Fancy Footwork

[maggiethecat]

Gosh, Kyt, we're getting closer and closer . . . to agreeing? Could it be?!

I don't dispute anything you have to say about LA, since it's not my home turf. Plus, I suppose I kept bringing up the NYC references since it's where the show is set. I think you would really enjoy Blue Blood, plus if you ever see Edward Conlon interviewed on TV? He looks like a slightly beat-up combination of Chris Noth and George Clooney, wid a Noo Yawk accent youse could cut wid a knife. Hoo, baby.

Here's another snippet I picked up from Blue Blood, which does apply to Blind Justice: New York City's Canine Waste Disposal Act. (Conlon's description of his days at the police academy is hilarious -- all you do, apparently, is calesthenics (sp?) and memorize the New York City penal code). Anyway, if you're blind you're exempt from cleaning up after your guide dog. That really is damned nice considering there are something like 2 million dogs in Manhattan alone and the pooper-scooper laws are very strict. (Last I knew, a $75 fine.)

As for the admittedly few NYPD detectives who don't carry guns? Couldn't tell you why, and Conlon couldn't either. Maybe because they were lousy shots (although this doesn't work since you have to re-test on the firing range periodically), maybe because they knew they were invariably partnered with better shots and counted on them? I'm not sure the CO excuse would be the one, since I have to think that kind of guy wouldn't go on the force to begin with. It was a bit of a mystery. From what I remember of the book, Conlon never drew his gun except when he was working narcotics, and then it was a couple of times busting down a door with a phalanx of uniformed officers for back-up. I do know that NYPD cops, whether uniform or detective, hate to fire the damned things, since it's an automatic IAD investigation and a mountain of paperwork. Heh.

I guess, yeah, I was inferring that while a gun is part of the NYPD detective's equipment, it may be an individual's choice as to how important it is. To some men, it may be so intrinsic that they can't imagine walking out the door without it. To others -- and maybe this is the sort of self-knowledge that comes only after a certain amount of time on the job, and in a certain kind of precinct -- it may not be the first weapon in their arsenal.

And in the end, it was Dunbar's choice to give up the gun, right? He got it back, he skated free, he could have kept it despite having a very close call. At no point -- even though we do have to keep reminding ourselves that this is fiction -- did anyone, not Fisk or the other members of the squad, say to him, "You can't be a detective without it." Okay, this is cheating since none of them thought he should have had it in the first place. But what was implicit, certainly in the way Fisk handled things, was that the gun was not the most important element of his effectiveness as a detective. And it wouldn't even be "illegal" for Dunbar, as one of New York's finest, to do his job without it.

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

Gosh, Kyt, we're getting closer and closer . . . to agreeing? Could it be?!

I don't dispute anything you have to say about LA, since it's not my home turf. Plus, I suppose I kept bringing up the NYC references since it's where the show is set. I think you would really enjoy Blue Blood, plus if you ever see Edward Conlon interviewed on TV? He looks like a slightly beat-up combination of Chris Noth and George Clooney, wid a Noo Yawk accent youse could cut wid a knife. Hoo, baby.

Here's another snippet I picked up from Blue Blood, which does apply to Blind Justice: New York City's Canine Waste Disposal Act. (Conlon's description of his days at the police academy is hilarious -- all you do, apparently, is calesthenics (sp?) and memorize the New York City penal code). Anyway, if you're blind you're exempt from cleaning up after your guide dog. That really is damned nice considering there are something like 2 million dogs in Manhattan alone and the pooper-scooper laws are very strict. (Last I knew, a $75 fine.)

As for the admittedly few NYPD detectives who don't carry guns? Couldn't tell you why, and Conlon couldn't either. Maybe because they were lousy shots (although this doesn't work since you have to re-test on the firing range periodically), maybe because they knew they were invariably partnered with better shots and counted on them? I'm not sure the CO excuse would be the one, since I have to think that kind of guy wouldn't go on the force to begin with. It was a bit of a mystery. From what I remember of the book, Conlon never drew his gun except when he was working narcotics, and then it was a couple oif times busting down a door with a phalanx of uniformed officers for back-up. I do know that NYPD cops, whether uniform or detective, hate to fire the damned things, since it's an automatic IAD investigation and a mountain of paperwork. Heh.

