The Beginning of the "Gun Issue"

[housemouse]

Early on in Seoul Man, when the Chief of D's chews Jim a new a**hole, is , I think, where we see the first signs of Jim wondering if carrying a gun is such a good idea.

When he heard the shots he pulled his gun instinctively. I think that until the moment that the CoD's accused him of waving it around and putting everyone on the street in danger, he thought it was natural. Cops have guns. Period.

I may be stretching here, but I think there is more to be said about Seoul Man and this is as good a place to start as any. So fire up those VCR's/DVD players people, get reacquainted with an old favorite, and let's talk Seoul Man!

[mlm828]

This is a very interesting point -- the scene could mark the beginning of Jim's second guessing himself on the issue of carrying a gun. But I'm not sure. Jim doesn't back down at all on the issue in the meeting with the Chief, indicating he isn't reconsidering whether he should be carrying a gun. On the other hand, he's very defensive about it, indicating he knows there's a problem, even if he isn't ready to admit it.

Whatever Jim thought at the time, I'm pretty sure this conversation with the Chief played a role in his ultimate decision to stop carrying the gun. After the Chief's comment that if something happened again with the gun, they'd have to reconsider the whole situation, Jim surely knew -- if he didn't already -- that the gun could give the brass a convenient pretext to get him off the job or assigned to some kind of limited duty. I'm sure this realization factored in to his decision that carrying the gun could cause more problems than it was worth.

[maggiethecat]

How did I miss this terrific, thought-provoking discussion?

Absolutely, I have to agree that "Seoul Man" is where the evidence starts to mount that the gun ma-a-aybe isn't the way to go.

What I take away from the opening sequence, when Dunbar pulls the gun on his way into the market, is how pointless this action is given the circumstances. It's the old instincts he can't seem to shake. In Lyman's kitchen pulling the gun works to his advantage -- here, it doesn't.

What also gets me about that opening sequence is how completely helpless Jim is. I mean, nothing is working to his favor: he can't see the perp run by, he can't help the man who's been shot in the store (it looks to me as though he's trying to find the wound to apply pressure and yes, I watch a lot of ER), and he's so rattled by events that he doesn't realize there's blood on his hands (and no, I do not think it's a metaphor!).

Then Marty needles him repeatedly, and, adding to his frustration, there's that telling little moment when Karen points out that he can't find his way back to the car. Poor guy, he can't even blow off steam by stalking off in a huff! (Don't you just love the way the writers kept dumping it on this guy's head by the bucketfull?) So I think that by the time Jim gets to the meeting with Tunney, he's completely on the defensive and Tunney just makes matters worse. But yeah, if we read every subtle look and expression and line every of dialogue inside out -- who, us?! -- I think you can make the case that the gun issue is furthered here, in this episode, by Jim's handling the situation testily. Kind of a "methinks thou dost protest too much" thing. He's not about to admit that the gun isn't a good idea, though, not yet. To me, he's still hanging on by his fingernails and is not about to give up anything.

PS I know somebody mentioned in another thread that Jim pulled his gun six times in the series but I can't think of all six. Is there a list somewhere? I'm curious, and I also wonder if you can make the case that every time he pulls it, it's not to good effect. Except, as I said, in Lyman's kitchen where it does stop the guy.

[bjobsessed]

Here's the gun pulls that I remember.

1. Lyman's Kitchen
2. He comes home and finds the door open to the apt in MB
3. Marlon Condell's apt
4. Seoul Man on the street

I had another one but I lost it for the moment. That gets us started anyway.

[hoosier]

Thought I would put my two-cents in on the gun issue....

