Up on the Roof

[bjobsessed]

inuvik said:

I just posted this in the episode survival game but it should go here too.

I find it hard to believe that Terry discarded the handkerchief on the roof. Being a cop, you'd think he would take it with him so no one would find it. Granted, he probably thought that no one would be looking for it as they would all believe his story. But he also knew Jim is an excellent and ethical cop.

Maybe it's just the writers, to make the story work. Thoughts anyone?

Maybe Terry thought that with all the commotion going on no one would notice/hear that he fired his gun first and therefore no one would have any reason to look on the roof for something like a handkerchief. Titus already had a long rap sheet so it was the perfect set up.

[maggiethecat]

bjobsessed said:

Maybe Terry thought that with all the commotion going on no one would notice/hear that he fired his gun first and therefore no one would have any reason to look on the roof for something like a handkerchief.

Karen did say, when she and Jim went back to the roof, that the crime scene unit had already been "all over this place." So Terry did take a chance by stuffing the handkerchief in that very handy tar bucket . . . and maybe he intended to come back and get it once it was safe.

I think it was probably smarter for Terry to hide it on the roof than take it with him. He'd have to undress -- or be undressed -- at the hospital prior to surgery. And common sense says his clothing and personal effects would be turned over to his wife. I don't think Terry'd want to run the risk of Annie finding the handkerchief, dim bulb though she may be.

It was a calculated risk to hide the handkerchief on the roof . . . but so was shooting himself in the first place.

[hoosier]

inuvik said:

I just posted this in the episode survival game but it should go here too.

I find it hard to believe that Terry discarded the handkerchief on the roof. Being a cop, you'd think he would take it with him so no one would find it. Granted, he probably thought that no one would be looking for it as they would all believe his story. But he also knew Jim is an excellent and ethical cop.]


Terry didn't think through the ramifications of his shooting , it was a totally spur of the moment thing but he had to get rid of the evidence and since he was alone on the roof he was able to do that in the handiest thing available. Wonder why he didn't just try throwing it over the far side of the building away from where Jim and Karen were--surely that would have been better. Who would have noticed another piece of "trash" in the street? And when they said they had thoroughly searched the roof, if Karen's reaction to the tar bucket was any indication, a quick once over was all it got.

Hmmm, but Terry thought enough to get his hankie out in the first place to cover any gunshot residue on his coat.... Had this been on his mind for a while after all???

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

inuvik said:

I find it hard to believe that Terry discarded the handkerchief on the roof. Being a cop, you'd think he would take it with him so no one would find it. Granted, he probably thought that no one would be looking for it as they would all believe his story. But he also knew Jim is an excellent and ethical cop.

Terry didn't think through the ramifications of his shooting , it was a totally spur of the moment thing but he had to get rid of the evidence and since he was alone on the roof he was able to do that in the handiest thing available. Wonder why he didn't just try throwing it over the far side of the building away from where Jim and Karen were--surely that would have been better. Who would have noticed another piece of "trash" in the street? And when they said they had thoroughly searched the roof, if Karen's reaction to the tar bucket was any indication, a quick once over was all it got.

Hmmm, but Terry thought enough to get his hankie out in the first place to cover any gunshot residue on his coat.... Had this been on his mind for a while after all???

I think stuffing the handkerchief in the tar bucket was a pretty low-risk option. The "CSI" type shows create the impression that every crime scene gets a thorough forensic work-up, but I doubt that's the case in the real world. In this instance, they would have collected things like shell casings and Titus's gun that had some connection to the case. But there was a lot of junk on that roof, and I wonder how closely they would have examined things like the tar bucket with no apparent connection to the case. On the other hand, the fact that a cop had been shot might cause them to be more thorough than usual, but, as inuvik points out, there was no question at the time about what had happened.

I have always thought Terry's shooting himself was a spur-of-the-moment act, probably precipitated by encountering Jim that day. Since Terry is a cop and would know about things like powder burns, I don't think his use of the handkerchief indicates advance planning.

[mlm828]

I’ve generally looked at the evolution of the Karen-Jim relationship from the point of view of Jim gaining Karen’s trust. But after my most recent viewing of “Up on the Roof,” I was struck by how Jim comes to trust Karen by the end of the episode. (Come down from the roof, Mags? Why in the world would you want to?)