NYC references are good when they reflect on the characters in the show. But since Dunbar didn't willingly choose to unburden himself of a weapon, I don't see the connection. Unless it's simply that a weaponless detective is at least a known possibility within the NYPD. (And is entirely different from the internal rationale I was addressing.)

We do have Bratton out here, so there's a potential he'd support such a change in LA County. I don't know.

To choose not to carry a weapon is to choose to not defend yourself and/or anyone else. Being rendered incapable in-the-line-of-duty, is something else entirely. And for-duty-injuries still won't keep a cop on the force in most places.

It's discomforting to think that an officer will hesitate to fire his weapon due to potential paperwork since the bottom line is that a weapon is typically fired when there is imminent danger to the life of the officer or someone else. And that often leaves no time for such distracting considerations as the amount of paperwork that may be involved if the officer survives. Of course, having civilian boards second-guessing every split-second move an officer makes, is already encroaching upon the choices officers make in the line of duty.

But I'm getting off track.

Kyt

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

I guess, yeah, I was inferring that while a gun is part of the NYPD detective's equipment, it may be an individual's choice as to how important it is. To some men, it may be so intrinsic that they can't imagine walking out the door without it. To others -- and maybe this is the sort of self-knowledge that comes only after a certain amount of time on the job, and in a certain kind of precinct -- it may not be the first weapon in their arsenal.

And in the end, it was Dunbar's choice to give up the gun, right? He got it back, he skated free, he could have kept it despite having a very close call. At no point -- even though we do have to keep reminding ourselves that this is fiction -- did anyone, not Fisk or the other members of the squad, say to him, "You can't be a detective without it." Okay, this is cheating since none of them thought he should have had it in the first place. But what was implicit, certainly in the way Fisk handled things, was that the gun was not the most important element of his effectiveness as a detective. And it wouldn't even be "illegal" for Dunbar, as one of New York's finest, to do his job without it.

Hey... did you edit in those last two paras? I'd have sworn they weren't there a few minutes ago...

Anyway. A gun is *never* the only (and therefore first) weapon an officer has to control a situation. It may be the only one that *works*, but the officer has many other tools at his disposal, including talking and other non-lethal methods.

Dunbar wouldn't hear anyone tell him he cannot be a detective without the weapon, because none of them wanted him to carry it from the outset. But it's his own knowledge and training that tells him he needs to carry to be a detective. Takes a while to battle that instinct into submission.

I don't think he gave up the gun except to save his career, knowing that if he makes a mistake that a sighted cop can make, being the blind cop he is, Dunbar would not be forgiven. Therefore, carrying it and making a mistake, showed him the way things were balanced against him. He's just leveling the playing field in his favor. Even if it's at the cost of his life. Bettancourt and any future partners, must make that decision to partner with an unarmed detective and put their own lives at potential risk because of it, for themselves.

Kyt

[maggiethecat]

Busted. Yeah, I added in that last bit on reflection.

God, I love your take on this stuff.

Here's what might be part of the mix, for Dunbar. He never was able to keep to his original bargain, was he? That his gun would be "used as a belly gun, in case there's a struggle up close." We never did see him use it as a belly gun, did we?

Every time Jim pulls his gun -- on Randy Lyman, on the fleeing perp in "Seoul Man" -- it's a bit of a disaster, and it just plain freaks him out. He gets away with it with Lyman for the simple reason that he never has to play out the bluff -- the 1013 (officer down) call he put out on the walkie-talkie while stumbling into Lyman's kitchen is effective in that it's the sound of sirens and approaching police that stops Lyman as much as the gun. But in "Seoul Man," although he wasn't "waving it around," he gets a tongue lashing from the Almighty Chief of Ds.

