S12.E07: USA Today

[zapper]

Danny and Baez's attempts to find who assaulted a shop owner are hindered by the community's refusal to cooperate; Erin's suspicions about her boss rise; Gormley, Garret and Baker are threatened by a new staff member.

[EtheltoTillie]

I really liked the Vietnamese shop owner story.  I continue to be baffled by the bizarre relationship between Erin and the DA.  But I am absolutely dumbstruck as to what to say about that insane story about the detective who asked to be assigned to One PP.  WTF was that?  It seemed like some bizarre racist and sexist cabal.  Why did they even bother with that story? 

[preeya]

2 hours ago, GussieK said:

But I am absolutely dumbstruck as to what to say about that insane story about the detective who asked to be assigned to One PP.  WTF was that?  It seemed like some bizarre racist and sexist cabal.  Why did they even bother with that story? 

Perhaps TPTB had an arc in mind (racist or sexist) and then decided not to go forward with it. Then tried to cut it without implications. In any event I agree it was totally weird the way it started & ended. I also thought they made Gormley look like a complete idiot.

[kwnyc]

I predict this show will never have a Black woman regular in a position if power. (Whoopi was recurring, not regular).

And Detective One Episode was right in that the drunk cop who got arrested should get significant punishment. There is a different standard for cops, and Gormley's there to argue for it 

Two cops have gone to rehab this season: one after being beaten and told to by a fellow cop, the other to save his career.

[Magnumfangirl]

A weird episode all the way around.  The acting DA is still an obnoxious character and what was with the prissy attitude of the interloper in Frank's circle?  

[susannah]

3 hours ago, GussieK said:

I really liked the Vietnamese shop owner story.  I continue to be baffled by the bizarre relationship between Erin and the DA.  But I am absolutely dumbstruck as to what to say about that insane story about the detective who asked to be assigned to One PP.  WTF was that?  It seemed like some bizarre racist and sexist cabal.  Why did they even bother with that story? 

I couldn't agree more about the One PP detective. I don't know what they were trying to prove with that whole thing. It was like she was looking to cause problems, and it did make Sid look like an idiot. As Frank said, officers should be invited to come up there, not the other way around. The unit is not sexist. Abigail is just as important a part of it as the guys, and they treat her with respect.  Also don't know what the heck is going on with Erin's boss but she is being psycho. One day she is publicly trying to destroy Erin's career and the next she is waltzing into Erin's office singing and giving her some better case. The Vietnamese plot hs been done to death. All ethnicities have their gangs and their Mafia.

[EtheltoTillie]

12 minutes ago, susannah said:

I couldn't agree more about the One PP detective. I don't know what they were trying to prove with that whole thing. It was like she was looking to cause problems, and it did make Sid look like an idiot. As Frank said, officers should be invited to come up there, not the other way around. The unit is not sexist. Abigail is just as important a part of it as the guys, and they treat her with respect.  Also don't know what the heck is going on with Erin's boss but she is being psycho. One day she is publicly trying to destroy Erin's career and the next she is waltzing into Erin's office singing and giving her some better case. The Vietnamese plot hs been done to death. All ethnicities have their gangs and their Mafia.

Abigail is important, but they kept talking about the new detective as "she" right in front of her, as if she weren't there. 

[Daff]

1 hour ago, susannah said:

I couldn't agree more about the One PP detective. I don't know what they were trying to prove with that whole thing. It was like she was looking to cause problems,

I kind of understand why the show decided to interject this particular story. Yes, the highly accomplished, decorated, (did you see those medals on her dress uniform?) and honored detective was played in a rather provocative manner. I think the story (plot wise) wasn’t done well. The other characters whined too much, but none could deny that reforms are needed. I also thought Frank’s summation at the end (ok, we’ve stepped up our performance standards, now, I need you out there-you go to a position of your choosing and effect the same result) was trite. This particular story (1/3 of an episode) should have played out over several weeks, not days, if the writers wanted us to understand their underlying message. They just left us with a bad taste, scratching our heads. 

