|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Jan 21, 2006 2:48:08 GMT -5
One other line that shows that Jim has dealt with Terry's lack of action is when he tells Christie that he's done with Terry and that he'd rather lose his sight than his courage. I think that speaks volumes for the kind of cop that Jim is--one who really does try to serve and protect. By making that statement, he lets us all know that Terry is a coward. By not taking responsibility for his actions or lack of them and shooting himself, Terry proves that.
No matter what you call it--courageous, bravery, foolhardy, or survival, it is hard to argue that Jim didn't put his life on the line to prevent any more death and injury to others. I'm sure that there were many civilians in their homes who also could have been killed by stray bullets. It happens all the time.
No matter what, I admired the guy right away for having the guts to step in front of a crazed gunman with a loaded weapon. Maybe he thought time was running out for all of them and that's why he didn't wait for the SWAT team.
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 21, 2006 4:17:12 GMT -5
Taking the second point first, do we need a diagram here?! I think it's a triangle: gunman in the street, Terry behind the (thank you again for the clarifying screencaps, Kyt) box, Dunbar behind the car. Terry has a clear shot -- Dunbar would have to leave cover to make his. Dunbar shot just fine until he ran himself out of bullets. And if Terry had a clear shot, then so did Dunbar after he crossed to Terry's position. As to why Dunbar didn't simply grab the gun from Terry's hand and then make the shot from beside him? All I can say is it's incredibly dramatic -- I was holding my breath on March 8 -- to have him coolly walk toward the gunman with gun held steadily at shoulder height. It may just be a case of the writers wanting to show Dunbar as fierce and -- here's that word again -- courageous under the worst imaginable circumstances. And he did make the shot, didn't he? Tore out the gunman's jugular . . . You mean he was aiming for the jugular? Then maybe he needed to close the distance to make that shot. One line from the scene between the two men in The Pilot that I find particularly resonant, is when Terry says, "I need for you to hear me say I'm sorry." I need? It's all about Terry, Dunbar's made it perfectly clear that *he* doesn't need to hear what Terry says. So this time, Terry's able to corner Dunbar long enough to say what Terry needs to say for himself. Gotta wonder just how much of a catalyst Dunbar was to Terry's final fall. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 21, 2006 4:39:47 GMT -5
One other line that shows that Jim has dealt with Terry's lack of action is when he tells Christie that he's done with Terry and that he'd rather lose his sight than his courage. I think that speaks volumes for the kind of cop that Jim is--one who really does try to serve and protect. I thought it just gave us a solid insight to Dunbar's value system. If cowardice is that far down on his list, then is that why he was so cold toward Terry? ... it is hard to argue that Jim didn't put his life on the line to prevent any more death and injury to others. I'm sure that there were many civilians in their homes who also could have been killed by stray bullets. No disagreement that Dunbar put himself at risk to protect others from further harm/death. No matter what, I admired the guy right away for having the guts to step in front of a crazed gunman with a loaded weapon. Maybe he thought time was running out for all of them and that's why he didn't wait for the SWAT team. My point was just that there were obvious options (cops just arriving onscene) and the ones that weren't obvious (SWAT likely on the way) and he made a quick decision. I'm not second-guessing since I see where the choice was made for the fastest and most obvious route to his goal and made without regard to his own safety. I just don't hold untempered awe for his actions. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 21, 2006 17:58:01 GMT -5
You can almost equate his actions to the soldier that is willing to throw himself on the grenade. You don't know if its a dud or live.He didn't HAVE to do it. He CHOSE to do it. You know the risk but you're willing to take it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 23, 2006 17:11:09 GMT -5
