|
|
Post by hoosier on Nov 19, 2005 17:50:06 GMT -5
Looking at this again with the issue of the gun in mind,as Jim leaves to go yet again to dance class, he is walking out and then pauses and goes back to tell Fisk his decision to not carry his gun. I sure he didn't plan on telling Fisk in front of everyone. Maybe he still wasn't 100 percent sure. But he stops because he did leave the gun in his locker and no use putting it off until tomorrow. Maybe he was afraid he might change his mind and have to go through it all again so it was earsier to make a clean break and be done with it and by telling Fisk in front of the squad there was no turning back and Marty didn't feel he was out of the loop again!
|
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Nov 19, 2005 20:21:24 GMT -5
I always thought he did it in front of everybody not only so he wouldn't change his mind, but because he knew that he pretty much had the support of everybody now. Karen had already told him she would be his partner with or without the gun, he'd been getting along better with Marty who was very concerned for his well-being in Doggone, and Tom is just Tom. He also had the support of Fisk as a detective.
It sure is easier to say something like that once. I think they all respected him more for giving up the gun. I don't know if they all understood how hard that was for him. To them, especially Marty, it was cut and dried. A blind guy should not carry a gun. I don't think anyone would argue that. But for Jim, it was a necessary piece of equipment for a cop. No matter how crazy it was, I don't think he felt complete without the gun.
I do like Christie's line when she tells him that maybe giving up things is just acceptance. I think Jim finally realized that he didn't need the gun to be a good cop. (Never mind the fact that losing it had scared the hell out of him.) Karen's support and admiration for the way he solved cases had to have helped too.
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 20, 2005 4:38:08 GMT -5
Looking at this again with the issue of the gun in mind,as Jim leaves to go yet again to dance class, he is walking out and then pauses and goes back to tell Fisk his decision to not carry his gun. I sure he didn't plan on telling Fisk in front of everyone. Maybe he still wasn't 100 percent sure. But he stops because he did leave the gun in his locker and no use putting it off until tomorrow. Maybe he was afraid he might change his mind and have to go through it all again so it was earsier to make a clean break and be done with it and by telling Fisk in front of the squad there was no turning back and Marty didn't feel he was out of the loop again! Telling Fisk he's made up his mind is essentially the point of no return. Dunbar could technically back out, but he'd be causing problems with Fisk, at the very least. The squad hearing Dunbar's announcement at the same time is incidental. They're going to find out anyway, and it's not something he can keep hidden from them, so.... Two birds, one stone kind of thing. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 20, 2005 4:57:01 GMT -5
It sure is easier to say something like that once. I think they all respected him more for giving up the gun. I don't know if they all understood how hard that was for him. To them, especially Marty, it was cut and dried. A blind guy should not carry a gun. I don't think anyone would argue that. But for Jim, it was a necessary piece of equipment for a cop. No matter how crazy it was, I don't think he felt complete without the gun. On the other hand, one can readily argue that a cop *must* carry a gun, or he's not a cop. The biggest thing being that if a cop cannot protect himself or others, he has no business being a cop. Which is - of course - the base problem of having a blind cop with a gun: just how well can he really do his job? I do like Christie's line when she tells him that maybe giving up things is just acceptance. I think Jim finally realized that he didn't need the gun to be a good cop. (Never mind the fact that losing it had scared the hell out of him.) Karen's support and admiration for the way he solved cases had to have helped too. I always thought Christie revealed how fully ignorant she was by blowing off Dunbar's concern as "everything turned out okay" and the "acceptance" line. Imo, Dunbar had to weigh carrying-the-gun against the direct threat it'd cause to his career if anything should happen (again). He does not have the buffer space for error that is allowed sighted cops. Just another take, as usual, Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Nov 20, 2005 14:28:22 GMT -5
On the other hand, one can readily argue that a cop *must* carry a gun, or he's not a cop. The biggest thing being that if a cop cannot protect himself or others, he has no business being a cop. Which is - of course - the base problem of having a blind cop with a gun: just how well can he really do his job? Let's not forget that in England, the police there don't carry guns. (I'm not sure if they do now or not, but for many many years they didn't, and if it's changed it's only very recently). There is an argument that carrying a gun could provoke others--it's as if you are expecting trouble. Criminals may be less likely to use theirs on the police if the police are unarmed. I think those reasons, plus tradition, are the reason they don't (or didn't) carry them in England. They use their infamous billy clubs instead. Which Marty would likely have wanted Jim to use anyway, given his "gift" to him in Fancy Footwork. Plus, wasn't Jim only supposed to use the gun at close range, basically when he is touching the suspect? So a billy club would have worked in that respect. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 20, 2005 16:34:54 GMT -5