[susannah]

1 hour ago, Daff said:

I kind of understand why the show decided to interject this particular story. Yes, the highly accomplished, decorated, (did you see those medals on her dress uniform?) and honored detective was played in a rather provocative manner. I think the story (plot wise) wasn’t done well. The other characters whined too much, but none could deny that reforms are needed

I thought the point of contention was what to do with the drunk officer, not the issue of police reform. It seems odd to me that they would just take an officer off the street and allow her to be at ONE PP, since it is a regulatory position, policing other officers. Doesn't one have to be trained for that? Also, I was thinking how there was more than one opinion on what should be done. I imagine that rigid consequences for any screwup might seem Draconian, but would eliminate the agonizing over what to do. Taking it case by case, as demonstrated, with varying levels of consequence, puts undue pressure on Frank, ultimately.

[Snazzy Daisy]

Erin: What’s wrong with me Anthony?  Why do I always assume the worst in people? The DA put me on this case because she thinks I’m the best. I thought it was to put me in my place.

Me: Because you’re a bitch, Erin!🙄

DA Kim Crawford is not that innocent and genuine. She is psychologically manipulative. Erin needs to stay vigilant.

I like the robbery storyline. I just don’t want to hear about Maria and pickles anymore. Ugh! Interesting dynamic between Danny and Sonny. Maybe we’ll be seeing him more.

By adding Detective Reddick into the mix, is TPTB trying to prove to us that the 3 Musketeers’ dynamic should NOT be interrupted?

Poor Jamie got sidelined this week!

[ctlady]

5 hours ago, kwnyc said:

I predict this show will never have a Black woman regular in a position if power

You mean like Erin's DA boss?

So, just because the detective who asked to be assigned to 1PP was a black female, it's automatically assumed that Frank re-assigning her is racist and/or sexist?  Can't she just not be a good fit?  While I do think that they maybe should've given her more time to find her 'fit', her personality and demeanor came across as condescending.  I actually thought it was going to be the set up for Gormley to retire and her to segue into his spot.  I just don't care for the race and/or woman card to be played when it comes to gaining or losing a job.  It should be on merit and it should be earned - whether black, white, male, female, Christian, Catholic, Jew young or old. 

[Fostersmom]

7 hours ago, preeya said:

Perhaps TPTB had an arc in mind (racist or sexist) and then decided not to go forward with it. Then tried to cut it without implications. In any event I agree it was totally weird the way it started & ended. I also thought they made Gormley look like a complete idiot.

Gormley came across like he should be placed on some kind of medical leave to deal with his issues. 

[Neiman]

Another down vote on the new detective assigned to 1PP plot. Hopefully, we've seen the last of her.

Glad there was very little focus on Eddie.

[Brian Cronin]

20 hours ago, Daff said:

I kind of understand why the show decided to interject this particular story. Yes, the highly accomplished, decorated, (did you see those medals on her dress uniform?) and honored detective was played in a rather provocative manner. I think the story (plot wise) wasn’t done well. The other characters whined too much, but none could deny that reforms are needed. I also thought Frank’s summation at the end (ok, we’ve stepped up our performance standards, now, I need you out there-you go to a position of your choosing and effect the same result) was trite. This particular story (1/3 of an episode) should have played out over several weeks, not days, if the writers wanted us to understand their underlying message. They just left us with a bad taste, scratching our heads. 

The show's stance on police reform has always been bizarre, as they constantly make mention of it, but in a sort of quick, "Okay, yes, we need to, but the people who are ASKING for it are still jerks!" way. 

[susannah]

2 hours ago, Brian Cronin said:

The show's stance on police reform has always been bizarre, as they constantly make mention of it, but in a sort of quick, "Okay, yes, we need to, but the people who are ASKING for it are still jerks!" way. 

Too bad the criminals don't reform.

[Evagirl]

The new person in 1PP could have easily been played by a woman of any color or no color.  However, that part of the show was totally unnecssary and made zero sense.  I think they're running out of ideas.  There's no room for any new regular on this show unless Danny gets married and I don't see that happening.  I would like to see more of the Joe Hill character, but I don't even see him as a regular.

I think they've done pretty good with spreading the diversity love on this show.  There was a black mayor for a couple of seasons.  There was a story-line about black officer killed (of a very high rank) and his son joined the academy and (again), his mother tried to talk Frank into discouraging him.

Early in the show they had a black guy as Erin's assistant (the role Anthony is playing now).  He was a good looking guy and they had a lot of on-air chemistry.  I kept wondering in the back of my mind what they were going to do about that as it was obvious they were headed for a hook up.  So they got rid of him and replaced him with a man that is more like Erin's uncle than a possible romantic interest.