My point was just that there were obvious options (cops just arriving onscene) and the ones that weren't obvious (SWAT likely on the way) and he made a quick decision. I'm not second-guessing since I see where the choice was made for the fastest and most obvious route to his goal and made without regard to his own safety. I just don't hold untempered awe for his actions. Kyt Untempered awe? Great phrase! I guess I do still hold exactly that for Dunbar's actions, and I also think that, after going "all 'round the 'ouses" on this one, we may be down to that final undefinable: personal opinion. We agree to disagree? Works for me. So we've through what? two points in the list? Hmmm. Must go ruminate. I'll be baaaaaaaack. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 23, 2006 17:59:47 GMT -5
how's this: Glass  I've seen in other posts how some feel that Terry was helping one cop to safety. I believe he was trying to get into a better position and took the cop as back-up. That man had been with a wounded cop who I think was his partner. Terry being a detective and thus higher rank, got him to come along. They move up as Jim provides cover fire but the gunman sees them--glass partions do not provide much protection!--and the uniform is shot and down and Terry retreats to the box. Why didn't he make for the squad car, seen in the far right of Kyt's cap, or even take up position from behind it to fire at the bad guy???It seems only a foot or so from the curb. Why did Terry putnot only himself but another cop at risk by moving forward in the first place? Maybe there was somewhere he could fire from we couldn't see? Jim had to leave cover to get to Terry and his gun. The gunman was moving. Probably part of the reason Jim stood upright as he advanced was the squad car. To get a clear shot he had to stand up. As to why Jim exposed himself--In a long shot you see civilians and possibly other cops on the street and sidewalk so they were in imminent danger if the guy decided to turn. I had mentioned before wondering if the guy had a partner or was acting alone. Of course, they focused on Jim and Terry's situation so we don't know. We don't know if SWAT was on scene or if not what their ETA was. A lot of people were in danger and the guy definitely didn't seem ready to surrender. And too, Terry was Jim's partner and he was in trouble and seemed unwilling or unable to react. Jim had his partner's back at the risk of his own. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 25, 2006 0:37:36 GMT -5
One other line that shows that Jim has dealt with Terry's lack of action is when he tells Christie that he's done with Terry and that he'd rather lose his sight than his courage. I think that speaks volumes for the kind of cop that Jim is--one who really does try to serve and protect. I thought it just gave us a solid insight to Dunbar's value system. If cowardice is that far down on his list, then is that why he was so cold toward Terry? Kyt Dunbar puts courage at the top of his list, and cowardice at the bottom; that line tells us he'd rather be blind and courageous than sighted and cowardly, which is a pretty stunning statement. But is that the sole cause of his "coldness" toward Terry? I believe it's twofold and the other half is Terry's lying -- to Jim and to himself about what happened at the bank, and later, when he concocts the Oliver shooting and sticks to it, despite the assumed consequences. I would argue that Dunbar came to understand Terry's weakness and even pity him for it -- "When I think back to that day, I wouldn't want to be that guy," he says -- but I doubt he would, or could, ever get beyond Terry just piling one lie on top of another, repeatedly. But I'm jumping ahead, and this is about The Pilot, right?! That said, in Jim and Terry's brief scene in the locker room, it's Terry's perceived lying -- or delusional take on events, if you will -- that pushes Jim into snapping at him. As an experienced cop, Dunbar can understand (even if not forgive) the variety of ways in which men react under fire. But flat out lying is something else. If Terry had ever said, "I blew it and it's killing me," I think their story would have been quite different. Mags |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Jan 25, 2006 0:44:54 GMT -5
I agree. I think Terry's lies and inability to take responsibility for his actions are what keeps Jim from being able to forgive Terry for a long time.
I know this is jumping ahead too, but I think Jim finally realizes that Terry will probably never take responsibility for his part in what happened at the bank. By Up on the Roof, I think he's beginning to realize that his anger towards Terry is hurting him and Christie. The only way he's going to be able to get past it is to accept Terry for what he is and move on with his life. Who's in control now? Terry or him? No amount of anger or hate is ever going to change his situation. There comes a time when you just have to take control of things and not blame a situation or circumstance on someone else whether it was their fault or not.
I think we know what he decided.