Early on, Jim is reluctant to answer Karen’s question about what happened between him and Terry, but he finally tells her, after some prodding on her part, that Terry didn’t “step up” as much as he could have.



This seems pretty consistent with the wary Jim who doesn’t easily reveal what he’s thinking or feeling.

By the end of the episode, however, it seems clear that Jim has taken Karen into his confidence to some extent, although it’s not always clear what he told her and what she has figured out for herself. After Jim leaves Terry’s house, she may already have guessed that Jim suspects Terry shot himself, because she cautions him that it’s beginning to look as if he has it out for Terry. By the time they are back on the roof, she knows Jim suspects Terry shot himself. Jim asks her to look for something with bullet holes, to which she responds by asking if he wants her to look for something Terry would have used to catch powder burns if he shot himself.



She probably could have figured out on her own that Jim suspected Terry shot himself. However, I wonder if she would have known Jim was looking for something with powder burns if Jim hadn’t told her about his conversation with Terry about the coat and Terry’s challenge to test it until he’s blue in the face.

Once they find the handkerchief with the bullet holes, Jim has to involve Karen in the handling of the situation, because she now knows Terry shot himself, and knows they have the evidence of it. I tend to think she was willing to go along with Jim’s decision, since the situation affected him more personally and directly, but Jim may not know this. In any event, I suspect he told Karen, on the way to the river, how he planned to handle the situation, in order to make sure she was willing to go along with his plan. Her look of concern during Jim and Terry’s conversation seems to say she knows what is being said or, at least, has a pretty good idea.



Even if Jim didn’t disclose everything that was said between himself and Terry, he must at least have told Karen, on the way back to the precinct, that the situation wasn’t resolved. Then, when Terry shows up at the squad, Karen smiles to herself when Terry asks to speak to Lt. Fisk. More than anything, this little smile to herself tells me she knew what Jim planned to tell Terry, and what they had discussed.

There is another telling little moment in this scene. When Terry arrives, Karen is across the room from Jim’s desk, standing next to Marty and Tom, who are on their way out. When Jim tells them Titus’s gun accidentally discharged, Marty and Tom look questioningly at Karen, who nods her head, confirming Jim's statement.



She then walks across the room to Jim’s desk and, standing next to him, turns toward Tom and Marty. She was giving him a report she’d just copied, but her actions also seem symbolic to me, as if she is aligning herself with Jim.

[hoosier]

Trust is a two way street. Jim and Karen hadn't been partners very long but they were developing a rapport which was definitely put to the test here. Jim had to take a 'leap of faith' that Karen would go along with his lead and she had to trust Jim to know what he was doing. There could have been all kinds of legal ramifications--tampering with evidence, Titus' probably suing for false charges, Jim could and probably would have lost his job and maybe had jail time and Karen would have been in a world of hurt if his hunch didn't pan out.

But Karen doesn't, excuse the play on words, go 'blindly' into anything. She had to know of the bad blood between Jim and Terry after seeing them in the locker room in the Pilot and then his reaction to having to deal with Terry at the initial crime scene. She pretty much had to force him to admit that Terry didn't step up at the bank. That was probably why she thought Jim had some vendetta against him. She didn't have to take him back to the roof. She didn't have to search for evidence. Who could Jim have asked? She could have said she didn't find anything. Could he have contradicted her?

O-Kay. Karen finds the hankie. What do they do? I think Jim had to have filled her in on what he had planned to do with Terry since she was the one to find the evidence that nailed Terry and she knew Jim had it. Karen had to trust that Jim knew Terry well enough that he would eventually confess and set things straight. Wonder what they would have done if Terry hadn't come in on his own?Gone to Fisk? Jim had to trust Terry enough to do the right thing because otherwise the department would have been damaged by a scandal of a cop shooting himself and blaming an 'innocent' civilian and it would have opened a can of worms as to the WHY that Terry shot himself and brought the whole business of the bank to the forefront again.

Mim, thanks for such a thought provoking observation!

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

There could have been all kinds of legal ramifications--tampering with evidence, Titus' probably suing for false charges, Jim could and probably would have lost his job and maybe had jail time and Karen would have been in a world of hurt if his hunch didn't pan out.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not following this. Before the handkerchief was found, Jim was the only one who suspected Terry shot himself, and he didn't have any physical evidence at that time to support his suspicion. After the handkerchief was found, Jim had to make sure Karen was on board with his plan before going ahead with it. I don't think he would have offered Terry the option of the "accidental discharge" story unless he was sure Karen would support it. If Jim's plan succeeds, only Jim, Terry, and Karen know about the handkerchief, and none of them is likely to blow the whistle.