Do you suppose that was part of his decision-making process?

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

Here's what might be part of the mix, for Dunbar. He never was able to keep to his original bargain, was he? That his gun would be "used as a belly gun, in case there's a struggle up close." We never did see him use it as a belly gun, did we?

Every time Jim pulls his gun -- on Randy Lyman, on the fleeing perp in "Seoul Man" -- it's a bit of a disaster, and it just plain freaks him out. He gets away with it with Lyman for the simple reason that he never has to play out the bluff -- the 1013 (officer down) call he put out on the walkie-talkie while stumbling into Lyman's kitchen is effective in that it's the sound of sirens and approaching police that stops Lyman as much as the gun. But in "Seoul Man," although he wasn't "waving it around," he gets a tongue lashing from the Almighty Chief of Ds.

Do you suppose that was part of his decision-making process?

Absolutely. I think his own scares, and the grief he took, all piled together to the final decision. I think Dunbar used the weapon legitimately against Lyman, but that's the only time. He shouldn't have had it out of the holster in the other cases.

I'm not sure if you meant to ask this question or this is a variation on it:

Did Dunbar make his choice because he didn't trust himself to stop pulling the gun when he shouldn't? (Because he wasn't using it only as a belly gun)

I don't think it weighed into his final decision. I think his self-confidence is strong enough that he believes he will be able to shift his own reflexes as needed. But I think it's a valid question. Curious if anyone else thinks it would weigh in for Dunbar.

Kyt

[housemouse]

kytdunne said:

housemouse said:

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

Ouch! Have I missed news of some recent shoot outs between detectives and perps?

[kytdunne]

housemouse said:

kytdunne said:

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

Ouch! Have I missed news of some recent shoot outs between detectives and perps?

Your careful limitation of a single rank and situation is interesting, however, the answer remains: Yes, you've missed some news in the past few years. However, if it appeases you, the ranks of Officer and Sergeant (that's lower and higher) are most commonly reported in the newspapers.

Kyt

[housemouse]

kytdunne said:

housemouse said:

Ouch! Have I missed news of some recent shoot outs between detectives and perps?

Your careful limitation of a single rank and situation is interesting, however, the answer remains: Yes, you've missed some news in the past few years. However, if it appeases you, the ranks of Officer and Sergeant (that's lower and higher) are most commonly reported in the newspapers.

Kyt

Again I say OUCH! I limited my post to a single rank and situation because we are talking about a detective, not a uniformed officer.

[kytdunne]

housemouse said:

kytdunne said:

Your careful limitation of a single rank and situation is interesting, however, the answer remains: Yes, you've missed some news in the past few years. However, if it appeases you, the ranks of Officer and Sergeant (that's lower and higher) are most commonly reported in the newspapers.

Again I say OUCH! I limited my post to a single rank and situation because we are talking about a detective, not a uniformed officer.

Being a detective does not, by definition, mean the detective is not in uniform, not involved in shootings and/or shootouts. Furthermore, newspapers rarely distinguish between the ranks. 'Detective' and 'Officer' are often used interchangeably. As soon as the individual advances, wearing the uniform is again a hit-or-miss situation and depends more on the officer's assignment than his rank.

Kyt

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

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

Am I missing something, Kyt, or have you just accused a fellow board member of being ignorant? This is supposed to be a friendly discussion, free from acrimony and accusation -- which, to be honest, is why we all refugeed to this board in the first place.

[housemouse]

kytdunne said:

housemouse said:

Again I say OUCH! I limited my post to a single rank and situation because we are talking about a detective, not a uniformed officer.

Being a detective does not, by definition, mean the detective is not in uniform, not involved in shootings and/or shootouts. Furthermore, newspapers rarely distinguish between the ranks. 'Detective' and 'Officer' are often used interchangeably. As soon as the individual advances, wearing the uniform is again a hit-or-miss situation and depends more on the officer's assignment than his rank.

Kyt

UNCLE!!! You win! My information is obviously flawed and one sided.

