|
Post by hoosier on Apr 12, 2007 18:24:35 GMT -5
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? Whoops, forgot all about that! Guess I am used to the news choppers here bringing all those shots of accidents, car chases etc. into our living rooms. And that case a few years ago, I think in LA, of the Kevlar wearing, AK47 toting robber who held off all those cops and the aerial shots we saw. It could be Terry purposely chose to be partnered with Semple because he was the polar opposite of Jim Dunbar. He would be able to mentally regroup, come to his own terms about what happened and get his life and career back on track. I guess it all comes down to honesty--Terry's with Jim and , more importantly, with himself. Terry seems to have a bad case of rationalization--he was pinned down and couldn't help Jim but he had always been a good partner to him and now he was partnered with Semple because no one else would. Not only was Terry able to get back on the street so was Semple who might have been tied to a desk to finish out his years on the force.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 13, 2007 13:46:27 GMT -5
It could be Terry purposely chose to be partnered with Semple because he was the polar opposite of Jim Dunbar. He would be able to mentally regroup, come to his own terms about what happened and get his life and career back on track. I guess it all comes down to honesty--Terry's with Jim and , more importantly, with himself. Terry seems to have a bad case of rationalization--he was pinned down and couldn't help Jim but he had always been a good partner to him and now he was partnered with Semple because no one else would. Not only was Terry able to get back on the street so was Semple who might have been tied to a desk to finish out his years on the force. Waauu!!! That sounds plausible, karma That sounds exactly like Terry, this way he is actually doing something GOOD for someone else. He did have this little "mishap" but otherwise he is a good cop and a good guy too, helping out poor Glen Semple. So if only he could get Dunbar to go with the I was pinned down-story, everything would be fine... - Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2007 15:25:13 GMT -5
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? No.....helicopters are flying around all the time.
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Apr 13, 2007 18:05:13 GMT -5
No.....helicopters are flying around all the time. Hmmm.... With that, I wonder what role the media played if any. Could they have backed up Jim's story or were they in a position to see what really happened? Given that Terry remained on the job and that the reporters didn't quiz Jim his first day back about his "feelings" towards his former partner, probably not. How hard did the press try to get an interview with Jim? In all likelihood, he had had plenty of experience with reporters who were covering a case he was working though I can't imagine him easily granting an interview post-bank. He didn't appreciate that they got a hold of the story of his fight for reinstatement and then went "running with it", apparently without consulting or after being turned down by him. He didn't like being hyped as a hero and he later refused to go along with a 1PP sanctioned article because it was to be just about him not the case. Would he have been able to control his anger and not blurt it out about Terry if pressed by a skilled interviewer?
|
|
|
Post by Dreamfire on Apr 13, 2007 21:16:48 GMT -5
[quote author=hoosier board=2 thread=1175892365 post=1176505513Would he have been able to control his anger and not blurt it out about Terry if pressed by a skilled interviewer?
[/quote]
Good question! He has amazing reserve but also a temper.
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Apr 13, 2007 21:37:19 GMT -5
No.....helicopters are flying around all the time. So much for that idea. I wonder what role the media played if any. Could they have backed up Jim's story or were they in a position to see what really happened? Given that Terry remained on the job and that the reporters didn't quiz Jim his first day back about his "feelings" towards his former partner, probably not. If there were news crews on the ground, I think they would have been kept away from the shootout, because of all the bullets flying. If there were news helicopters over the scene, they might not have been able to zoom in close enough to recognize what was happening with Terry and Jim, and they wouldn't have been able to hear Jim yelling at Terry to take the shot. How hard did the press try to get an interview with Jim? In all likelihood, he had had plenty of experience with reporters who were covering a case he was working though I can't imagine him easily granting an interview post-bank. He didn't appreciate that they got a hold of the story of his fight for reinstatement and then went "running with it", apparently without consulting or after being turned down by him. He didn't like being hyped as a hero and he later refused to go along with a 1PP sanctioned article because it was to be just about him not the case. Would he have been able to control his anger and not blurt it out about Terry if pressed by a skilled interviewer? I think it would have been relatively easy for Jim to avoid the press in the time after the shooting. He would have been in the hospital for some period of time, and the press probably could have been kept away from him while he was there. I don't know whether the press could have gotten to him after he was discharged from the hospital. It's my understanding that cops' home addresses are pretty closely guarded information, but maybe the press could have found him in spite of this. Depending on how long he was in the hospital, by the time he was discharged, his story might have been "yesterday's news" -- until the story broke about his lawsuit. Edited to add: If the press did manage to talk to him, their focus might not have been on what happened at the bank; they might have been more interested in doing a "human-interest" type of story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2007 22:00:37 GMT -5
No.....helicopters are flying around all the time. So much for that idea. Karma for trying? ;D
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Apr 14, 2007 15:22:09 GMT -5
So much for that idea. Karma for trying? ;D Thanks! I thought there might not have been news helicopters covering the bank robbery, because of something I read after the incident where a Yankees pitcher flew his small plane into a building on the Upper East Side. I remember reading at the time that there were restrictions on the airspace over Manhattan, and he was supposed to be over the East River. But maybe those rules don't apply to news helicopters.
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Apr 14, 2007 16:02:17 GMT -5
Why didn't Jim spill the beans? To give us something about which to speculate. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Apr 15, 2007 0:45:24 GMT -5
Why didn't Jim spill the beans? To give us something about which to speculate. ;D Karma! For the best answer yet! But it's not going to stop me from speculating some more. My latest theory for why the news choppers didn't catch what happened is as follows: they didn't get there in time. The part of the shootout we see at the beginning of the Pilot lasts only one minute, forty seconds. The shootout is already in progress when the Pilot begins, but maybe it hadn't been going on for very long. So it all went down before the news choppers could get there.
|
|