Blue Bloods is one of my favorite shows and I would hate to see it end.  I think it could survive Frank retiring and getting a new PC (a non-Reagan).  Selleck would still be a regular.  Of course they'd have to cut back on some of the 1PP dialog but they could give Joe more screen time, having him interact with Frank and Pops as he gets to know the family better.  This would totally re-energize the show.  Erin could even become DA with no conflict of interest.  Jamie has a law degree, he could become an ADA.  Hey I'm on a roll!  They need to hire me to write for this show - lol!

[Maverick]

 There's no one among the regulars who could realistically that the Commissioner role but either Jamie or Danny could be part of a new Commissioner's "dream team".  Danny would be more in the Gormley mold but I'd move Jamie up and bring Joe Hill on to fill the street cop role.   

[Msample]

So the young female sergeant who was decorated and was allowed to choose her next post basically CREATED her own post?? It’s not like there was a job opening in Frank’s inner circle that I knew of. That was bizarre to say the least. That said, her feedback wasn’t without merit, yet she’s basically thrown out…that comes off worse than the drunken officer case they were discussing. POC youngster dismissed by all white group?

[susannah]

7 hours ago, Msample said:

So the young female sergeant who was decorated and was allowed to choose her next post basically CREATED her own post?? It’s not like there was a job opening in Frank’s inner circle that I knew of. That was bizarre to say the least. That said, her feedback wasn’t without merit, yet she’s basically thrown out…that comes off worse than the drunken officer case they were discussing. POC youngster dismissed by all white group?

What about the fact that she was a woman? Abigail is there and really good when she gets any plot time, but we don't see Sid or Garrett announcing visitors or hanging up Frank's coat. I think to say that every single thing that might go other than a POC wants it to, or anything anyone says that doesn't agree with the POC is victimizing them because of their race is also being bigoted. Everything isn't about race. Her feedback wasn't without merit, no one said it was, and Frank did end up doing that.

[Daff]

20 hours ago, Brian Cronin said:

The show's stance on police reform has always been bizarre, as they constantly make mention of it, but in a sort of quick, "Okay, yes, we need to, but the people who are ASKING for it are still jerks!" way. 

You’re right, especially considering Frank’s (overly promoted through preview clips) comment about “up here vs. out there.” I noticed that PBS is advertising an upcoming documentary on policing/reform in Utah. As much as I’m tired of hearing it, I might tune in just to see if it’s presenting both sides or skewing the stats. 

[Daff]

13 hours ago, Evagirl said:

Jamie has a law degree, he could become an ADA.

Jamie has ruminated over exactly this in several past shows. I believe he’s explained that he gets the most job satisfaction from working in a position that allows him to directly affect the lives of the people he serves in his precinct. You have to admit, he’s a sane voice of reason when dropped in the middle of a heated, escalating argument. Everyone calms down and the parties walk away, if not exactly happy, at least satisfied that they’ve been fairly heard. 

[Daff]

1 hour ago, susannah said:

Her feedback wasn't without merit, no one said it was, and Frank did end up doing that.

You’re right, no one said her point wasn’t valid. However, Frank’s decision was only halfway between Gormley’s suggestion (no sanction) and the new officer’s stronger, insistent, recommendation (that the 15 year veteran should be demoted to beat officer on the street). 

[susannah]

31 minutes ago, Daff said:

You’re right, no one said her point wasn’t valid. However, Frank’s decision was only halfway between Gormley’s suggestion (no sanction) and the new officer’s stronger, insistent, recommendation (that the 15 year veteran should be demoted to beat officer on the street). 

This is what puzzles me, how each case of officer wrongdoing is decided by opinion as to consequence, instead of having stated parameters of consequence. The new officer wanted to strip him of his pension and rank, and Sid thought they should give him a reprimand and leave it at that. Who should be right? But if there was a stated consequence of being unfit for duty, being drunk etc, then that is what should happen. Policing wrongdoing to try to please the public is not right, IMO.

[Daff]

3 hours ago, susannah said:

This is what puzzles me, how each case of officer wrongdoing is decided by opinion as to consequence, instead of having stated parameters of consequence. The new officer wanted to strip him of his pension and rank, and Sid thought they should give him a reprimand and leave it at that. Who should be right? But if there was a stated consequence of being unfit for duty, being drunk etc, then that is what should happen. Policing wrongdoing to try to please the public is not right, IMO.

