Why Didn't Jim Spill the Beans?

[krissie]

mlm828 said:

I am aware of the "rule" about backing up a fellow cop's story, but I have to wonder if it applies in this situation. You expect a cop to support his partner's story against a suspect's -- for example, "He made a move toward his waistband, I thought he was going for a weapon" or "The drugs were in plain sight on the front seat of the car." But does that "rule" apply when a cop freezes up under fire, and another cop is seriously injured as a result? You'd think other cops would want to know about it -- especially those who might have to go out on the street with Terry. That's why I still think there may be more to it than "cops looking out for cops."

Whatever happened in the immediate aftermath of the shooting (and we can speculate endlessly), Jim's attitude toward Terry had hardened by the time he returned to work a year later. In Up on the Roof, he made it possible for Terry to leave the job without the whole story of the bank coming out. But I believe Jim did that for himself, not for Terry.

Karma! Because mlm has pretty much put into words my feelings about this.

We saw a couple of examples of Jim bending the rules to suit his own ends on the show. (The conversation about how the 'ticket' for the embroidery in Leap Of Faith could just 'go away' comes to mind here.) But while Jim is tempted to cut corners, we've never really seen him doing the wrong thing -- professionally, at least. (We know about the affair, but I can't think of any job-related examples.)

As far as I can see, Jim tends to do the right thing, even if he sometimes has to struggle to work out what that right thing might be.

So, in this case, what would the right thing have been?

This isn't Terry's word against that of a suspect. This is Terry failing to live up to expectations on the job. Would Jim's loyalty to his partner / friend be stronger than Jim's loyalty to the squad / police force?

If Jimmy thought keeping quiet was the right thing, would there have been so much bad blood between him and Terry? Wouldn't they have talked this through? Wouldn't the matter have been resolved before the series started?

I can't help thinking that there was something more going on in the background that we don't know about because, if Jim were protecting Terry out of some sense of loyalty or friendship, would there really have been that much bad blood between them by the time the series starts? I'm not sure that I can see that, myself.

(Sorry, Carl, but I really don't feel comfortable with the idea that this was a 'man-to-man' thing. That, to me, just doesn't seem to be reason enough for Jim to have kept quiet.)

I do agree with Maggie that Jim is 'taciturn, self-reliant, and, above all, proud. Proud of his past, proud of all he'd achieved, proud of his skills'. I also agree wholeheartedly that 'Dunbar doesn't share'. But I'm not sure that those character traits alone would have forced him into silence because I think that there was something bigger at work here.

I think Jim's refusal to share comes into play here because he doesn't talk about what happened. What happened happened in the past. But that doesn't mean to say that he wouldn't have tried to talk about it at the time.

Maybe Jimmy didn't 'tell on' Terry. But I think he should have. More than that, I think he would have, if he'd had the chance to, because it would have been the right thing to do.

Or... maybe I'm completely off-base here, and I'm just projecting what I would like my romanticized version of the character to have done!

If Jim didn't tell anyone about Terry, then I suppose the next question is, should he have done? Was he being derelict in his duty not raising alarm bells about him?

And, on that very inconclusive conclusion, I'm going to stop.

Krissie

[Chris]

First off, I have to karma Carl for this one, too funny ;D

carl1951 said:

The only thing Dunbar probably regretted is not shooting Terry first.

krissie said:

Surely, there would have been some kind of inquiry into the shooting. Questions would have been asked, so why didn't the truth come out?

I think it's safe to assume that the investigation of the shooting would have focused on Terry first since Jim was shot and in the hospital.
Of course they knew that Jim had used Terry's gun. There were witnesses who might have seen Dunbar come over to Terry and "borrow" his gun and ballistics will confirm that it was Terry's gun used. Terry would have had time to "cook up" a story and I think what he said to Dunbar in the Pilot was his official story "I was pinned down, I couldn't make a move" He was sitting on the ground and Dunbar comes over to him, standing, having a better shot at the bank robber, so he borrows Terry's gun and shoots... Neat little story but not quite the whole truth.

When they eventually asked Jim what happened that day I agree with Lindy:

momoonwez said:

Maybe Jim knew that the first time around was possibly a mistake on Terry's part that was not easy to forget and forgive......
But I think that when Terry shot himself, Jim felt the need to not allow him to continue on the job because now Terry would be a liability to any partner that he would have.

Like he told Karen; "You can never tell how you'll react in situation like that" - though he knew exactly how HE would react himself, and that was anything BUT freezing and "loosing his courage"
But when Terry shoots himself, well, that can't be excused in any way but instead shows that Terry should no longer be a cop, his actions are irrational and he is a liability to the Force.
As MLM said, he gave Terry the chance to quit the job without the whole story coming out, not for Terry but for himself, he wanted to be "done with it"

krissie said:

If Jimmy thought keeping quiet was the right thing, would there have been so much bad blood between him and Terry? Wouldn't they have talked this through? Wouldn't the matter have been resolved before the series started?