On the other hand, one can readily argue that a cop *must* carry a gun, or he's not a cop. Let's not forget that in England, the police there don't carry guns. England's requirements have zero bearing on the requirements for the force Dunbar belongs to. If you're meaning this as just conversational fodder for arguing in favor of Dunbar not carrying, I'd think his blindness would be a better choice. I realize this may sound like I'm back in support of the initial statements, that: I was simply making the point that the gun requirement really isn't optional for officers. Giving it up is the equivalent of giving up your profession. Dunbar's case is utterly unique, but it wouldn't make ditching the gun any easier, particularly not in light of all the other things he's been forced to abandon. Add in that Dunbar's proved that carrying is something he can do, and it's going to make giving it up that much harder. The rest of the things he's been forced to abandon, he simply cannot do. He can't drive a car, but he can carry a weapon. And use it in specific circumstances. But because the odds are so stacked against him, he's carrying a ticking timebomb with his career, at best, on the line. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by Katryna on Nov 20, 2005 17:28:45 GMT -5
Let's not forget that in England, the police there don't carry guns. (I'm not sure if they do now or not, but for many many years they didn't, and if it's changed it's only very recently). There is an argument that carrying a gun could provoke others--it's as if you are expecting trouble. Criminals may be less likely to use theirs on the police if the police are unarmed. I think those reasons, plus tradition, are the reason they don't (or didn't) carry them in England. They use their infamous billy clubs instead. Which Marty would likely have wanted Jim to use anyway, given his "gift" to him in Fancy Footwork. Plus, wasn't Jim only supposed to use the gun at close range, basically when he is touching the suspect? So a billy club would have worked in that respect. You are right that British Police did not carry guns up until fairly recently. My nephew is a London cop and carrying a gun is optional. He does not carry one, but others do. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Nov 21, 2005 0:37:19 GMT -5
On the other hand, one can readily argue that a cop *must* carry a gun, or he's not a cop. The biggest thing being that if a cop cannot protect himself or others, he has no business being a cop. Which is - of course - the base problem of having a blind cop with a gun: just how well can he really do his job? Cop as an umbrella term, or detective? There's a huge difference. The work of a detective is infinitely more cerebral than that of an ordinary beat cop, of course -- the job is primarily just as Jim described it in his first interview with Fisk: you bounce ideas back and forth with your partner, interview and interrogate, "get a feel for things," etc. There is also a substantial amount of desk work (hitting the phones or the Internet for research, running credit and background checks), none of it physically demanding, or even requiring a strong physical presence "on the street." While guns are a staple of TV cops, in real life it just ain't the case. Oh, on TV they go around busting down doors left and right, chasing perps through garbage-strewn alleys or onto rooftops. In real life? Not so much. Most NYPD detectives are never forced to draw their weapons over the course of their careers, let alone fire them: there are even an eccentric few who don't carry guns by choice. It's far more than the gun that makes one competent or effective, and detectives, by virtue of definition, "protect" the public far more by their investigative skills than any kind of physical force. The few times Dunbar did draw his weapon, it was, I believe, because the writers were exploring the "blind cop with a gun" issue. Because it was dramatically interesting. They were making a point -- or at least opening up the discussion within the context of the show. How many times did we see Marty or Tom draw their weapons? Or Karen, for that matter. Not as dramatically interesting or controversial, right? It's not always about the gun -- at least it's not entirely about the gun. And the whole premise of the show, I would argue, is that, once given a chance, Jim Dunbar did his job very well indeed. Just my take! Mags |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 21, 2005 3:09:51 GMT -5