You are correct. Mob rule seems like we’ve devolved to the Stone Age. 

[mythoughtis]

The new detective was way too brash to be on that floor.  There is a reason why Garrett is the public information officer and not Sid.  Baker is both an admin assistant and an investigator.  Sid is both an advocate for and a punisher of the rank and file. There was no vacancy that she was selected to fill.  Nor did she offer up anything that she could do that wasn’t being done. 
The new detective had not one clue that goes on up there but she criticized Sid right and left.  She was like many new employees that I’ve worked with that think they are so much more knowledgeable than the long term employees before they even know where the bathrooms are. They do have value but they don’t find out what they need to know before wanting to change it all.

[kwnyc]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:50 PM, ctlady said:

You mean like Erin's DA boss?

She's recurring, and it seems to me she's basically there to finally trigger Erin's run for DA. The thing is, elected District Attorneys are politicians. The current Blue Bloods Manhattan (we have DAs in every borough) DA is a politician. Erin is not. NB: if Erin runs for Manhattan DA, most of her family can't vote for her, as they live in other boroughs.

It's inconvenient for the show to have 5 DAs (as in real life) and they only occasionally mention that people are charged in the different boroughs, but that's how it actually works. Our current DA in Queens is a white woman, the newly-elected DA in Manhattan is a Black man, Brooklyn DA is a Latinx man, Bronx DA is a Black woman and the Staten Island DA is Sid Gormley. Just kidding. White (Irish-American) guy.

[ctlady]

21 minutes ago, kwnyc said:

It's inconvenient for the show to have 5 DAs (as in real life) and they only occasionally mention that people are charged in the different boroughs, but that's how it actually works. Our current DA in Queens is a white woman, the newly-elected DA in Manhattan is a Black man, Brooklyn DA is a Latinx man, Bronx DA is a Black woman and the Staten Island DA is Sid Gormley. Just kidding. White (Irish-American) guy.

Eh-I don't care if they're pink with purple polka dots.  As long as they do their job honestly, with integrity and uphold the law

[susannah]

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

The new detective was way too brash to be on that floor.  There is a reason why Garrett is the public information officer and not Sid.  Baker is both an admin assistant and an investigator.  Sid is both an advocate for and a punisher of the rank and file. There was no vacancy that she was selected to fill.  Nor did she offer up anything that she could do that wasn’t being done. 
The new detective had not one clue that goes on up there but she criticized Sid right and left.  She was like many new employees that I’ve worked with that think they are so much more knowledgeable than the long term employees before they even know where the bathrooms are. They do have value but they don’t find out what they need to know before wanting to change it all.

Well said!

[kwnyc]

1 minute ago, ctlady said:

Eh-I don't care if they're pink with purple polka dots.  As long as they do their job honestly, with integrity and uphold the law

That's generally something white people say. Crime statistics show that arrests/sentencing have a much greater impact on non-white communities than white ones.

[ctlady]

1 hour ago, kwnyc said:

That's generally something white people say

Not that I wish to get away from the episode topic, but to associate a phrase, action, etc. with the color of one's skin is profiling.  Which is racist. However, I DO mean that.  Yes, I'm white, married, heterosexual, born again Christian who truly believes we are all equal in the eyes of God.  I don't care if someone thinks I'm telling the truth or is disingenuous.  I only stand before one person at the end and that's Him. 

1 hour ago, susannah said:

4 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

The new detective was way too brash to be on that floor.  There is a reason why Garrett is the public information officer and not Sid.  Baker is both an admin assistant and an investigator.  Sid is both an advocate for and a punisher of the rank and file. There was no vacancy that she was selected to fill.  Nor did she offer up anything that she could do that wasn’t being done. 
The new detective had not one clue that goes on up there but she criticized Sid right and left.  She was like many new employees that I’ve worked with that think they are so much more knowledgeable than the long term employees before they even know where the bathrooms are. They do have value but they don’t find out what they need to know before wanting to change it all.

Well said!

I'll third that.  I'll say that she seemed as if she could be developed into an interesting character if they played down her demeanor.  I don't care if Frank asked her to voice her opinion, when you're the low man/woman on the totem pole, you need to use discretion.  If she wanted to become the 4th Muskateer, she had to earn their trust and respect.  Methinks Frank needs to revisit that "you can choose your assignment" promise that comes with a commendation because who knows who may want to get in on 1PP in the future?