I think Jim said it in front of everyone so he would only have to say it once. He also wanted to be sure he would stick with his decision.

That is my last word on the subject - unless I can't resist responding again.

[kytdunne]

housemouse said:

kytdunne said:

Being a detective does not, by definition, mean the detective is not in uniform, not involved in shootings and/or shootouts. Furthermore, newspapers rarely distinguish between the ranks. 'Detective' and 'Officer' are often used interchangeably. As soon as the individual advances, wearing the uniform is again a hit-or-miss situation and depends more on the officer's assignment than his rank.

UNCLE!!! You win! My information is obviously flawed and one sided.

I think Jim said it in front of everyone so he would only have to say it once. He also wanted to be sure he would stick with his decision.

That is my last word on the subject - unless I can't resist responding again.

As you have presented them, your facts are based on limited, and misguiding sources of information, and yes, they're wrong.

Your opinion, however, always belongs to you, regardless of who does or does not agree with it.

I see I have been called to task by Maggie on your behalf, and I apologize to you if you feel I was referencing *you* as ignorant. I did not, nor was it my intent.

Kyt

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

housemouse said:

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

Am I missing something, Kyt, or have you just accused a fellow board member of being ignorant? This is supposed to be a friendly discussion, free from acrimony and accusation -- which, to be honest, is why we all refugeed to this board in the first place.

It was not my intent. I was thinking outloud and meshing two different discussions together, which was my error and I apologize.

Basically, if someone who pays attention, is interested and has a desire to gain information regarding the police department, can be misled by the selective reporting found in the media...

Then how much easier is it to mislead civilians who are ignorant (uneducated and uninformed) with the slanted biases and selective reporting.

It's an ongoing discussion that takes place in real life and does not belong on this board and it's my error for bringing it here. Especially at the potential expense of another member's feelings.

I apologize.

Kyt

[maggiethecat]

kytdunne said:

It's an ongoing discussion that takes place in real life and does not belong on this board and it's my error for bringing it here. Especially at the potential expense of another member's feelings.

I apologize.

Kyt

Thank you, Kyt, and let's all take a deep breath now . . . aah, that's better. At least we are all passionate and opinionated, not the usual run-of-the-mill dullards, that's for sure!

So, what is the question on the table, Miz Dunne? I seem to have lost the thread! Was it deciding if Dunbar's disastrous experieces every time he pulled his gun had an impact on his decision to give up that gun? I'm not convinced that he ever demonstrated an ability to fight down the instincts formed over ten years on the job. Case in point the way he blurted out to Karen, "I've got this," and then burst -- every inch the old first-through-the-door Dunbar -- into Marlon Condell's apartment. And not to the best result.

Or was it whether or not Our Jim could do his job effectively without a gun?

Throw me a line -- I'm lost here!

[housemouse]

kytdunne said:

housemouse said:

UNCLE!!! You win! My information is obviously flawed and one sided.

I think Jim said it in front of everyone so he would only have to say it once. He also wanted to be sure he would stick with his decision.

That is my last word on the subject - unless I can't resist responding again.

As you have presented them, your facts are based on limited, and misguiding sources of information, and yes, they're wrong.

Your opinion, however, always belongs to you, regardless of who does or does not agree with it.

I see I have been called to task by Maggie on your behalf, and I apologize to you if you feel I was referencing *you* as ignorant. I did not, nor was it my intent.

Kyt

I'm sorry here, I really wanted to drop this, but something keeps gnawing at me. Are you saying that police officers in general, and detectives specifically are routinely involved in shoot-outs that never get any media attention? Since I can remember I have heard that most police officers (even in the LA area) go through their entire careers without ever firing their gun. Are you saying this is actually not the case? If not, why the cover up? Why are the papers so one sided in their reporting? Honestly I am curious and am interested to find out, if I am being duped, how and why.

Before you begin answering let me ask: please go easy on me. I have no experience working in law enforcement and I obviously haven't done the research you have. Your statements have merely piqued my curiosity.