I can't help thinking that there was something more going on in the background that we don't know about because, if Jim were protecting Terry out of some sense of loyalty or friendship, would there really have been that much bad blood between them by the time the series starts? I'm not sure that I can see that, myself.

Even if Jim did back up Terry's interpretation of the events at the bank, I still think he had a lot of resentment towards Terry for not owning up to the truth - and rightly so - and that's where the bad blood comes from.
Terry said, he had tried calling Jim a couple of times, maybe he had talked to Christie on the phone then, begging her to convince Jim that his story was the truth and that's where the resentment comes from.
Jim's answer was "I guess, I wasn't ready to talk to you" - of course not, he had just been shot and blinded - and here is Terry whining and trying to sell the story of him being pinned down and not being able to move - Maybe you can talk yourself into believing that but as far as Jim goes, you would be better off being "a man" and admit to you cowardice.
Had Terry done that everything would probably have been fine, but that would of course have deprived us of this precious moment:

"I'd rather loose my sight than my courage"

- Chris

[shmeep]

Oh, this is all very interesting. I'm loving all the different theories. Many of them seem plausible to me so far. Here's a slightly different take:

For Jim to have said anything would have put him in a position of weakness. Yes, it would have made him heroic--in the past tense, of course--but for him to have emphasized that his partner did not have his back might not have been a good strategy for a blind guy who was going into a doubting squad, all of whom knew he would never "have their backs" either. Maybe he didn't want to throw them a reminder of what could happen on the job and of how useless he would now be in such a situation.

I'm sure that's only part of it, though. I agree that Jim never said anything he didn't have to--especially about the incident at the bank--and that he would never rat out his partner.

[Chris]

admin said:

For Jim to have said anything would have put him in a position of weakness. Yes, it would have made him heroic--in the past tense, of course--but for him to have emphasized that his partner did not have his back might not have been a good strategy for a blind guy who was going into a doubting squad, all of whom knew he would never "have their backs" either. Maybe he didn't want to throw them a reminder of what could happen on the job and of how useless he would now be in such a situation.

Karma, Shmeep!!
You're right, that would have been really bad, reminding them of what he couldn't do. No need to put yourself in a position of weakness when you are already considered weak.

-Chris

[hoosier]

Its hard to imagine that no one saw what went on between Jim and Terry at the bank ie:other cops, the media, civilians. A lot was going on but that no one saw Jim run across, take Terry's gun and step up to take out the bad guy? That no one spoke up to at least see that Terry got reprimanded for his actions... or lack thereof. Mlm commented that the department would not highlight something that would tarnish their reputation but that they didn't take some action seems reprehensible.

Krissie made a good point that ballistics would have shown that it was Terry's gun, not Jim's, that killed the robber. Maybe Terry took his gun back after it was done. He would have been the closest to Jim and would surely have gone to his aid. It would have been a simple matter to have put Jim's gun back beside him.

Maybe Jim didn't want to admit to himself that Terry had done what he had. They had been partners for three years. Terry had made a point of having Jim admit that he had never done anything to make him question that he(Terry) had always had his back. It would be hard to accept the fact that you hadn't known your partner as well as you though you had.

I couldn't imagine Jim coming right out and telling the squad what had gone down at the bank. As you said, he is proud and reserved. I am sure they had contacts they could have used to learn more it they had really wanted to know so maybe they were waiting for Jim to tell them the story. Karen pressed Jim to be more honest and open with her, saying that since they were partners and had each others back day in and day out that they had to tell each other what was on their minds. She is very astute and probably would have been able to put things together.

[krissie]

I've just had another thought. The robbery was outside a bank, right? So wouldn't there have been security cameras, and the whole incident caught on film?

Krissie

[shmeep]

Before this thread, I had never given much thought to who may or may not have known the truth about what happened at the bank. I guess I just assumed only Jim and Terry knew the worst of it and that they had allowed a few facts to be left vague in order for certain aspects of it to be dropped altogether.

There could have been cameras--although that doesn't necessarily mean everything was caught on tape. Terry was crouching in a place that could have been missed so it's possible no one saw what he was doing and just assumed he really couldn't get to Jim for some reason--he said himself that he was pinned down so maybe that was the "official" story. We know Jim was lauded in the media for going above and beyond the call of duty. Marty commenting on his "balls of steel at the bank" shows they knew he had done something other than shooting the gunman from a safe position. I don't know what was said in the media of his heroics, but it was clear from the reactions of others that he had done more than most in that situation would have and everyone knew it.