Cop as an umbrella term, or detective? It doesn't matter since I was addressing a Cop's point-of-view. Detectives carry weapons, whether or not their jobs take them on the streets. There's a huge difference. The work of a detective is infinitely more cerebral than that of an ordinary beat cop, of course The differences in duty requirements are what allow Dunbar to have the leeway to even consider returning to work as a blind cop. I doubt there'd have been any discussion if he'd wanted to return to a patrol beat. While guns are a staple of TV cops, in real life it just ain't the case. Oh, on TV they go around busting down doors left and right, chasing perps through garbage-strewn alleys or onto rooftops. In real life? Not so much. Most NYPD detectives are never forced to draw their weapons over the course of their careers, let alone fire them: Maybe things are calmer in NYC. Around here (Los Angeles County, California), cops (that's Officers and Detectives) draw their weapons in their careers, you can pretty much count on it. And there are gun fights. ... there are even an eccentric few who don't carry guns by choice. I have no information that supports the conscientious objector type of cop, and locally, they would not be allowed on the force. But presuming that's correct, since Dunbar fought to keep his gun, it's safe to say he is not one of the eccentric few who chooses not to. He's been backed into a corner and needs to relinquish it, but it's not his preference. It's far more than the gun that makes one competent or effective, and detectives, by virtue of definition, "protect" the public far more by their investigative skills than any kind of physical force. ... It's not always about the gun -- at least it's not entirely about the gun. And the whole premise of the show, I would argue, is that, once given a chance, Jim Dunbar did his job very well indeed. The question of whether or not Dunbar is capable of doing his job as a homicide detective, blind, sighted, with or without a gun, is a completely different subject and not one I was addressing. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Nov 21, 2005 17:57:39 GMT -5
Fisk knew how difficult this decision was for Jim--not only professionally but emotionally--and he didn't pressure him, just told him he had to be absolutely sure since, I assume, once he informed 1PP of Jim's decision there would be no turning back.
Marty hadn't made it easy--his pressuring Jim right and left about the gun from day one, and his 'gifts' in FF were in very bad taste. Poor Marty, his humor was about on a par with his choice in clothes.
Since Karen said she would remain his partner, gun or no, his decision was maybe easier.Jim had never worked with Marty or Tom out on the streets so how his not carrying a gun would affect them personally is negligable but since Karen is his partner and will have to worry about his safety as well as her own (she has always had to do this) he had a right to partly base his decision on how comfortable she would feel about the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Nov 21, 2005 17:58:06 GMT -5
Fisk knew how difficult this decision was for Jim--not only professionally but emotionally--and he didn't pressure him, just told him he had to be absolutely sure since, I assume, once he informed 1PP of Jim's decision there would be no turning back.
Marty hadn't made it easy--his pressuring Jim right and left about the gun from day one, and his 'gifts' in FF were in very bad taste. Poor Marty, his humor was about on a par with his choice in clothes.
Since Karen said she would remain his partner, gun or no, his decision was maybe easier.Jim had never worked with Marty or Tom out on the streets so how his not carrying a gun would affect them personally is negligable but since Karen is his partner and will have to worry about his safety as well as her own (she has always had to do this) he had a right to partly base his decision on how comfortable she would feel about the whole thing if they were to remain partners.
|
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Nov 25, 2005 19:06:16 GMT -5
It doesn't matter since I was addressing a Cop's point-of-view. Detectives carry weapons, whether or not their jobs take them on the streets. It matters a lot. Of course a "beat cop" is going to need to carry a gun. A detective has a lot less need for that. They spend a lot of time doing detective work, not as much physically chasing down the bad guys. Don't they even send uniformed officers to make arrests? Or at least have uniformed officers go with them when they do it? Maybe things are calmer in NYC. Around here (Los Angeles County, California), cops (that's Officers and Detectives) draw their weapons in their careers, you can pretty much count on it. And there are gun fights. While I do not actually live in LA County, I do live in the LA area (and read the LA Times daily) and the last shoot out I recall is the Northridge bank shoot out several years back. Also as I recall the cops on the front lines there were in uniform. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Nov 25, 2005 20:11:37 GMT -5
It doesn't matter since I was addressing a Cop's point-of-view. Detectives carry weapons, whether or not their jobs take them on the streets. It matters a lot. Of course a "beat cop" is going to need to carry a gun. A detective has a lot less need for that. They spend a lot of time doing detective work, not as much physically chasing down the bad guys. Don't they even send uniformed officers to make arrests? Or at least have uniformed officers go with them when they do it? the point I was trying to make, Mouse! Part of a uniformed officer's job, by definition, is to be an armed presence on the streeet: detectives, not so much. No reason not to make that distinction, since it helps keep the discussion specific. As for Kyt's reference to "conscious objector" cops, I have no idea why the few NYPD detectives -- not uniformed officers -- who choose to not carry weapons made that