In the Pilot though, he's not there yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 26, 2006 4:27:41 GMT -5
They move up as Jim provides cover fire but the gunman sees them--glass partions do not provide much protection!--and the uniform is shot and down and Terry retreats to the box. Why didn't he make for the squad car, seen in the far right of Kyt's cap, or even take up position from behind it to fire at the bad guy???It seems only a foot or so from the curb. Why did Terry putnot only himself but another cop at risk by moving forward in the first place? Maybe there was somewhere he could fire from we couldn't see? That's one of the things I haven't seen an answer to: just *where* Terry was making for. The glassed-in bus stop was hardly useful, so something else, but I haven't seen it. And I don't know what made it look like a better option than the car the officer was already using for cover. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 26, 2006 4:32:20 GMT -5
Of course. It's the assumed landing spot in almost all cases. The entertainment is seeing the different takes. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 26, 2006 5:00:35 GMT -5
Absolutely Dunbar puts courage at the top of his list, and cowardice at the bottom I didn't draw that conclusion. Only that he rates one above the other, and that's pretty much a given. that line tells us he'd rather be blind and courageous than sighted and cowardly, which is a pretty stunning statement. Add in that Dunbar had thought Terry "got off easy" and found out otherwise. Terry's conscience was eating him up, and Dunbar's wasn't. The statement was a good bit of drama, but not very surprising or even unusual. It's a "devil I know" kind of thing. But is that the sole cause of his "coldness" toward Terry? I believe it's twofold and the other half is Terry's lying -- to Jim and to himself about what happened at the bank, and later, when he concocts the Oliver shooting and sticks to it, despite the assumed consequences. I would argue that Dunbar came to understand Terry's weakness and even pity him for it -- "When I think back to that day, I wouldn't want to be that guy," he says -- but I doubt he would, or could, ever get beyond Terry just piling one lie on top of another, repeatedly. Yeah, all in all, it's the honesty thing that Dunbar's not forgiving. Even when Terry was honest (later) about freezing, he immediately followed it up with denial. But I'm jumping ahead, and this is about The Pilot, right?! That said, in Jim and Terry's brief scene in the locker room, it's Terry's perceived lying -- or delusional take on events, if you will -- that pushes Jim into snapping at him. As an experienced cop, Dunbar can understand (even if not forgive) the variety of ways in which men react under fire. Yeah. Though I'd think he could and would forgive cowardice under certain circumstances. Maybe not forget it, since that might put his own life at risk if he's partnered with the guy, but he could get past it. But flat out lying is something else. If Terry had ever said, "I blew it and it's killing me," I think their story would have been quite different. Absolutely. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 26, 2006 5:20:38 GMT -5
By Up on the Roof, I think he's beginning to realize that his anger towards Terry is hurting him and Christie. Dunbar wasn't acting upon his anger beyond avoidance, he was busy getting back to work, and his marriage was in deep trouble long before he was blinded, so I don't see the above connection at all. The only way he's going to be able to get past it is to accept Terry for what he is and move on with his life. Who's in control now? Terry or him? No amount of anger or hate is ever going to change his situation. There comes a time when you just have to take control of things and not blame a situation or circumstance on someone else whether it was their fault or not. I don't believe Dunbar has ever blamed Terry for his own blindness. He is holding him accountable for freezing and not owning up to it. It was best, of course, for Dunbar to finally deal with Terry, since he'd been wussing out on it for a year, but I wouldn't agree that holding anger and/or hatred toward someone gives them any amount of control (unless one chooses so {for example: Letitia}). Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Jan 26, 2006 19:34:01 GMT -5
By Up on the Roof, I think he's beginning to realize that his anger towards Terry is hurting him and Christie. Dunbar wasn't acting upon his anger beyond avoidance, he was busy getting back to work, and his marriage was in deep trouble long before he was blinded, so I don't see the above connection at all. The only way he's going to be able to get past it is to accept Terry for what he is and move on with his life. Who's in control now? Terry or him? No amount of anger or hate is ever going to change his situation. There comes a time when you just have to take control of things and not blame a situation or circumstance on someone else whether it was their fault or not. I don't believe Dunbar has ever blamed Terry for his own blindness. He is holding him accountable for freezing and not owning up to it. It was best, of course, for Dunbar to finally deal with Terry, since he'd been wussing out on it for a year, but I wouldn't agree that holding anger and/or hatred toward someone gives them any amount of control (unless one chooses so {for example: Letitia}). Kyt I realize that Jim and Christie's marriage had a lot of problems before this, but all I meant was that this was just one more reason not to talk. A great number of people who have a life altering injury go through a time when they are angry and shut everyone out. Since they already had problems, I was only thinking that if this was how Jim felt that this could be another stumbling block in opening up the lines of communication between them. As for Terry, whether Jim is angry at him for his blindness or not owning up to his responsibility