As for a false arrest claim by Titus, I'm not sure. They certainly had sufficient reason to arrest Titus originally, because he had confessed to two murders. After he was cleared of the two murders, Terry's false charges were the only reason he was still in custody, and he might have a claim based on that. But I'm not sure how that would be a problem for Jim, since it was Terry, not Jim, who made the false claim that Titus had shot him.

hoosier said:

Wonder what they would have done if Terry hadn't come in on his own?Gone to Fisk? Jim had to trust Terry enough to do the right thing because otherwise the department would have been damaged by a scandal of a cop shooting himself and blaming an 'innocent' civilian and it would have opened a can of worms as to the WHY that Terry shot himself and brought the whole business of the bank to the forefront again.

I don't think Jim necessarily trusted Terry to do the right thing. I think he thought Terry was smart enough to figure out that the option Jim offered him was the only viable option. And Terry did figure it out -- eventually.

As I've said before, I don't believe Jim would have let Titus be wrongfully charged and convicted. If Karen hadn't gone along with Jim's plan, or if Terry hadn't come around and told Fisk the gun accidentally discharged, I'm sure Jim would have told Fisk Terry shot himself and and he would have turned over the handkerchief, in spite of the fact that this would open up the whole "can of worms" about why Terry shot himself and what happened at the bank. I'm also sure that Jim wouldn't have tossed the handkerchief until Terry came forward and the charges against Titus were dismissed. Edited to add: If Terry hadn't come forward and told Fisk about the "accidental discharge," there probably would have been repercussions, but I think those would have been for Terry rather than for Jim. Maybe some cops would have felt Jim should have covered for Terry, but I don't think the department could take that position officially. And I wonder whether anyone would think Jim should have covered for Terry if the whole story about the bank came out. So I think the repercussions for Jim would have been mainly personal, resulting from the opening of the "can of worms" about what happened at the bank and having to deal with those issues again.

[maggiethecat]

mlm828 said:

As I've said before, I don't believe Jim would have let Titus be wrongfully charged and convicted. If Karen hadn't gone along with Jim's plan, or if Terry hadn't come around and told Fisk the gun accidentally discharged, I'm sure Jim would have told Fisk Terry shot himself and and he would have turned over the handkerchief, in spite of the fact that this would open up the whole "can of worms" about why Terry shot himself and what happened at the bank. I'm also sure that Jim wouldn't have tossed the handkerchief until Terry came forward and the charges against Titus were dismissed. Edited to add: If Terry hadn't come forward and told Fisk about the "accidental discharge," there probably would have been repercussions, but I think those would have been for Terry rather than for Jim. Maybe some cops would have felt Jim should have covered for Terry, but I don't think the department could take that position officially. And I wonder whether anyone would think Jim should have covered for Terry if the whole story about the bank came out. So I think the repercussions for Jim would have been mainly personal, resulting from the opening of the "can of worms" about what happened at the bank and having to deal with those issues again.

I can't believe we haven't discussed "Up on the Roof" since New Year's Eve! How is that possible?

Far be it from me, mlm88, to know or even understand the legal ramifications of Jim's withholding evidence had Terry not "fessed up." (Although my friends do joke that I have my JDL & O, and I am fairly solid on fruit of the poisonous tree.)

So. Where are we? Is this about what's known as "The Blue Wall," wherein one NYPD cop covers for another despite any shakiness in the moral grounding . . . or is this about Dunbar's personal code of morality, which is essentially based on what he believes is the right thing to do?

I think the latter. Here's a question: Is Jim more concerned with being straight with Fisk than he is with Terry? Fisk -- and his squad members in the Eighth -- are his future. Terry is his past. Would Jim have gone to Fisk with the whole story, even if it meant opening up what you so aptly called a "can of worms" where that day at the bank was concerned? I think so. I think Jim would have been able to put the case to Fisk -- persuasively and simply -- that whatever Terry's actions (or lack of them) at the bank, this was different. Although Terry's actions on that Rivington Street roof were rooted in his failure at the bank, this was of his own making. Nothing -- except, perhaps, his own demons -- forced Terry to fold his handkerchief in four and fire that gun into his shoulder. No one forced him to lie about what he'd done, or blithely lay the blame on a young black man with a convenient rap sheet.

