The Beginning of the "Gun Issue"

[Katryna]

ashatan said:

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.

I just wanted to comment on this part of your post. You were not on the board last November when I posted an article from our local newspaper that pertains to this issue.

One of our local (sighted) detectives was in a restaurant at lunch time with some other detectives for a retirement luncheon. He visited the men's room, taking his gun off and placing it on the back of the "commode". He left the gun there in the men's room. By the time he realized what he had done, the gun was gone. To my knowledge, it has never been found.

This officer's publicized punishment was to re-pay the department the price of the gun. Of course there may have been a rip involved, but ultimately he retained his job and in fact was promoted. Granted, the police department he is employed by does not have a very good reputation to begin with and the way they handled this is certainly not representative of how another department might have handled it. Interesting all the same in comparing it to Jim's circumstance, and Fisk's implication that if the gun were not returned it could cost him his job.

[mlm828]

ashatan said:

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. . .

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. . . .

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.

I think you have made some very good points here. It's difficult to talk about what "realistically" could or should have been done in an inherently unrealistic situation -- Jim carrying a gun -- but we can suspend our disbelief for purposes of this discussion.

I think you are absolutely right. If the department was going to allow Jim to carry a gun, they could/should have insisted on him and his co-workers, especially his partner, having some sort of training or guidelines on how that was going to work. I'd like to think the powers-that-be wouldn't have just sprung on Fisk and the other detectives, especially Karen, that Jim was coming to work with them, without giving them any preparation or training in what working with a blind person requires. This would encompass not only the handling of the gun, but how Jim was going to do the job and the "accommodations" he would need. This might have defused some (but not all) of the skepticism he encountered when he showed up at the 8th. Of course, it was more dramatic, the way it played out in the Pilot. But even assuming any of it would have happened at all, I doubt it would ever have happened as it did in the Pilot.

Edited to add: On the other hand, if the powers-that-be wanted Jim to fail, they might send him in without preparing or training his co-workers, in hopes that would cause him to fail, or at least make it more difficult for him to succeed.

[mlm828]

ashatan said:

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.

Another issue inspired by ashatan’s thought-provoking post. I agree that the NYPD would expect Jim, as a ten-year veteran of the department, to exercise good judgment in the use of the gun. But did he?

I would argue he didn’t use good judgment when he drew the gun in “Seoul Man.” Jim knew that someone ran past him and knocked the coffee out of his hand, immediately after he heard the shots. It wasn’t rocket science to figure out that person was probably the robber. And, as Chief Tunney pointed out, a perp was likely to flee the scene, not stick around to mix things up with him. Jim’s claim, to the Chief, that he drew the gun because there might be another perp in the market, always sounded to me like a made-up, after-the-fact justification. In addition, it’s possible that information about the series of grocery store robberies/homicides had been circulated in the NYPD, and Jim would have known there was only a single suspect. In Jim’s defense, I will agree that he did not wave the gun around and didn’t endanger anyone; the gun was only out for a short time (maybe thirty seconds), and whenever we see it, it’s pointed at the ground. But, overall, I don’t think drawing the gun in those circumstances showed good judgment on Jim’s part. Edited to add: It's also interesting, and more than a little revealing, that Jim defends drawing the gun by saying it was an instinctive move, not that it was a good move.

Opinions, anyone? What about the other times Jim drew his gun?

[greenbeing]

mlm828 said:

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?

I've always noticed that little pause, right after Jim picks up his badge, he reaches back to the drawer, his hand hovers, split second, over. But who knows if it's a: Should I be carrying this, or a: As soon as I pick it back up, I'm back on the job, pause.

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!

What an interesting statement! You're right, MLM, Jim did pretty much sign his life away, didn't he? "Well, that covers you getting shot, what if you shoot some bystander?" As such, was the waiver saying: "should you accidentally shoot yourself, because you can't see where you're aiming," or was it a more all-encompassing waiver, not just about the gun, but about him coming back on the job at all? Sort of: you already got compensated for being shot on the job, and as such, you should take early retirement. But since you won't, sign this waiver, absolving the department of any liability, should you even stub your pinky finger. ?? What a conundrum!

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.

I don't think you'd pull the gun after the struggle had already started. Not being Quick Draw McGraw, I'd think you'd want the weapon out and prepared, but not fire until up close, try to keep the perp at bay, but should that not work... Although, it definitely wouldn't do any good if the perp was also armed. Which draws the question of alternative weaponry. And not just up-close, trunchent and brass knuckles.

