|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 13, 2006 1:34:27 GMT -5
Ooh that IS insightful, I had not really thought of it like that before. Jim Dunbar intentionally places Marty in a no win situation? Natascha It could be, if you believe Dunbar thought the situation through and responded because he could back Russo into a corner based upon his blindness. Dunbar's reaction was a basic response for figurative survival on the squad. He couldn't back down and expect to make it. Kyt I think it was both. I totally agree Jim knew he could not back down and had to show the rest of the squad he wouldn't back down. I also think he knew his challenge to Marty would put Marty in a "no-win" position. He had plenty of time before going back on the job to think about the situations he might face and how to handle them. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 13, 2006 2:28:32 GMT -5
It could be, if you believe Dunbar thought the situation through and responded because he could back Russo into a corner based upon his blindness. Dunbar's reaction was a basic response for figurative survival on the squad. He couldn't back down and expect to make it. Kyt I think it was both. I totally agree Jim knew he could not back down and had to show the rest of the squad he wouldn't back down. I also think he knew his challenge to Marty would put Marty in a "no-win" position. He had plenty of time before going back on the job to think about the situations he might face and how to handle them. Could be, but I don't see it. At least, not in the respect that Dunbar's blindness put Russo in a no-win situation. Russo was giving Dunbar a hard time and it'd be one hell of a push to get a couple cops to fight over a loaded weapon on a 'dare ya.' Dunbar took advantage of that, not his blindness. Russo just set himself up to walk into a trap and Dunbar closed it. Cop mentality alone would tell you it'd have to be incredibly serious for two cops to fight over a loaded weapon and if Russo took it that far, Dunbar didn't have a chance at survival if he backed down. So... odds were with Dunbar that he'd come out on top of that one, but it wasn't a given. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by Dreamfire on May 13, 2006 5:53:47 GMT -5
I think it was both. I totally agree Jim knew he could not back down and had to show the rest of the squad he wouldn't back down. I also think he knew his challenge to Marty would put Marty in a "no-win" position. He had plenty of time before going back on the job to think about the situations he might face and how to handle them. Could be, but I don't see it. At least, not in the respect that Dunbar's blindness put Russo in a no-win situation. Russo was giving Dunbar a hard time and it'd be one hell of a push to get a couple cops to fight over a loaded weapon on a 'dare ya.' Dunbar took advantage of that, not his blindness. Russo just set himself up to walk into a trap and Dunbar closed it. Cop mentality alone would tell you it'd have to be incredibly serious for two cops to fight over a loaded weapon and if Russo took it that far, Dunbar didn't have a chance at survival if he backed down. So... odds were with Dunbar that he'd come out on top of that one, but it wasn't a given. Kyt I just watched that bit again and I'm on the same page as you Kyt. I watched it just before I read this post and I was thinking I would have liked Marty to go for it, but as soon as that occoured to me I realised they can't actually fight over a loaded gun here and now. Both would actually lose heaps of respect for being stupid, but marty would lose more. The fact that Marty got up and appeared to consider it is interesting in itself. He's just not as clear thinking as Jim. And I enjoyed that Dunbar refused to back down when Fisk asks him to stay inside, when Karen tries to shake him off, etc. It's those monments of staying power that first made this character so attractive to me. |
|
|
|
Post by anna on May 13, 2006 15:36:40 GMT -5
Nope. Dunbar's beating of Doyle (possibly) and leaping at the Latin guy (definitely) could be seen as being in the line of duty. However, his reactions toward Watt and Sonny and his readiness to take on Russo were examples of his willingness to express his personal frustration and anger through physical violence. The situations aren't comparable and only work to show us that Dunbar can use physical violence, which is no big surprise as it's part of his training as both a cop and a soldier. Kyt To me, the situations with at least Sonny, Watt, and Russo are comparable to Dunbar's situation with Terry in that they all are related to Dunbar's personal anger and frustration. If he would lash out at the other three out of personal anger, I don't see why it is inconsistent to conclude that he could lash out at Terry if Terry pushed him too hard at the wrong time. In what way specifically are the situations not comparable? |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 13, 2006 19:41:12 GMT -5
The situations aren't comparable and only work to show us that Dunbar can use physical violence, which is no big surprise as it's part of his training as both a cop and a soldier. Kyt To me, the situations with at least Sonny, Watt, and Russo are comparable to Dunbar's situation with Terry in that they all are related to Dunbar's personal anger and frustration. If he would lash out at the other three out of personal anger, I don't see why it is inconsistent to conclude that he could lash out at Terry if Terry pushed him too hard at the wrong time. In what way specifically are the situations not comparable? If the base reason we believe that Dunbar can use physical violence is because he has already done so, then why doesn't he do so more often and with more people for all those many instances (in each episode) in which he has been frustrated and/or angry? Because his reactions are specifically based on the circumstances surrounding the moment. Those moments listed bear zero resemblance to the Dunbar/Terry mix. The histories, familiarity, actions/reactions, and momentary situations are entirely different. If this potential situation is meant to encompass all possibilities, to stretch beyond those situations established in the series, then sure. Dunbar can potentially hit anyone given sufficient motivation. But that could be said of anyone and everyone. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 13, 2006 19:49:45 GMT -5
And I enjoyed that Dunbar refused to back down when Fisk asks him to stay inside, when Karen tries to shake him off, etc. It's those monments of staying power that first made this character so attractive to me. It's interesting to hear what qualities, especially in the pilot, drew you to Dunbar and made him an appealing character for you. I think most board members who've stated an opinion, were won over by Dunbar with the pilot. (I wasn't won over for a while). Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by anna on May 13, 2006 22:56:17 GMT -5