Two different characters weighed in on the gun. First there was Chief Tunney in SM when he said that Jim had 'jeopardized everyone on the street' when he instinctively pulled his weapon and later Vince in UTG when he said 'you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Its insanity'. Because of this , SM and UTG can be considered as part of the same story arc. In SM, I believe Tunney was thinking more along the line of 'what if'...what if the perp had gotten Jim's gun and threatened not only Jim but all the civilians on the street. What if, heaven forbid, innocent people on the street had been killed because the perp had gotten the gun. How would the department have handled the fallout. Jim probably hadn't even considered that possibility. To him, a cop carries a gun. Its a visual reminder of his authority. Its not just vanity with Jim, its proves to others as well as himself that he IS a real cop. He can't even use it to defend the public, its only for his own protection and only if he is 'up close' to the perp.

With UTG, Jim carries his gun to class and then dinner and the fear that something could happen does happen--its possible that Josh Krist, a teenager, may have been killed by Jim's stolen gun.
Vince points out how foolhardy it is that Jim even carries a weapon. Its not the fact that Jim is blind and a cop. Its the fact that he is blind and carries a gun. After it is returned, Jim slowly begins to come to some sort of realization that maybe giving it up would be for the best but he is also afraid that he is 'drifting further and further away from who he is'. He has had to give 'so much already' because of his blindness, things that he had no control over. The gun was one thing from his life before that he was able to fight for and keep, even if on a limited basis. That is probably why he was so loath to turn it in. That and his idea of what a detective, a cop is.

[mlm828]

I've been giving some thought to the whole gun issue. Looking back over the series as a whole, I think things were set up, from the very first episode, to lead to Jim's giving up the gun.

Yes, Jim uses the gun to save Karen in Lyman's kitchen in the Pilot. But in other respects, the gun is a problem. Fisk is obviously concerned about Jim's carrying a gun, and he doesn't seem to be persuaded by Jim's explanation that it's only to be used up close (which, of course, is not how Jim uses in later on, in the kitchen). The close-up of Jim in the bathroom at Lyman's house shows that he is very shaken up by the whole incident, and having to use the gun no doubt was part of it. Finally, Lyman tries to use the gun issue against Jim, accusing him of waving it around and endangering children playing nearby. So the groundwork is laid in the Pilot for us -- and Jim -- to start thinking (if we weren't already) that carrying a gun may not be such a great idea.

When Jim draws his gun later on in the series, it only causes him problems. In "Marlon's Brando," he draws his gun when Condell pulls out his gun. But, as he later admits to Galloway, if Condell had turned the gun on Karen instead of himself, there wasn't "a damn thing" he could have done about it -- even with the gun. In the same episode, when he draws his gun after finding the door open when he comes home, all he succeeds in doing is alarming Christie.

In case we've missed these hints along the way, "Seoul Man" makes it clear that carrying a gun is likely to cause Jim more problems than it's worth. As I've mentioned before, his defensiveness when talking to the Chief about the subject indicates to me that he's starting to wonder about the wisdom of carrying a gun, even if he's not yet ready to admit it to himself.

In the end, it took the loss of the gun in "Under the Gun" to drive home the realization that carrying a gun was too problematic -- even if giving it up means losing another part of himself. Even then, he still needed to hear Christie, Fisk, and Marty tell him he could do the job without a gun -- and he would not be losing that part of who he was -- before he could finally give it up.

[maggiethecat]

Not much to add to your clear-headed and thoughtful assessment, mlm88, just a few random thoughts:

I, too, believe the seeds of doubt were sown in The Pilot, in the viewers and in Dunbar himself. In the first three minutes Dunbar's blindness is established . . . and, almost immediately, we see him reaching into the desk drawer for a gun as part of getting ready for work. I remember thinking, the first time I saw it, What? The guy's blind now and he's still carrying? So yeah, I think that conundrum was set up from the get-go. In Fisk's office, when Dunbar offers the belly-gun-up-close excuse, watch the body language. He clears his throat, he shifts in his seat. Talk about "tells." He's no more comfortable with the concept than Fisk is.

What I find interesting is that, had Dunbar been able to keep to the belly-gun-up-close restriction, there would have been no problem (and arguably no drama). But ten years of instincts overrode one year of sighlessness. Granted, he was able to keep Lyman at bay by pulling it . . . but every other time he does it only exacerbates the situation.