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.

Oh! I just read your edited to add comment, ha! It wasn't there when I read the post earlier, and I had to come back to reply. So now that we're both thinking on the same page--just what sort of a waiver was it? Hmm, perhaps it was--you can carry that gun, but if there's a struggle, and the perp gets the gun away from you, and if you get shot with your own gun, it's not on our head. So then, only if he's shot with his own gun, not shot by a different gun? Or perhaps, again, the all-encompassing, if you so much as sneeze wrong and hurt yourself, we're not at fault?

--GB

[Dreamfire]

[quote author=mlm828 board=3 thread=1153085681 post=1156390185Another issue inspired by ashatan’s thought-provoking post. I agree that the NYPD would expect Jim, as a ten-year veteran of the department, to exercise good judgment in the use of the gun. But did he?

I would argue he didn’t use good judgment when he drew the gun in “Seoul Man.” Jim knew that someone ran past him and knocked the coffee out of his hand, immediately after he heard the shots. It wasn’t rocket science to figure out that person was probably the robber. And, as Chief Tunney pointed out, a perp was likely to flee the scene, not stick around to mix things up with him. Jim’s claim, to the Chief, that he drew the gun because there might be another perp in the market, always sounded to me like a made-up, after-the-fact justification. In addition, it’s possible that information about the series of grocery store robberies/homicides had been circulated in the NYPD, and Jim would have known there was only a single suspect. In Jim’s defense, I will agree that he did not wave the gun around and didn’t endanger anyone; the gun was only out for a short time (maybe thirty seconds), and whenever we see it, it’s pointed at the ground. But, overall, I don’t think drawing the gun in those circumstances showed good judgment on Jim’s part. Edited to add: It's also interesting, and more than a little revealing, that Jim defends drawing the gun by saying it was an instinctive move, not that it was a good move.

Opinions, anyone? What about the other times Jim drew his gun?

[/quote]

I agree with you, hense my rant and rave about the training, planning and follow up. Old instincts will out if they are not replaced and it is a major job to do that.

I found it quite embarrassing to see him pull his gun on the street and also in Marlin's appartment. IN fact I think Tunney was right to ream him out on it but where is the follow up?

Wellpicked up on the instinctive rather than good move. I think you are right, his body language as well as his words betray that he is very uncomfortable remembering this.

One of the other times was in their appartment after the threat by Leonard Mattis. I find it interesting in looking at how they edited this and they added extra frames obviously shot at another time ( because he is not in his coat) to make it more obvious that he has the gun out. I have no problem with him drawing it there.

[Dreamfire]

Thanks for this info Kathy. yes the double standards are rife with Jim and other cops.

What a doozy -leaving in the loo! That is soooooo irresponsible!

Hey, anyone know what a rip actually is?

[bjobsessed]

ashatan said:

[One of the other times was in their appartment after the threat by Leonard Mattis. I find it interesting in looking at how they edited this and they added extra frames obviously shot at another time ( because he is not in his coat) to make it more obvious that he has the gun out. I have no problem with him drawing it there.

Really? I have to watch that. I don't notice these kinds of things.

[mlm828]

ashatan said:

Hey, anyone know what a rip actually is?

It's a suspension.

[mlm828]

greenbeing said:

You're right, MLM, Jim did pretty much sign his life away, didn't he? "Well, that covers you getting shot, what if you shoot some bystander?" As such, was the waiver saying: "should you accidentally shoot yourself, because you can't see where you're aiming," or was it a more all-encompassing waiver, not just about the gun, but about him coming back on the job at all? Sort of: you already got compensated for being shot on the job, and as such, you should take early retirement. But since you won't, sign this waiver, absolving the department of any liability, should you even stub your pinky finger. ?? What a conundrum!

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.

Oh! I just read your edited to add comment, ha! It wasn't there when I read the post earlier, and I had to come back to reply. So now that we're both thinking on the same page--just what sort of a waiver was it? Hmm, perhaps it was--you can carry that gun, but if there's a struggle, and the perp gets the gun away from you, and if you get shot with your own gun, it's not on our head. So then, only if he's shot with his own gun, not shot by a different gun? Or perhaps, again, the all-encompassing, if you so much as sneeze wrong and hurt yourself, we're not at fault?