On 11/21/2021 at 1:04 PM, susannah said:

On 11/21/2021 at 10:16 AM, Brian Cronin said:

The show's stance on police reform has always been bizarre, as they constantly make mention of it, but in a sort of quick, "Okay, yes, we need to, but the people who are ASKING for it are still jerks!" way. 

Too bad the criminals don't reform

THIS!  The door swings both ways

[Brian Cronin]

18 minutes ago, ctlady said:

THIS!  The door swings both ways

How does the door swing both ways? Explain how "The police should reform the way they operate" has anything to do with "criminals should reform" besides using two meanings of the same word. 

[ctlady]

16 minutes ago, Brian Cronin said:

How does the door swing both ways? Explain how "The police should reform the way they operate" has anything to do with "criminals should reform" besides using two meanings of the same word. 

So, it should only be the  police that reform?  The criminals should have no accountability?  That is a one way street

What the original poster said - 'the criminals should reform'.  Why does it all have to be on the police - even the ones who follow the letter of the law?  There are bad apples, but society wants the entire bunch tossed.  Violent and non-violent crime will never go down if criminals know that the police have their hands tied.  What's the point of them carrying a gun if they can't use it?  How about when an officer stops someone, that 'someone' should just cooperate.  If they know cops will have limits on how much or what type of force they can use, don't think for one moment that criminals won't use that to their advantage by pushing and pushing until they're the ones crying victim.  

I'm sorry, but seeing the absolute stress and anxiety a family member who is a police officer is going through due to this current 'defund the police' climate to the point of considering a job change because they just don't feel the rules have their backs to be able to protect themselves in certain situations has me wondering why anyone would want to be a cop today.  And watching this show's writers preach that 'white cop bad' woke agenda down the viewers throats is making me reconsider continuing to watch this show.  When I watch a show, it's to be entertained, not to be conditioned or indoctrinated

Edited November 22, 2021 by ctlady

[susannah]

11 minutes ago, ctlady said:

So, it should only be the  police that reform?  The criminals should have no accountability?  That is a one way street

What the original poster said - 'the criminals should reform'.  Why does it all have to be on the police - even the ones who follow the letter of the law?  There are bad apples, but society wants the entire bunch tossed.  Violent and non-violent crime will never go down if criminals know that the police have their hands tied.  What's the point of them carrying a gun if they can't use it?  How about when an officer stops someone, that 'someone' should just cooperate.  If they know cops will have limits on how much or what type of force they can use, don't think for one moment that criminals won't use that to their advantage by pushing and pushing until they're the ones crying victim.  

I'm sorry, but seeing the absolute stress and anxiety a family member who is a police officer is going through due to this current 'defund the police' climate to the point of considering a job change because they just don't feel the rules have their backs to be able to protect themselves in certain situations has me wondering why anyone would want to be a cop today.  And watching this show's writers preach that 'white cop bad' woke agenda down the viewers throats is making me reconsider continuing to watch this show.  When I watch a show, it's to be entertained, not to be conditioned or indoctrinated

Exactly, exactly, exactly.  I think there are alot of police officers who don't want to be officers anymore and I don't blame them one bit. To crucify all of them for the actions of a few, to tie their hands when they are putting their lives on the line every day, to essentially tell criminals that it's open season on police officers, it is itself criminal.

[Brian Cronin]

6 minutes ago, ctlady said:

What the original poster said - 'the criminals should reform'.  Why does it all have to be on the police - even the ones who follow the letter of the law?  There are bad apples, but society wants the entire bunch tossed.  Violent and non-violent crime will never go down if criminals know that the police have their hands tied.  What's the point of them carrying a gun if they can't use it?  How about when an officer stops someone, that 'someone' should just cooperate.  If they know cops will have limits on how much or what type of force they can use, don't think for one moment that criminals won't use that to their advantage by pushing and pushing until they're the ones crying victim.  