This was about Terry knowing damn well what he'd done, and refusing to back down. This is about Terry being more than than willing to let Titus Oliver swing for his deed. What is that old line: Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man hang. Not the way Terry wants to play it, that's for sure.

In the end? I believe the deciding factor -- that which would have overrode all the emotionally uncomfortable aspects of Jim and Terry's past being revealed -- was the innocence of Titus Oliver. To keep one innocent man from being unjustly charged and incarcerated? I think Jim Dunbar would have done whatever he had to, whatever the cost.

That's what he does. As he has proved, that's who he is.

[housemouse]

I agree 100%. Jim would do what he had to do to get an innocent guy off. He would never knowingly send an innocent man to jail, which is what would have happened, had he not spoken up. Terry on the other hand, would send a million innocent men to jail in an attempt to try to make himself look better.

Regarding Terry; I think at this point he is just doing things out of desperation. As much as Jim doesn't recognize his old partner, Terry probably doesn't recognize himself. It is almost like he has put himself on autopilot and the old Terry is just sitting back watching as he does these awful things. The guy who was partnered up with Jim would not have framed an innocent man. If I may use a tired analogy, Terry is like a cornered animal. He is reacting and not thinking about the ramifications. Poor Terry.

[mlm828]

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications might have been if Terry hadn't gone along with Jim's plan to claim the gun accidentally discharged. However, I'm sure Jim would not have destroyed the handkerchief when it might still be needed as evidence. In his conversation with Terry at the river, he made it clear that he would toss the handkerchief only if Terry went to Fisk with the "accidental discharge" story.

I still think the prospect of having to re-hash all of the issues raised by Terry's shooting himself was a bigger concern for Jim than any legal ramifications. And I don't think any of the ramifications -- personal or legal -- would have affected Jim's decision to make sure Titus was not wrongfully convicted.

housemouse said:

Regarding Terry; I think at this point he is just doing things out of desperation. As much as Jim doesn't recognize his old partner, Terry probably doesn't recognize himself. It is almost like he has put himself on autopilot and the old Terry is just sitting back watching as he does these awful things. The guy who was partnered up with Jim would not have framed an innocent man. If I may use a tired analogy, Terry is like a cornered animal. He is reacting and not thinking about the ramifications. Poor Terry.

Very thought-provoking! I agree that Jim would not knowingly have partnered up with someone who would frame an innocent man. But I wonder. Was Terry that kind of man before, but his true nature was never revealed? Or did the events at the bank and their aftermath change him into someone else?

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

housemouse said:

Regarding Terry; I think at this point he is just doing things out of desperation. As much as Jim doesn't recognize his old partner, Terry probably doesn't recognize himself. It is almost like he has put himself on autopilot and the old Terry is just sitting back watching as he does these awful things. The guy who was partnered up with Jim would not have framed an innocent man. If I may use a tired analogy, Terry is like a cornered animal. He is reacting and not thinking about the ramifications. Poor Terry.

Very thought-provoking! I agree that Jim would not knowingly have partnered up with someone who would frame an innocent man. But I wonder. Was Terry that kind of man before, but his true nature was never revealed? Or did the events at the bank and their aftermath change him into someone else?

I don't think Terry was that kind of man before. I think that something snapped that day at the bank and Terry was never the same again.

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

I don't think Terry was that kind of man before. I think that something snapped that day at the bank and Terry was never the same again.

Aah, Juli, we are so up on that roof. You watched it again today, I listened to it, and it's fresh again. And my sleeves are rolled up. I think what Terry lost that day at the bank was his self-image, his very sense of who he was, and for a proud man that's a terrible thing.

With all that Dunbar lost that day, the one thing he didn't lose was who he was, as witness his year-long struggle to be reinstated. But for Terry? "I've been in Hell ever since," he tells Jim at the river. The NYPD doesn't exactly attract weak sisters, and to attain detective grade you have to be smart and dedicated and fierce. And I have to believe Terry was all that, or Dunbar wouldn't have partnered with him for three years.