In retrospect? Considering how many shots the critics got off because of the "blind cop with a gun" aspect of the show, I wish Bochco and Co. had let the press know that Dunbar was going to stop carrying by the end of the season. Or presented it as a character-driven drama instead of a procedural with a gimmick. And I know I've said this before.

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

In retrospect? Considering how many shots the critics got off because of the "blind cop with a gun" aspect of the show, I wish Bochco and Co. had let the press know that Dunbar was going to stop carrying by the end of the season. Or presented it as a character-driven drama instead of a procedural with a gimmick. And I know I've said this before.

I have to think the gun was intended all along as a metaphor for Jim's effort to hang on to who he was. I doubt that Bochco, or even "that network," expected the concept of a "blind cop with a gun" to be considered realistic. So I think the gun was there only so Jim could give it up. In retrospect, we can see that this intent was telegraphed in the early episodes, but few if any viewers seem to have gotten the point.

[anna]

It is interesting to me that Seoul Man immediately followed Marlon’s Brando. In MB, as we have discussed before, there was a running theme of emasculation. A gun is a traditional symbol of masculinity. In using “gun” as a euphemism at the end of MB, Christie assured Jim that he had not been emasculated by blindness. In SM, we see the gun in another traditional role, as a symbol of power and authority. Those two episodes taken together represent both sides of what the gun means to Jim and why the idea of its being taken away from him is so threatening.

[maggiethecat]

mlm828 said:

The close-up of Jim in the bathroom at Lyman's house shows that he is very shaken up by the whole incident, and having to use the gun no doubt was part of it.

Are we done here? Heaven forfend.

Since I am one of those cheerfully self-admitted wonks who thinks everything we've been chewing on for the past year was established in The Pilot, I have to say that two things always struck me about that scene: Firstly, that it was a foreshadowing of the scene in Condell's apartment in "Marlon's Brando", in that had Randy Lyman actually been pointing a gun at Jim, there wouldn't have been "a damn thing" Jim could have done to protect either Karen or himself. Secondly? On a lighter note, it always amused me that had Randy just shut up, no way could Dunbar have drawn a bead on him. Just keep yammering, Randy, and I'm there.

anna said:

It is interesting to me that Seoul Man immediately followed Marlon’s Brando. In MB, as we have discussed before, there was a running theme of emasculation. A gun is a traditional symbol of masculinity. In using “gun” as a euphemism at the end of MB, Christie assured Jim that he had not been emasculated by blindness. In SM, we see the gun in another traditional role, as a symbol of power and authority. Those two episodes taken together represent both sides of what the gun means to Jim and why the idea of its being taken away from him is so threatening.

Beautifully put, anna, as always . . . but I have to wonder -- how fallacious was the reasoning of the writers in placing that kind of importance on the gun in the first place? Do Jim's actions with his gun ever have a direct impact on how he did his job, or how he closed cases? With the exception of getting Lyman to back down, I can't think of one.

The gun -- and the right to carry one -- is a compelling matephor for masculine pride and power, but, as proved time and again in this show, a detective's job is 99.9% mental and as such has little to do with brute force or ballistics. Case in point the stylistic differences between Jim and Marty: Karen may accurately accuse Jim of being a bull in a china shop, but in the end it always comes down to the interogation room, where Dunbar's canny intuition is far more effective than Marty's blunt hammering. Maybe that's where the writers were headed all along: the interrogation room and what happens -- or who wins -- there. Plenty of NYPD tecs serve their entire 20 without ever pulling their piece, and there are some who don't even carry. Is this where the accepted forms of TV cop dramas took precedence over reality, or even logic? Could be.

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

The gun -- and the right to carry one -- is a compelling metaphor for masculine pride and power, but, as proved time and again in this show, a detective's job is 99.9% mental and as such has little to do with brute force or ballistics. . . . Is this where the accepted forms of TV cop dramas took precedence over reality, or even logic? Could be.