 

Why in the world would you be holding police and criminals to the same standard? Surely police should be held to higher standards than criminals. That's why it's absurd to put them on the same level and that a call for criminals to reform is a non-sequitur for police reform. It's essentially a straw man to dismiss the very real reasons why police should obviously do some reform. We can all debate HOW much they should reform, but it seems plainly obvious that they need to do reforms when even Tom Selleck is allowing for Frank to admit as much (and Tom Selleck is a heck of a lot more conservative than most people around. He literally had them rewrite a story a few years ago when they fired a cop because he felt that the initial story was "too PC" and he had them rehire her and had him go on a riff about how much of a mistake it was to fire her). 

We have literally seen, just this year, a cop convicted of MURDER for an action that, had a civilian not videotaped it, was going to be actively swept under the rug by his fellow police officers. Of COURSE we need police reform. And if the idea of police reform is making people not want to be cops, then sure, they probably shouldn't be cops. I wouldn't want them to do something that they don't feel right about. I'm certainly not saying that there isn't some give and take there that a show like this should address or that it doesn't mean it has to be as dramatic of a reform as some want, but clearly SOME reform is needed, 

But, again, it has nothing to do with criminals reforming. It's a complete non-sequitur. 

 

[susannah]

14 hours ago, Brian Cronin said:

Why in the world would you be holding police and criminals to the same standard? Surely police should be held to higher standards than criminals. That's why it's absurd to put them on the same level and that a call for criminals to reform is a non-sequitur for police reform. It's essentially a straw man to dismiss the very real reasons why police should obviously do some reform. We can all debate HOW much they should reform, but it seems plainly obvious that they need to do reforms when even Tom Selleck is allowing for Frank to admit as much (and Tom Selleck is a heck of a lot more conservative than most people around. He literally had them rewrite a story a few years ago when they fired a cop because he felt that the initial story was "too PC" and he had them rehire her and had him go on a riff about how much of a mistake it was to fire her). 

We have literally seen, just this year, a cop convicted of MURDER for an action that, had a civilian not videotaped it, was going to be actively swept under the rug by his fellow police officers. Of COURSE we need police reform. And if the idea of police reform is making people not want to be cops, then sure, they probably shouldn't be cops. I wouldn't want them to do something that they don't feel right about. I'm certainly not saying that there isn't some give and take there that a show like this should address or that it doesn't mean it has to be as dramatic of a reform as some want, but clearly SOME reform is needed, 

But, again, it has nothing to do with criminals reforming. It's a complete non-sequitur. 

 

There are over a million police officers in this country. We hear about the bad actions of a FEW. But sure, tar all of them with the same brush. Are there only a few criminals? No, there are thousands, if not millions, many of whom would kill any police officer they had an opportunity to. Officers get blown away at routine traffic stops. I am not saying, ever, that it is okay for police officers to do wrong, but they are essentially trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon in regards to stopping crime, with their lives on the line, and I am really tired of people blaming all police for trying to do their jobs. I disagree completely with the comment that if police reform makes officers uncomfortable, they shouldn't be cops. Wrong. It's tying their hands in regard to facing criminals, and putting their lives and the lives of others in even more jeopardy than they already are. I wonder how many of those who so easily demand police reform and fewer police would have the guts to face what they have to for five minutes.

I think Frank addresses the "anti police hysteria" with the good service of his thousands of officers and he isn't soft on officers who do wrong.

[zapper]

not wanting to get back to the topic of the show at hand or anything, but .....

I was amused by the comments about the three musketeers and how Sid pointed out - "yeah, three - one (points at garret), two (points at baker), three (points at self)" when in fact the book is about four musketeers, regardless of the title.

I love it when people try to point out how someone got something wrong, when it is themselves who got it wrong. So Sid. So very Sid.

[zapper]

on another Sid point, I laughed when garret swung by Sid's office at the end and Sid, working away, muttered "nothing to see, move on" like the old cop he is.

But an entirely different feeling when garret swung by and saw Sid with head in hands. So much to unpack there. Garret checking in on Sid. Sid on a roller-coaster. The hidden turmoils they keep from each other.

Sid is played as the old school, will not change, and will always be a beat cop in his heart kind of guy but his character is so much more.

[kwnyc]

19 hours ago, ctlady said:

Not that I wish to get away from the episode topic, but to associate a phrase, action, etc. with the color of one's skin is profiling.  Which is racist.

That's not actually the definition of racism. Racism is a SYSTEM in which people of another race are held to a different standard.

In Blue Bloods' OnePP, there is not one POC in the commissioner's inner circle, in a city (and police force) that has a significant number of POC members. 

