, not for a second, but it would mean a lot to me if I could just -- look, I’m not asking for forgiveness -- I need for you to hear me say I’m sorry. (Been watching Dr. Phil is my guess.)Jim (stiffly): Okay. Terry: C’mon, man, I was pinned down, okay? He was right on top of me, I couldn’t make a move. I don’t know what I was supposed to do, what people expected-- Jim (cutting him off): Stop it! We both know what happened that day. Don’t you make it worse by trying to pretend differently. Terry: I’m sorry. I just wanted to tell you I’m sorry. Jim (backed into a corner, his arms folded): Accepted. Karen breaks in with “Hey,” the mood breaks, and the scene ends. What can we garner from this? 1. Jim and Terry really haven't talked since the shooting. You know, Kyt, it's not all that unreasonable given the supposed progression of events post-shooting: ambulance, hospital, surgery, post-surgery, No Visitors at the patient's request (Would the Dunbar we know have wanted anyone to see him bandaged and vulnerable?), rehab, home, legal battles, Christie screening his calls. Jim knows -- and admits -- that he’ll have to talk with Terry at some point but he just isn’t up for it, yet . . . whether to hear a lot of cheesy excuses or an apology is open to interpretation. 2. Terry still thinks he had no options that day because he was pinned down. The only option would have been to leave cover, and he didn’t. Jim did, and Terry can’t get around that. 3. Jim will accept Terry’s apology -- and he does, albeit grudgingly -- but he won’t enable his misperceptions, or play Terry’s denial game. Jim is not about denial; he’s been forced to a brutal honesty by events and by his attempts to handle an abruptly altered reality. Terry is all about denial, and the half-truths he’s been selling himself for a year. Small wonder Dunbar doesn't want to rehash the past with Terry. He wants to move on -- he needs to move on -- and a large part of that is letting wounds heal, as best he can, instead of pouring salt in them. Terry is all salt, all remembered pain. Even sleep brings Jim Dunbar no respite from the shooting, which he revisits again and again in nightmare. Can we blame the man for trying to avoid reliving it in the light of day, which for him is only a concept? Think not. Mags |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 3, 2006 18:48:15 GMT -5
If we're meant to infer something (ie: they didn't talk), the writers failed completely in my case. They provided a solid background of friendship between two cops who were also friends and partners. Not a chance I'd believe the two men wouldn't talk after one was shot. Kyt They wouldn't talk, if one of them -- Jim -- didn't want to and could avoid doing so. Until he went back on the job, Jim could easily avoid Terry by ducking his calls. Jim's reaction to Terry's arrival in the squad on his first day back says (to me, at least) that he still doesn't want to talk to Terry. He even tries to put Terry off and avoid talking to him, by telling him he's busy on a case. He only talks to Terry after Terry literally corners him.  So, yes, I think it's plausible that they did not speak, because Jim didn't want to. Edited to add: It seems that mags and I were posting almost simultaneously. She gave us the dialog. I thought we needed a screencap! |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 19:14:12 GMT -5
Thanks, mlm88, and I refer Miz Dunne back to my previous (newly modified) post as well as yours, and thanks for the screencap. We are nothing if not passionate! More later. Believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 22:26:59 GMT -5
Oh, jeez, I keep finding things to respond to . . . There's no way these two guys didn't talk shortly after Dunbar was recovering from the shooting. They didn't resolve anything, and then Dunbar ducked his calls, so this is Terry's first opportunity to corner Dunbar.] What evidence do you you have that they talked other than supposition and gut instinct? If it isn't canon (as anna terms it), how is it admissable? Just curious. If we're meant to infer something (ie: they didn't talk), the writers failed completely in my case. They provided a solid background of friendship between two cops who were also friends and partners. Not a chance I'd believe the two men wouldn't talk after one was shot. Kyt Solid background? In The Pilot our only evidence is Terry's line about how he's not looking to be friends, like they once were. A minor point, to be sure, but we aren't given any evidence until "Up on the Roof" of the extent of that friendship. Fellow cops and partners, absolutely, but how far does this extend beyond end of shift? It's not until the final confrontation by the river that Terry plays all his emotional cards that we learn how close they were. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 22:41:20 GMT -5
No Visitors at the patient's request (Would the Dunbar we know have wanted anyone to see him bandaged and vulnerable?) They wouldn't talk, if one of them -- Jim -- didn't want to and could avoid doing so. Okay, so clarify for me how you two see this happening. Dunbar goes down in the fight. Last he saw, Terry was frozen. Dunbar's in the hospital, blind. Won't talk to anyone, won't see anyone, hiding from the world. When he stops hiding - what stops him from hiding? - he goes out, takes on rehab, the PD, the press and gets his job back. Why is he avoiding Terry if they've never talked? And Maggie, you probably have to take this one: Jim is not about denial; he’s been forced to a brutal honesty by events and by his attempts to handle an abruptly altered reality. How does the 'can't face the world Dunbar' mesh with the 'all brutal honesty Dunbar'? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by greenbeing on May 3, 2006 22:59:07 GMT -5
Solid background? Not in The Pilot. A minor point, to be sure, but we aren't given any evidence until "Up on the Roof" that Jim and Terry were friends. Fellow cops and partners, absolutely, but that's all; and partnership doesn't automatically extend to friendship. The Pilot imparts no information about how long Jim and Terry had worked together, or if their relationship extended beyond end of shift. It's not until the final confrontation by the river that Terry plays the friendship card, and we learn how close they were. In the Pilot, in the locker room, Terry does say, "It's not like I'm trying to become friends again, like we were." So much can be read into that! Sarcasm: They were close, but no cigar. Truth: We were best friends, and I know that's over. Pleading: Can't you disagree and say we'll be friends again? Etc. I always took the "I'm not asking for forgiveness" as yes, he was. And if that works that way, then the "not trying to become friends again" could easily be him, again, trying to save himself, hiding his emotions, saying one thing, but meaning another, hoping Jim will disagree. Expecting the worst, hoping for the best. As for whether Jim Dunbar would have spent his time in the hospital hiding, afraid to show weakness... I'm not sure. I don't think he would have kept everyone out. If anyone, I'd think he would have tried to keep Christie and Terry both at bay. Her because they were obviously on shaky ground when this happened, though who knows whether they were on the uphill or downhill slide in their relationship. And him because, obviously. Probably not because he was saying, You did this, you did this to me. But more because he was angry, at himself, at Terry, at the whole situation, and frustrated, and chances were, if Terry had gotten within striking distance during the first few months (not saying he didn't stand in the doorway, though), he would have at least ended up with a black eye. But who knows, that might have been healing, for both of them. --GB |
|
, but I think we're meant to infer from the scene between Jim and Terry in the Pilot that the two men hadn't spoken since the shooting. Jim's statement that he "wasn't ready to talk" may be a way of avoiding what he really wants to say, but it also has the ring of truth. In addition, I doubt Terry would be so intent on having Jim hear him say he's sorry -- which is his stated purpose, after all -- if they had talked before. If they had spoken, wouldn't Terry have said that already? Finally, Terry seeking out Jim on his first day back at work, where Jim couldn't avoid him, tells me this was his first opportunity to speak to Jim.