at the bank to me has the same result. Jim had to have thought at some point that if Terry had not frozen, he wouldn't have had to put himself in harm's way and therefore wouldn't be blind. If he has gotten past that thought and is now angry or holding Terry accountable, that is still something he has not yet forgiven Terry for. While I agree that anger controls you only if you let it, it is a natural tendency for people to blame someone or something for their situation for a while. That has been my experience both personally and in helping others as well. Anger is part of the process of acceptance and until a person gets there it has control of them and greatly affects their lives and the lives of those around them. I have yet to know someone who has not experienced a life changing illness or situation who has not gone through this process of anger that leads to acceptance. Some go through it for longer periods than others and to a greater extent, but everyone in my experience has gone through it. If you have never experienced it, then count your blessings. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 26, 2006 23:35:31 GMT -5
I don't believe Dunbar has ever blamed Terry for his own blindness. He is holding him accountable for freezing and not owning up to it. Kyt I never got the sense that Dunbar blamed Terry directly for his blindness -- I think he probably blamed the gunman for that. He holds Terry accountable, as you said, for putting him in an untenable position, and for not coming clean, not even to himself. Once Dunbar had made that split-second decision to act -- once he grabbed Terry's gun and walked down the sidewalk to take the shot -- I think he's the sort of man who took full responsibility for his actions. He could have kept his head down, tried for cover, as you pointed out, Kyt (but how dramatically satisfying would that have been?). Cops -- and their wives -- know when they walk out the door in the morning what could happen. It's part of the job. You take what comes, and God knows "New York's finest" are not exactly known as a big bunch of whiners. (Dunbar's resistance to psychotherapy, from what I've read, is fairly typical.) It's a macho culture. So I believe Dunbar ascribed his injury to "in the line of duty." Never did I think Dunbar blamed Terry in any kind of angry or self-pitying "look what you did to me" way, except for a few well justified cracks about how, yeah, he'd changed. As for the journey of acceptance bjobsessed spoke about so eloquently, I have nothing to add except to thank her for her strong and graceful words. I wonder how far along Dunbar was in that journey? Maybe he passed through a lot of the anger in the year between being injured and getting his job back? Yes, there were times when he was definitely angry. Most of the time I read it as a righteous anger directed at those who thought not only could he not do his job, he didn't have the right to try. The anger of frustration, if you will. But as for his anger at Terry? More about the lying -- especially when he just keeps doing it again and again -- than anything else. At least to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Jan 27, 2006 0:25:54 GMT -5
I realize that Jim and Christie's marriage had a lot of problems before this, but all I meant was that this was just one more reason not to talk. A great number of people who have a life altering injury go through a time when they are angry and shut everyone out. I just can't envision Dunbar as an angry man who shuts everyone out. Moments of anger, sure. But he's accomplished so much in that single year that he hasn't had a lot of time for shutting people out. He's accepted help to learn routine tasks, he's tackled the chore of getting his job back and accepted assistance from the lawyers while he was at it, and advanced far enough to return to his job and do so successfully. There just wasn't much time to shut people out. Since they already had problems, I was only thinking that if this was how Jim felt that this could be another stumbling block in opening up the lines of communication between them. I think the biggest hurdle there is Dunbar's hyper-preoccupation with obtaining his goals, to the detriment of anything that doesn't further him toward his goal. On the flipside, I think blindness and relearning things slowed him down enough to reassess his marriage. So that once he had met his other goals, his attention turned back to his marriage. Or maybe it was just desperation. As for Terry, whether Jim is angry at him for his blindness or not owning up to his responsibility at the bank to me has the same result. Jim had to have thought at some point that if Terry had not frozen, he wouldn't have had to put himself in harm's way and therefore wouldn't be blind. If he has gotten past that thought and is now angry or holding Terry accountable, that is still something he has not yet forgiven Terry for. While I agree that anger controls you only if you let it, it is a natural tendency for people to blame someone or something for their situation for a while. I think there are some times when Dunbar has dual-standards. For instance, I believe he puts more weight upon himself to protect Bettancourt, than he'd put upon Bettancourt to protect him. But when it comes to Terry, another male officer and his partner, I don't think Dunbar would hold Terry to higher standards than he holds himself. So if Dunbar believes Terry needs to take responsibility for Terry's actions, then Dunbar also believes Dunbar needs to take responsibility for Dunbar's actions. He'd blame himself if he blamed anyone. That has been my experience both personally and in helping others as well. Anger is part of the process of acceptance and until a person gets there it has control of them and greatly affects their lives and the lives of those around them. Anger, perhaps. But it doesn't necessarily have to be directed at someone else, much less at someone who is not *the* cause. Kyt |
|