[susannah]

2 hours ago, kwnyc said:

That's not actually the definition of racism. Racism is a SYSTEM in which people of another race are held to a different standard.

In Blue Bloods' OnePP, there is not one POC in the commissioner's inner circle, in a city (and police force) that has a significant number of POC members. 

I believe the definition of racism is to hold generalized and false idealogies about an entire group of people. I don't believe that is true of Blue Bloods. Their "inner circle" consists of four people, which I doubt is accurate in the real world, and they have have had a number of black persons in other leadership roles.

[Brian Cronin]

3 hours ago, susannah said:

I believe the definition of racism is to hold generalized and false idealogies about an entire group of people. I don't believe that is true of Blue Bloods. Their "inner circle" consists of four people, which I doubt is accurate in the real world, and they have have had a number of black persons in other leadership roles.

Webster's specifically updated their definition because too many people were trying to use the original definition incorrectly. Basically, the new version includes the caveat that it must involve the specific inherent superiority of one race to be considered racism. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

When it comes to the world of TV casting, this is shown by the way that the White cast members are just "normal," while if you added a Black cast member, it is seen as making a statement. Basically, everything in TV is a choice. It's a choice that all of Frank's Three Musketeers are White. It was a choice that Jamie married a White woman. It was a choice that Danny was married to a White woman. It was a choice that Anthony is White. However, too often, those choices are just seen as "defaults," while when you cast a Black Mayor or a Black DA, it's a "thing." Casting White people being seen as the default choice is part of that inherent superiority of one race that is a key part of Mirriam-Webster's new definition of racism. 

 

[Brian Cronin]

10 hours ago, susannah said:

I am not saying, ever, that it is okay for police officers to do wrong, but they are essentially trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon in regards to stopping crime, with their lives on the line, and I am really tired of people blaming all police for trying to do their jobs.

If it is not okay for police officers to do wrong, then what does it matter that there are criminals also doing wrong? They are not a connected issue. Police doing wrong is wrong, just like criminals doing wrong is wrong. Bringing up one as a "whataboutism" about the other doesn't make any sense. "Sure, cops shouldn't murder people in custody, but criminals shouldn't murder people either." There's no throughline there. 

 

10 hours ago, susannah said:

I think Frank addresses the "anti police hysteria" with the good service of his thousands of officers and he isn't soft on officers who do wrong.

That's what is so silly about it all, throughout this season, Frank has constantly talked about police reforms, but they're always off screen, while the "anti police hysteria" is ON screen. This episode was the closest we've seen to Frank actually acknowledging the reality of it all and his answer, after basically following his new aide's advice, is to then get rid of the woman who brought it up. 

Whether you are for or against police reform, this show handles it oddly either way.

[kwnyc]

How many of y'all live in NYC and see cops every day? (I'm sure there are a number of us.)

In the real world, there are some serious issues with how cops who go too far are punished. Just today, I read an article in Pro Publica in which NYPD finally released the body cam footage of 7 cops to the Inspector General. They had been refusing to release it, then not releasing it ostensibly because "it showed a minor." The footage also showed at least one officer severely beating a man.

Interactions I've had with NYC cops on occasions like going to a precinct to get an accident report have been brusque and dismissive. (They are now hiring and training "community guides" to sit in the precincts to at least talk to the people who walk in.)

A woman was shot on our street, and my wife went down and stayed with her until the ambulance came...the police did not interview her. Another time, a man attacked my wife in a store near our house. She went home and called the police to report it. They showed up an hour later and told her there was nothing they could do.

I don't villainize police officers, nor do I lionize them. Ultimately, there is very little oversight outside of the department and that's a long-running issue. Recently, the president of the Sergeant's Benevolent Association's office was raided by the FBI, and he had to resign from the union role (though I think he's still on the NYPD payroll).

NYPD cops have a great opinion of themselves (and not so great opinion of other police forces...remember Gormley called the cops who arrested the lieutenant upstate "County Mounties" in a derogatory tone.)

 

 

[Magnumfangirl]

I watched this episode again and the new member of Frank's circle comes across even worse the second time around.  Would anybody in the real world get demoted for spending a couple hours in the drunk tank at an out of town bachelor party when NO charges were filed?  Would an employer even find out about it?  