If the base reason we believe that Dunbar can use physical violence is because he has already done so, then why doesn't he do so more often and with more people for all those many instances (in each episode) in which he has been frustrated and/or angry? I was making the point that Jim could have responded with violence if he had been been provoked by Terry in the hospital or later, just as he did with others, not that he must respond with violence in every situation in which he was angry. Although, out of thirteen episodes, he did have a pretty high percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 14, 2006 0:15:42 GMT -5
I was making the point that Jim could have responded with violence if he had been been provoked by Terry in the hospital or later, just as he did with others, not that he must respond with violence in every situation in which he was angry. Although, out of thirteen episodes, he did have a pretty high percentage. If you're playing in the entire realm of potentials, sure. If you're following in line with what was presented in the series, no. There's no evidence to support it and plenty to say otherwise. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by anna on May 14, 2006 9:24:51 GMT -5
I was making the point that Jim could have responded with violence if he had been been provoked by Terry in the hospital or later, just as he did with others, not that he must respond with violence in every situation in which he was angry. Although, out of thirteen episodes, he did have a pretty high percentage. If you're playing in the entire realm of potentials, sure. If you're following in line with what was presented in the series, no. There's no evidence to support it and plenty to say otherwise. Kyt I still don't buy it, but that's ok. Is one of us supposed to say Next here? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 14, 2006 13:00:33 GMT -5
I still don't buy it, but that's ok. Agreement has never been a goal, much less a requirement. Is one of us supposed to say Next here? ;D If that's what you like, go for it. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jun 5, 2006 17:09:17 GMT -5
AS I said elsewhere, I still surf the web looking for BJ references and came across an interesting from USA Today 3-7-05. The reviewer gave it 3 out of 4 stars  based just on the Pilot. One thing he said that caught my attention and which I can say I never really thought of before was "Dunbar has to prove himself and resents it, which adds another layer of conflict....Its a tough sale but Blind Justice works." Jim knew that he had to prove he could still do his job--not only to others but to himself and he said as much in "if he couldn't to the job, then he would leave". It wasn't like he was a rookie cop or had just been reassigned to a new precinct-- he was coming back from a life-threatening injury and he had had to go through a lawsuit to even get the opportunity to show that he could still handle the job. But not everyone thought that way, thus the conflict. I don't think it is so much Jim resenting the fact that he has to prove himself, its the fact that others are prejudging him and aren't willing to give him the chance to succeed or fail on his own merit. |
|
|
|
Post by Dreamfire on Jun 16, 2006 9:22:31 GMT -5
Good point Hoosier. I thnk Jim's natural tendancy to be impatient is also what shows up as resentment perhpas.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 2, 2007 19:19:53 GMT -5
Over in the Top Moments game, I brought up that we had forgotten the scene in Fisk's office Jim's first day back to which Maggie pointed out the line "I took a bullet for four cops". That got me thinking... what four cops? Terry certainly. The other three I remember seeing--the one leaning against the wheel of a squad car, the wounded one on the sidewalk and the one who went with Terry and was riddled in a hail of glass and bullets--appreared to be either dead and/or gravely if not fatally wounded. Were these the four Jim was referring to? Of course, he couldn't know their physical condition but by taking out the bad guy, they could receive medical attention. Was he referring to the men in the squad car that had just pulled up or others we didn't see? To me, "I took a bullet" meant that he felt his actions had been totally justified because it saved the lives of fellow cops regardless of the consequences. Maybe I just answered my own question here!
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jun 25, 2007 18:27:29 GMT -5
This popped into my mind the other day--
Since computers are essential to the modern workplace, did the NYPD buy Jim's or did he? Of course, he needed special software (plus any and all upgrades) because of his disability, but wouldn't the department have been responsible to provide both equipment and software as part of 'reasonable accommodation'? If he bought it on his own, would he have been reimbursed? Did he just have it at home so he could become familiar and comfortable with it since he anticipated (hoped) he would be going right on a case? If so, that brings to mind again that nagging question of why he didn't go into the precinct to become familiar with its layout before going into work.
Since Jim seemed to be the only one who took his computer home each night, it appears that it was his personal property and not the city's. Or do they let them do that? I certainly can not do that at my work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 25, 2007 19:17:05 GMT -5
Hmmmmm... I have access to the computer systems at my work from home, maybe the detectives from NYPD does too. And since Jim needs special software they have agreed to let him bring his lap-top home each night as opposed to providing him with two, one at home and one at work. I also remember seeing a scanner in the apartment similar to the one he has at work. On the other hand, he would probably have a computer and a scanner of his own, why not use that if he needed to access the NYPD's systems from home like everybody else does??? Do we ever see any of the others, Karen, Marty or Tom taking their computers with them?  And in the thirteen episodes we got to see there wasn't a dramatic purpose of Jim bringing it with him - we never see him using it at home, so why??? So maybe he bought it himself and got reimbursed but still why? Why would you carry your computer home with you every night and have to set it up again every morning? It doesn't make any sense to me. But then again I never really thought about it until you brought it up.... - Chris |
|
based just on the Pilot. One thing he said that caught my attention and which I can say I never really thought of before was "Dunbar has to prove himself and resents it, which adds another layer of conflict....Its a tough sale but Blind Justice works."