I guess it's possible the truth was commonly acknowledged in the investigation. We don't know if Terry was sent to counseling or put on probation. We do know that Jim was assigned to a different squad, something they may have done to keep him away from Terry. It seems his old unit, full of people who knew exactly what kind of a cop he was and who respected him and had relationships with him, might have been more welcoming than a squad full of suspicious strangers--but maybe Jim didn't want to go back there because of the inevitable pity and awkwardness that would take place because they would be able to compare Blind Jim with Sighted Jim.

Even if others did know the truth, it's clear his new squad did not and Jim seemed determined to keep it that way. I think the reasons behind this decision could keep us speculating for quite some time because so much was left open to interpretation.

[Chris]

Even if there were security cameras, and I believe there were, Terry would still have had time to come up with the I was pinned down, couldn't make a move -story. And who knows, maybe the department knew what happened but wanted to "keep it in the house" and as a punishment partnered him up with Glen Semple.
Then the next question is, what did HE do to deserve being partnered up with Terry ;D
Right, Terry said so himself; "He is big and bad but nobody would partner with him"

[shmeep]

I had forgotten about Glen Stemple! I think it's obvious Terry was in some kind of disgrace, whether anyone was openly acknowledging it or not, to have been partnered with Glen. That fact alone makes it obvious he had really come down in the estimation of the department when you consider that he had previously been partnered Jim, undoubtedly one of the best and brightest. It's interesting to try to figure out exactly what happened there. Did people know about Terry? Did he just look bad in light of what happened to Jim, even if they did believe his "pinned down" story? Did he lose his nerve after he lost Jim, screwing up until he had no choice but to be partnered with the likes of Mr. "Chillin' on the Futon"? Even if no one knew the truth, anyone could figure out that if Terry was pinned down, so was Jim--and Jim did shoot the guy with Terry's gun. There's no way Terry could have come out of that looking good. So, while people in Fisk's squad didn't know the particulars, Marty knew enough to ask about the bad blood and Karen obviously put it all together, as one of you pointed out earlier.

[mlm828]

On the question of "who saw what happened?": During our earlier discussions, I looked at the opening scene of the Pilot carefully several times. Based on what I saw on the screen, I concluded that the only people (other than Jim and Terry) who were in a position to see what happened were either unconscious or dead.

On the issue of security cameras, a lot of the action probably took place out of the range of the bank's cameras. As far as I know, most banks' security cameras are inside, with outside cameras only at the ATM and maybe the entrance(s). (If anyone has better information on this point, please set me straight). In any event, the gunman was out in the middle of the street, and it didn't look like Jim or Terry was close enough to the bank itself to be caught on the bank's cameras.

While there likely was an investigation of the incident, I wonder how extensive it was. The gunman was dead, so no one was going to be prosecuted. The only other investigation would be into the shooting of the gunman by Jim, but it was obvious that the shooting was justified. There may not even have been any ballistic examination of the bullet from the gunman's body to determine who shot him, since that was obvious, too.

I don't think we can assume Jim made a decision to support (or at least not to contradict) Terry's story immediately after the incident. He may not have been in any condition to give a statement for a period of time afterward. Or he may not have remembered. If there were no other witnesses, no one would have any reason to question whatever story Terry came up with to "sanitize" his actions. By the time Jim was able to give a statement, it may have been too late. Setting the record straight might not have been very high on his list of priorities at the time. Or maybe he just didn't want to deal with it.

I totally agree that, by the time of Up on the Roof, Jim's major issue with Terry wasn't what he did or didn't do at the bank, but his continuing refusal to be honest about it. And that was compounded by Terry's attempt to set up Titus and his refusal to come clean about that, too, until Jim forced his hand by finding the handkerchief.

By the end of Up on the Roof, Karen probably had a good general idea of what happened at the bank. She might not have known the specifics, but she knew Terry hadn't "stepped up," and she also knew that his failure was serious enough to cause him to shoot himself. The rest of the squad, Marty especially, was likely skeptical of the story that Terry had shot himself "accidentally." Given that Marty noticed and commented on the "bad blood" between Jim and Terry and connected it with the bank, it's also possible the rest of the squad suspected the official version of what happened at the bank wasn't the whole story.

[hoosier]

I don't know about other banks, but here the cameras are on the ATMs or are inside the bank itself. If that is the case everywhere it is unlikely that the bank's cameras could have picked up what was going on in the street. What I wondered was the media. I am sure they had news crews on the scene as this was a pretty big deal. Even in NYC its not every day that there is an armed (as in AK47!) robbery of an armored car surely! Of course, its hard to have cameras everywhere. A news chopper might have picked it up but they could have put Jim's actions to checking on a fellow cop and then deciding to end the matter by killing the gunman with an opportune shot.

As to Glen Semple and Terry-- Terry told them that he was partnered with Glen because "no one else would partner with him" or words to that effect. Another case of Terry twisting the truth? Making it seem like he had done Glen a favor by stepping up and riding with him because no one else would instead of the other way around?