Edited November 27, 2021 by Magnumfangirl

[kurtz]

1 hour ago, Magnumfangirl said:

Would anybody in the real world get demoted for spending a couple hours in the drunk tank at an out of town bachelor party when NO charges were filed?  Would an employer even find out about it?  

Depends on your profession. If you carry a badge, your employer would find out about it, as there would be a police report even if no charges were filed. Some positions in government or regulated professions have a mandatory duty of self-disclosure. If you don’t report the incident, you can be disciplined or terminated for failure to report. 

I’ve mentioned before that I was an ADA in a large U.S. city (but not NYC). After I was hired, but before I was sworn in, an ADA was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence. He refused a breathalyzer (which was his right) yet his badge was pulled and he was terminated for his failure to blow. My point is that it’s not unusual for a law enforcement position to have harsher penalties for certain non-criminal conduct than most other jobs in the real world. 

[Magnumfangirl]

4 hours ago, kurtz said:

My point is that it’s not unusual for a law enforcement position to have harsher penalties for certain non-criminal conduct than most other jobs in the real world. 

Maybe.......but if we were supposed to think the guy deserved a demotion, the transgression should have been something worse.

[NJRadioGuy]

On 11/27/2021 at 4:11 PM, Magnumfangirl said:

Maybe.......but if we were supposed to think the guy deserved a demotion, the transgression should have been something worse.

I disagree. He carries a badge and a service weapon. His character has to be without question. He got soused in public and IIRC destroyed private property (threw a beer bottle at a television if memory serves). While demotion is a bit harsh if he's an otherwise-good detective, you need to send a clear message. I think the guy voluntarily checking himself in to rehab plus loss of the year's vacation days and modified duty for a while would probably have been more just.

[SunnyBeBe]

I just watched this episode and was shocked the way they wrote the storyline of the new female sgt. joining Franks’s team.  I thought she was a breath of fresh air. Quite a contrast to the the little gang of bullies they turned out to be when they closed ranks against her. How childish!  And Frank’s patronizing behavior was too much.  It was obvious she had good ideas, positive feedback and much to offer. She was a smart mouth one time, but I get why.  She didn’t even want to offer an opinion on that case, but Frank insisted.  Frank’s parting words to her were ridiculous and I wonder if it’ll come back to bite him.  It sure looked like a good old boy club keeping it that way, imo.  Of course, Baker hangs in there. She knows her role.  The guys look past retirement age and are very stubborn. But, so is Frank.  That whole office needs NEW Blood, imo.  
 

I like Erin okay, but she really needs to stop discussing her potential campaign plans while she’s on the job in her office.  That’s really inappropriate….even for a Reagan.

[Irate Panda]

On 12/4/2021 at 9:49 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

I just watched this episode and was shocked the way they wrote the storyline of the new female sgt. joining Franks’s team.  I thought she was a breath of fresh air. Quite a contrast to the the little gang of bullies they turned out to be when they closed ranks against her. How childish!  And Frank’s patronizing behavior was too much.  It was obvious she had good ideas, positive feedback and much to offer. She was a smart mouth one time, but I get why.  She didn’t even want to offer an opinion on that case, but Frank insisted.  Frank’s parting words to her were ridiculous and I wonder if it’ll come back to bite him.  It sure looked like a good old boy club keeping it that way, imo.  Of course, Baker hangs in there. She knows her role.  The guys look past retirement age and are very stubborn. But, so is Frank.  That whole office needs NEW Blood, imo.  
 

I like Erin okay, but she really needs to stop discussing her potential campaign plans while she’s on the job in her office.  That’s really inappropriate….even for a Reagan.

I agree I thought the way the ended up getting rid of the new character made no sense.  I think it made most of the team look like they felt threatened and they came off as insecure.  The whole storyline felt rushed and if they were going to write the character off they could have played it out over a few episodes and had her make some real mistakes because it made it look like she was pushed out for the wrong reasons.  If Frank truly had an issue of letting someone choose that position he shouldn’t have let her have that position.  I think that was more of a legitimate way to handle it then booting her out after that short of a period with IMO no real excuse.  

 

[UnikornRainbowz]

I am only still watching this show for the day Erin puts this hideous cow DA in her place. For one, in the real world any DA that was found to be a liar, and never disclosing such a thing such as witnessing a murder, then mucking it up on stand, would be FIRED. She is a proven liar and cannot be trusted.