choice. It could be for a variety of reasons: perhaps they aren't comfortable carrying, or feel it isn't all that important to the work they do. The information about non-gun carrying detectives is in a terrific book called Blue Blood by Edward Conlon, and which I remember mentioning back on the other board. Conlon is fourth generation NYPD, and a Gold Shield detective coming up on twenty years in the South Bronx. Since I first read this book when Blind Justice was originally airing last spring, you can believe the passage about gunless tecs jumped off the page at me! You also learn from this book that most detective work is boring as hell, repetitive and paperwork-oriented. (For perhaps the most realistic TV portrayal of an NYPD detective's job, I'd refer you to 14 years of Law & Order.) As for things being "calmer" in New York than LA, put it down to what's called The Guiliani Miracle, plus a hugely increased police and National Guard presence since 9/11. And we never did have those high-speed chases for which LA is famous -- too much traffic. High speed in Manhattan is,"Whee, I got out of second gear!" |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 25, 2005 23:24:23 GMT -5
It doesn't matter since I was addressing a Cop's point-of-view. Detectives carry weapons, whether or not their jobs take them on the streets. It matters a lot. Of course a "beat cop" is going to need to carry a gun. A detective has a lot less need for that. They spend a lot of time doing detective work, not as much physically chasing down the bad guys. Don't they even send uniformed officers to make arrests? Or at least have uniformed officers go with them when they do it? Since my initial statement supports that a cop *must* carry a gun to perform his duty and therefore, carrying is not a matter of choice, but one of the most defining aspects of his profession; and you are differentiating between uniformed officers and detectives, it appears what you're arguing is that: A cop does *not* have to carry a gun if he's a detective. Is that your meaning? Maybe things are calmer in NYC. Around here (Los Angeles County, California), cops (that's Officers and Detectives) draw their weapons in their careers, you can pretty much count on it. And there are gun fights. While I do not actually live in LA County, I do live in the LA area (and read the LA Times daily) and the last shoot out I recall is the Northridge bank shoot out several years back. Also as I recall the cops on the front lines there were in uniform. Your lack of knowledge, familiarity and recollection does not change the factual data. But it does underscore how ignorant civilians can be to the happenings on the police forces throughout the states, and the ease with with newspapers can sway opinions. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Nov 25, 2005 23:55:41 GMT -5
Exactly the point I was trying to make, Mouse! Part of a uniformed officer's job, by definition, is to be an armed presence on the streeet: detectives, not so much. No reason not to make that distinction, since it helps keep the discussion specific. So you get the same question as Mouse: Is your intent to imply that detectives do not need to carry weapons? As for Kyt's reference to "conscious objector" cops, I have no idea why the few NYPD detectives -- not uniformed officers -- who choose to not carry weapons made that choice. It could be for a variety of reasons: perhaps they aren't comfortable carrying, or feel it isn't all that important to the work they do. If it's a *matter of choice* then isn't that the very definition of "conscientious objector" in a military force? I was simply using the best, closest definition, though I recognize one has to stretch a bit to transfer the definition from a military to a police force. The information about non-gun carrying detectives is in a terrific book called Blue Blood by Edward Conlon, and which I remember mentioning back on the other board. Conlon is fourth generation NYPD, and a Gold Shield detective coming up on twenty years in the South Bronx. Since I first read this book when Blind Justice was originally airing last spring, you can believe the passage about gunless tecs jumped off the page at me! You also learn from this book that most detective work is boring as hell, repetitive and paperwork-oriented. (For perhaps the most realistic TV portrayal of an NYPD detective's job, I'd refer you to 14 years of Law & Order.) I didn't argue your statement. I simply said I don't have any to support it and that around here, it's not so. If you'd have me reference the same book to obtain the same data, it's still not going to change the data for LA County. As for things being "calmer" in New York than LA, put it down to what's called The Guiliani Miracle, plus a hugely increased police and National Guard presence since 9/11. And we never did have those high-speed chases for which LA is famous -- too much traffic. High speed in Manhattan is,"Whee, I got out of second gear!" You stated that cops in NYC often didn't draw their weapons during their careers, much less were involved in shootouts. Your implication now appears to be that LA officers must draw their weapons and have shoot-outs due to high speed chases. Was that your intent? Scratch that. On a more careful reading, I think you're saying it's the sum of these things that put NYC officers in less volatile situations that cause them to use their weapons. Closer? Kyt |
|