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

What I wondered was the media. I am sure they had news crews on the scene as this was a pretty big deal. Even in NYC its not every day that there is an armed (as in AK47!) robbery of an armored car surely! Of course, its hard to have cameras everywhere. A news chopper might have picked it up but they could have put Jim's actions to checking on a fellow cop and then deciding to end the matter by killing the gunman with an opportune shot.

Good points. However, I think news crews on the ground would have been kept well away from the shootout. And isn't there a "no-fly zone" over most if not all of Manhattan since 9-11?

[Dreamfire]

Such a great question from Maggie and I've lurked on the thread enjoying the back and forth. It is such a juicy question.

I agree that it is in his nature to be reserved and say the bare minimum, and I think that that counts for a lot. The whole scenario of injury, confusion and possibly no one asking him about Terry's performace, (I mean it was probably just assumed Terry held up his end as expected?) and I can see how it never makes it out of his mouth.

and...

I wonder what the consequences may have been if Jim had reported Terry's cowardice at the time? Is there a chance he wouldn't have been believed? Would he have looked like a snitch? Wouldhe have looked weak? It would have been his word against Terry's and it could have looked like sour grapes. Was Jim protecting his own reputation as a "cops cop"? Did Jim weigh the possible consequences of reporting it and decide it wasn't worth it?

but...

Not reporting it resulted in a cop on the street that Jim knew was incapable of having his partner's back. Was it mere luck that no one else found themselves in Jim's position and died for it?



I hate to contemplate the thought, ( No no not Jimmy my hero! ) but... could there have been some self-preservation in the mix of keeping mum?

[krissie]

krissie said:

I've just had another thought. The robbery was outside a bank, right? So wouldn't there have been security cameras, and the whole incident caught on film?

Krissie

Don't worry, I'm not going to bang on about CCTV cameras, at least not to defend my earlier point!

However, I've been stewing about this for a few days, and I want to tell you what I suspect was the reason why I (rather than anyone else) thought about this. That reason has to do with the current situation in Great Britain.

Great Britain is "the most spied-upon nation in the world" according to an article that appeared in the New Statesman last year. And I'm pretty sure that I've heard this mentioned on BBC Radio 4, too.

Apparently, we have -- wait for it -- one CCTV camera for every 12 Britons.

The New Statesman article goes on to say:

The average Londoner going about his or her business may be monitored by 300 CCTV cameras a day. Roughly 1,800 cameras watch over London's railway stations and another 6,000 permanently peer at commuters on the Underground and London buses. In other major city centres, including Manchester and Edinburgh, residents can expect to be sighted on between roughly 50 and 100 cameras a day.

Besides the official cameras - such as those operated by Westminster City Council from the Trocadero basement - ever-growing numbers of private companies, banks, building societies, schools, community halls, leisure centres and private residences are using CCTV.

I don't really have a point here, other than to say that the results of a websearch suggests to me that New York has significantly fewer surveillance cameras than London. Had Jim been shot in London, somebody probably would have caught something on CCTV!

Or... How about a video taken on a camera phone? Quite a lot of footage was floating around after the London bomb attacks in July 2005.

Krissie <not overly proud of this cultural difference between our countries!>

[mlm828]

ashatan said:

I wonder what the consequences may have been if Jim had reported Terry's cowardice at the time? Is there a chance he wouldn't have been believed? Would he have looked like a snitch? Would he have looked weak? It would have been his word against Terry's and it could have looked like sour grapes.

I, too, have considered the possibility that Jim thought he might not have been believed. But when I think it through, I don't think it's likely. As far as we know, there were no problems between Jim and Terry before the bank. The "bad blood" between them came about because of what happened that day. So if Jim has it in for Terry, it's because of what happened at the bank -- which means that what Jim says happened there is the truth.

ashatan said:

Was Jim protecting his own reputation as a "cops cop"? Did Jim weigh the possible consequences of reporting it and decide it wasn't worth it?

Another possibility is suggested by something Jim said to Terry in "Up on the Roof." When they meet at the river, Terry asks if he ever let Jim down, before the bank, and Jim agrees he didn't. Maybe Jim kept quiet because, at first, he viewed Terry's actions at the bank as a one-time aberration. ("That wasn't me," as Terry said). This is not to say that Jim let Terry off the hook. Clearly, he didn't; as shown by his statement to Terry in the Pilot, "We both know what happened that day," he did not accept Terry's excuses or justifications. But he may nevertheless have been willing to keep it between them, believing it was a one-time event. All that changed, of course, when Terry shot himself and attempted to frame Titus. After that, I think Jim knew Terry could not be allowed to stay on the job. He then engineered a way to get Terry off the job without bringing up what had happened at the bank.