It could be, but I think there was a deliberate choice to use the gun not only as a symbol of masculinity, but also as a remnant of the old, sighted Dunbar, which he had to give up in order to move forward and accept that he is a "different cop." And, of course, the gun provided a lot of drama along the way.

With hindsight, the show might have been even stronger if Jim hadn't carried a gun, and some of the drama revolved around the fact he was unarmed. (Maybe that happens in the unaired episodes). Of course, the naysayers would then have claimed it wasn't "realistic" for him to be unarmed. And there would have to be something other than giving up the gun to show how far he'd come.

[mlm828]

How could I forget to mention that the first confrontation between Jim and Marty, in the Pilot, was over the gun? How important was that, not only to the gun issue, but also to the whole Jim-Marty conflict?

[hoosier]

In the Pilot, as Jim reaches for his gun there is that slightest hesitation, as if he is not quite sure himself if he should be carrying it but he had made such an issue of it,how could he go in without it? Its unclear what leverage he used to get the department to let him have a gun regardless of the waiver issue.

Prior to that we see him practicing martial arts in the AM. Now, thats dedication! Maybe he had decided to rely more on that for self-defense even though he said that he was carrying a gun for those 'up close' situations. Did he take it up only as fall-back measure in case the department refused to let him keep his gun? Or was he thinking somewhere in the back of his mind that judo or whatever skill he was honing was safer than struggling up close with some perp and the gun??? I would definitely think so!

Wonder if any of those unseen eps had Jim showing his prowess with those martial arts

And Marty? To me he was like a Greek chorus, constantly harping on the gun and never letting Jim or the audience forget that he was packing!

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

In the Pilot, as Jim reaches for his gun there is that slightest hesitation, as if he is not quite sure himself if he should be carrying it but he had made such an issue of it,how could he go in without it? Its unclear what leverage he used to get the department to let him have a gun regardless of the waiver issue.

I'm not sure if he's hesitating, or simply finding it. Oh, well, another excuse to watch the Pilot one more time.

The whole business of the "waiver" always seemed very iffy to me. What, exactly, did Jim waive? According to Lt. Fisk, the waiver only covered Jim getting shot. What if Jim shoots an innocent bystander? BIG problem!

As has already been pointed out, Jim's claim that he was only going to use the gun in an up-close struggle doesn't hold up. We never see him draw the gun in that kind of situation. As much as I hate to say it, Chief Tunney was right -- Jim's old instincts, from when he could see, are still very much in control. Jim having the gun was a disaster waiting to happen.

Edited to add: Another thought about that waiver. It only applies if Jim gets shot, meaning if he shoots himself with his own gun? I don't think he'd sign a waiver covering his getting shot by a suspect or another cop.

[Dreamfire]

I've been lurking this thread but not saying much because I think my own view is radical and probably driven more by hero worship than sense.

I didn't see any hesitation when Jim get's his gun either in the morning when he puts it on his hip or later when he goes to Karen's rescue. I just saw confident Jim, doing what he's always done and taking the outcome for granted.


I did see the moment of "Where the hooey is he?" when he's in the kitchen after shouting don't you move and trying to locate the serial killer. As if finding himself unable to locate the target is a surprise.


That seems to be shelved as soon as Randy steps away to try and get Karen's gun and he has a real clear location for Randy. Then we get the steely resolve, the return of full confidence. And I, like Randy, have no doubt he would have fired if he felt it necessary.

Later in the bathroom, when Karen is being seen to, we see an after reaction that I expect is something he hasn't experienced for a decade or so, if ever. Perhaps this is when the doubts begin for Jim himself. Perhaps he is struggling to answer the questions that have just arisen, the “What if's” that could abound in that situation?


The gun issue seems to have two legs, 1. That someone might take Jim’s gun and use it. 2. That Jim might shoot an innocent person.