--GB

All we know about the waiver is what Fisk says about it in the Pilot: it covers Jim getting shot, but what if someone else gets shot? That doesn't make sense to me. I think the NYPD would be more concerned about Jim shooting some innocent bystander than about his shooting himself, or a suspect taking his gun and shooting him with it. They might also be concerned about a suspect taking Jim's gun and shooting some innocent bystander with it. Think of the lawsuit -- not to mention the public relations disaster -- if the department allows a blind cop to carry a gun, and he shoots some innocent citizen, or a suspect takes his gun and shoots the innocent citizen. That's what I think the NYPD would want to protect itself from, and the waiver, as far as we know, doesn't address that situation. That's why it doesn't make sense to me.

[Dreamfire]

My reading is the waiver is to say "Alright you want back on the job, you are crazy and if you get hurt again, we're not responsible because we'd like you to retire or at most take a desk job."

What could they possibly do to protect the public? Nothing that I can see.

And from my VP, I can't see why they would worry he would shoot someone? I mean, a regular sighted cop would be more likelyt o take a shot and make a boo boo wouldn't they?


Now, publicity. Okay that is a whole extra issue. Iwouldn't want photo's of my blind cop holding a gun out in public if I was the NYPD.

[mlm828]

ashatan said:

My reading is the waiver is to say "Alright you want back on the job, you are crazy and if you get hurt again, we're not responsible because we'd like you to retire or at most take a desk job."

I'm still not sure exactly what he's waiving. If NY is anything like California, he can't sue the NYPD if he gets injured on the job. He gets worker's compensation instead. Can he waive his rights to worker's comp? I'm not sure.

ashatan said:

What could they possibly do to protect the public? Nothing that I can see.

I think you already figured that out -- training, to develop new instincts. Edited to add: Does such training even exist?

[maggiethecat]

Have I missed something here? Probably. I always thought the waiver meant that if Jim shot someone by accident, he would be personally responsible and not the NYPD: in other words, the NYPD wasn't about to sanction a blind man carrying a loaded weapon or pay (literally) for the possible consequences. But that doesn't explain Fisk's remark, does it?

Fisk's remark does sound like Jim has given up the right to sue the NYPD if he gets shot. But that doesn't make sense . . . unless you take it in the context of a man who has already sued the department once, and successfully. Maybe the gun waiver was the department saying: You want to carry a gun? Fine. But we're not going to be responsible for anything that might happen, and that includes you shooting someone by accident or someone taking the gun from you and shooting you with it. Nothing that happens with that gun is of our concern.

Boy, you sure can get a lot of of a few lines of dialogue!

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

I always thought the waiver meant that if Jim shot someone by accident, he would be personally responsible and not the NYPD. But that doesn't explain Fisk's remark, does it?

That sort of "hold harmless" agreement does make more sense. But, as you say, Fisk's comment doesn't describe that kind of agreement.

Besides, a "hold harmless" agreement doesn't help the NYPD all that much. Someone who's injured as a result of Jim's carrying a gun is going to sue the NYPD as the "deep pocket." Even if the NYPD could go after Jim for reimbursement for any payment they make to the injured party, it's unlikely he's going to be able to pay a large settlement or verdict.

[mlm828]

I took a few minutes and checked New York's worker's compensation law, and it's similar to California's. A worker injured on the job can't sue his employer; he gets worker's comp instead. And the New York law doesn't allow workers to waive their rights to worker's comp. So I have no idea what Jim was waiving in the "liability waiver" he tells Fisk he signed.

Of course, the short answer to all this is that it's a TV show, and few if any viewers would notice or care about such minutiae.

Edited to add: Now let's get back to my original question: did Jim use good judgment -- or not -- on the several occasions when he drew his gun? Come on, I know you have opinions about this!

[carl1951]

Now let's get back to my original question: did Jim use good judgment -- or not -- on the several occasions when he drew his gun? Come on, I know you have opinions about this!


NO! Of course he didn't. But, it was fun while it lasted.

And if ABC would have run the rest of series' episodes, I bet that point would have been discussed.

(One thing I always wondered about: I know even though Hank is not a "Police Dog" in the truest sense of the word, he is an extension of a police officer. Why does he not wear a badge?

Later, Carl