But what strikes me -- yet again -- is how Terry never comes clean, not with Jim and not with himself. Oh, he finally admits that he "froze," but he still -- after all that has transpired -- expects Jim to cover for him. Again. He'll say that he wasn't sure it was Titus Oliver, he'll make the charges "go away." He's still trying to compromise, still trying to strike that bargain that will cover his @ss. Even with his back to the wall and Jim holding up the handkerchief -- incontrovertable proof if ever there was -- poor Terry is still trying to bargain.



I know this is from left field, but Terry's behavior at the river makes me think of the line from Gone With the Wind where Rhett tells Scarlett that she's like the thief who isn't the least bit sorry he stole, but doesn't want to go to jail.

And, as Jim tells Christie later that night, Terry now gets to hate Jim for making him come forward.



All of which leads to Jim's final lines, and why they have such a compelling and truthful resonance. Better blind than a coward. Better blind than a man who will not admit to his weaknesses, and is therefore condemned to repeat them, over and over again.

Let's play the "What if" game for a minute. What do you think Terry did after he was "off the Job" with a reduced pension? I've always imagined that he bought into the corner bar, regaled the patrons with his bold deeds in the NYPD, drank up the profits to the extent that Annie left him . . . and one dark night of the soul, ate his gun.

And what do you suppose Jim meant when he said that the story of Terry and the accidental shooting wouldn't remain hidden for long? Karen didn't tell Marty and Tom -- would she have ever told anyone? I think not. At this point she is defintitely in Jim's camp, she has her suspicions about what happened at the bank, and I think to protect and support her new partner she would have kept quiet.



So . . . would Marty and Tom have ever figured out what happened? Probably not, since Karen quietly stonewalled them. Would Fisk have blabbed? Would he have spilled to the Chief of Ds over a Scotch or three one night?

Will we ever be finished with "Up on the Roof?"

Mags

PS. And where is Kyt's take on all this? Kyt, you've been silent for too long. Come back, Shane, come back . . .

[inuvik]

maggiethecat said:

Let's play the "What if" game for a minute. What do you think Terry did after he was "off the Job" with a reduced pension? I've always imagined that he bought into the corner bar, regaled the patrons with his bold deeds in the NYPD, drank up the profits to the extent that Annie left him . . . and one dark night of the soul, ate his gun.

And what do you suppose Jim meant when he said that the story of Terry and the accidental shooting wouldn't remain hidden for long? Karen didn't tell Marty and Tom -- would she have ever told anyone? I think not. At this point she is defintitely in Jim's camp, she has her suspicions about what happened at the bank, and I think to protect and support her new partner she would have kept quiet.
So . . would Marty and Tom have ever figured out what happened? Probably not, since Karen quietly stonewalled them. Would Fisk have blabbed? Would he have spilled to the Chief of Ds over a Scotch or three one night?

I don't think that Karen (or Fisk) would have told. I think when Jim said that it wouldn't be secret for long, he meant that other cops would speculate. Why is Terry suddenly off the job? Why did what's his name go free? People would have known Jim's and Terry's relationship. People gossip--at least in my workplace they do, and I'm sure cops are no different.

If your speculation over Terry is correct, perhaps one drunk day in a bar he himself would have spilled the beans too, in a fit of guilt.

[bjobsessed]

Many people also knew, I'm sure, how difficult a time Terry had been having over the last year. I'm not saying he wasn't fit for the job, although you have to wonder when a guy shoots himself in the shoulder, but what if someone knew he was so bothered he could do something crazy? Maybe they figured it out from that.

If police stations are anything like hospitals where my mom works, people gossip all the time.

[hoosier]

I just posted this on the game as a -- for Terry Jansen and thought it might be an interesting topic for some discussion. Wonder why none of us thought of it before.

Terry didn't seem concerned about Karen's role in all of this. She knew what he did on the roof and she knew what kind of evidence Jim had that supported it , she was the one who found it. She wasn't obligated to Jim to sit on it and she was actually putting her own career in jeopardy if anything had gone wrong. She could have gone to Fisk with it. She had no past history with Terry so other than Jim being her partner, nothing could have prevented her from taking it in and bringing Terry down.

Terry was so focused on Jim and what he would do he doesnt seem to have worried about Karen at all. Or did he assume that Jim could somehow handle her, keep her quiet and make her toe the line?