1. That someone might take Jim’s gun and use it. By the end of the pilot we have been shown that Jim is as competent as a sighted cop in keeping perps off his gun. Marty was given the chance, and no matter his reason for not going for it – perhaps he was driven by common sense, don’t struggle over a gun in s crowded room? But I doubt it. It seemed to me he doubted he could get it. And Lyman tries – I think this was a deliberate ploy on Jim’s behalf, Lyman had bragged that he had Karen’s gun, he had stepped toward her probably to try and get her gun, and yet Lyman going for Jim’s gun proved not only futile but his undoing. Like music to my ears!


And like an ironic discordant note the gun is stolen during the tussle in the restaurant. I can’t imagine any cop managing to keep an eye on his bag while fighting. Even Fisk could see that this was not really a sighted/blind issue. Except that it was because everything became a sighted/blind issue. I mean, a sighted cop would have gotten a rip, obviously but chucked out? Because some thug stole his gun? And yet, that is how it could have escalated had Jim not managed to retrieve it.

2. That Jim might shoot an innocent person. And here I guess I have to show my radical petticoats. If Jim is trusted enough to be a policeman, a gold badge detective, then he should be trusted enough to know when to pull the gun and when not to. When to fire and when not to. This may mean he chooses not to at times when he could have, but I doubt it would mean he fires when he shouldn’t.

Yes he may need to do some new thinking, some new guidelines, but he either has judgment or he hasn't. Frankly, I'd trust a ten year detective over some rookie cop with a new gun on his hip any day. And the blonde dude no less.

It brings out another point and use of a gun, for me. As an intimidation tool, pointing a gun at someone is pretty impressive.

Clearly I have no idea what the stats are but I suspect detectives who do aim their weapons fire them far less often than they aim them and shout such things as "Don't you move" or "Police put your hands in the air." etc. I think giving up his gun does emasculate him to at least this degree and is not wise.

My other radical thinking on this has to do with how intelligent the police department, the lieutenant and even the detectives are in making the accommodations they need to ensure they get the best out of Dunbar. They have taken him back on reluctantly, but having done so I see major holes in their preparations to return him to active duty and to settle him into the squad.

IMHO the situation in the Lyman house was intensified by Karen who followed a suspected serial killer away from her partner, down a dark corridor and into a small room. Does this sound like standard procedure? No. Does this sound stupid? Yes. I am pretty sure if she had had a sighted partner at that point either he would have said, No I'll go, (The male, older more experienced detective) or they would have gone together. So actually I think Karen was a bit stupid right then, (or which I am grateful so we get the whole scene and follow up of course).

And this is an indication of lack of forethought on the part of the department, the lieutenant and Jim and Karen.

Now we have seen and heard Jim's bull in a china shop attitude and yes, he needs new instincts but instead of just leaving that up to him where is the arms expert working it out with him? Where is new level of training, carefully considering possible situations and discussing options? So he creates a new instinct rather than pull a gun on the street with passers by when he didn’t need to, but so he does pull it and come to his partner's rescue. And it needs to happen on more issues than the gun issue.

Karen and Jim, if they really are going to be partnered need to work things out, like after the suicide. I agree he obviously felt like window dressing, but how should he handle that? If it is not standard practice to go over situations like that and work out the "how it could have been done…" scenarios normally for police - it damn well should be for this team. We never saw it or evidence that it happened, quite the opposite.

I expect new partnerships all have to go through some degree of this to get into good working rhythm. I am not saying they will ever hit the same situation again but in business we would always go over a disaster, one that hit us or we managed to avoid, and take all the learning we could from it and generate new policy for similar situations that arise in the future. I am stunned they don’t. No wonder “no one wanted to go out with him.” But IMHO it has more to do with the lack of forethought and prep than the actual sighted/blind issue.

They have managed some, they have a system for getting out of the car and to the scene without the dog, they have a method on their reports together, they have clicked in the interview room, well, why not work this out for emergencies too?


There, I have said my radical thing. Shoot if you must but remember I'm in hero worship mode.