So because saving Ruben may have been impossible, what Danny did is OK? I'd rather he'd stayed with Ruben and known there was nothing that could have been done instead of send Ruben home alone and wonder what could have been. I'd be much more inclined to go along with the "accidents happen" explanation.
All that aside I think it's pretty tough to blame Danny short of being angry that his spidey-sense didn't tell him the otherwise HEALTHY looking boy still on his bike, who didn't so much as flinch was mortally wounded and running out of time. And yes we can say but if he was with him he might have noticed. Yep. Chance he wouldn't too, so I'm not getting into that bit again 'cause I think we did it. It's just kind of a MASSIVE thing to me to just EXPECT Danny to know the boy took a bullet. If I'd looked at the kid, still up. Not appearing hurt. Looking surprised but unharmed, I'd definitely have rushed him out of there and done what I could too help. Yes, that doesn't excuse him from not walking him home if you're adamant he should have been leashed to the boy the entire time. At the same time, while Danny was the one to call it in, was it not his occupational duty at that point to stay on the scene? I'm not sure about that 100%, but I really think thats kind of a requirement.
I didn't say that but I don't think there would be so much blame placed on Danny if Ruben had lived. So, it is Danny's fault and it's NOT an accident just because he sent Ruben home and it would only be an accident had he went with him? Sorry but IMO, that makes no sense to me.
No one is saying Danny should have known Ruben got shot before he told him to go home. That's not the point at all. ETA: If Danny had stayed with him and everything that could have been done to save Ruben had been done, then yes, I would be able to better swallow "accidents happen." Danny making a poor choice isn't an "accidents happen" situation in my book. Also, I've said repeatedly it is partially Danny's fault, not 100% his fault.
Yet it's been said that if he had went home with him, he would have known he was shot. I posted a screencap that showed how small the blood stain was on Ruben's shirt AND that he had a coat on. I would not be looking for a gunshot wound if a kid got dizzy on his bike.
That's not what I said. I meant that no one said Danny should have known Ruben was shot when he told him to go home. I was responding to this comment: ETA: Uh yeah, ignore this. I totally misread what you said. I'm going to bed now.
I think it has bearing on the point, because his actions would have OBVIOUSLY been vastly different if there was ANY indication that Ruben was hurt. Being that there wasn't, that very likely factored in to his so called 'careless' decision.
Obviously it would have factored in. Ruben being hurt or not doesn't change the fact that Danny should have stayed with him. His decision was careless regardless of Ruben being shot because Ruben was 10 years old and Danny was responsible for him. It just so happens he was shot and Danny's decision may have contributed to his death even though Danny didn't shoot him.
I understand identifying with and being protective of your favorite character. I did it all the time with Snape, and I do it all the time with Flack, but I can't help but suspect that character loyalty has clouded the central issue of responsibility. Saying that Danny is in some measure responsible for what happened on that street corner won't send Kevlar!Flack and the Super SWAT Squad crashing through his door with handcuffs and hot needle in hand. Nor does such a conclusion mean that Danny was intentionally negligent or acted with malicious intent. It just means that his actions contributed to Ruben's death. And they did. If we're supposed to give Danny a free pass because OMG, it's Danny and he didn't mean for it to happen, then why isn't the same free pass being extended to Laughing Larry, who is being cheerfully held accountable for a thirty-year-old drowning at which he was not present and which he therefore could not have prevented? All he did was sell an admittedly cheap toy, but because Flack and Lindsay didn't like him, fandom is only too happy to attach more culpability to him than they are to woobie Danny, who could've done more before and after the shooting to possibly alter the tragic outcome. Methinks it's the Laura J. Dampcoot Law of Inverse Proportionality at work. The hotter the guy involved in a matter of dubious ethics or morality, the less responsibility and fewer consequences he must accept. Using this complicated principle, we can see that a cop with the hotness of Flack will never suffer any consequences, whereas Andy Sipowicz would be stripped to his skivvies, covered in ants, slathered in barbecue sauce, and torn apart by jackals. Danny is partially responsible, period.
^Good point--I do think we're more inclined to be forgiving of Danny because a) Danny's a main character and b) Danny's intentions were good. Larry was reckless in selling cheap toys, but Danny was reckless, too--just with different intentions. Danny's were obviously better intentions--Larry was out to make a buck, Danny wanted to get to the crime scene, but the ultimate outcome of both cases is the same. Two children are dead. As for whether Danny would have figured out that the kid had been shot, come on! If Ruben had passed out in front of Danny, Danny would have gotten him to the hospital and the doctors would have figured out he was shot, even if Danny hadn't. That pretty much sums up my feelings on it.
I'm a season behind and catching up via Netflix, but since I've already seen a few inadvertent spoilers for what comes between where I'm at and somewhere earlier this season, we went ahead and watched Child's Play. After seeing the preview on TV, there was no way I wanted to wait until the Season 4 discs come out! This is an interesting discussion and both sides make some very good points. There's definitely not a distinct black and white to the questsion. One of the biggest questions raised in this thread is whether once Danny called in a crime in progress and need for emergency response (police and ambulance) is he legally obligated by his position to stay there? We probably won't ever know that answer. As far as Ruben being ahead of Danny on the bike... Had we seen that scene followed by them turning the corner and safely reaching home, honestly I doubt it would have registered a blip on most people's radar when they reviewed the episode. I think both Danny and Ruben were very familiar with the neighborhood and had no reason to fear greatly that he was a little bit ahead within eye-shot. The ultimate person responsible for Ruben's death is the woman who foolishly shot a gun into a crowded street. Her brother was injured but alive and it seems contradictory to grant her pardon because shooting at the guy was instinctual and condemn Danny because he listened to the wrong part of his instincts. In no circumstance should she have been shooting wildly into a crowded street. That's not to say that Danny didn't make some very poor decisions along the way. Essentially, by the time Danny or Ruben heard the sound, Ruben had been shot. And we know that most likely Ruben didn't even realize it. At the moment that Danny told Ruben to go home, it was only a block and a half away from home on streets they both knew. Danny probably felt that this was a more safe choice than having him stay with him -- even if he had followed behind, he might have said the same thing thinking that if Ruben could go faster on his bike than Danny could run, he'd get to safety faster. I know that since they didn't give us detail, any speculation of Ruben's survival had Danny followed him is just that. I lean towards doubt that he would have survived for several reasons. First, the lack of blood on the clothing makes it seem unlikely that most of his bleeding wasn't internal. If that was the case, as in a similar shot under the arm case in CSI (or was it CSI Miami) and the bleeding was internal it would have been hard to put pressure somewhere to stop the bleeding. Second, if he passed out that quickly, it seems unlikely -- not impossible -- that he lived a lot longer. If he bled internally to the point where his BP was low enough to pass out and the bleeding continued at the same rate, I have serious doubts that an ambulance would have arrived and gotten him to a hospital in time. But, I agree that we can't know for sure that it wasn't possible. I can understand Danny being torn and the split-second duty-influenced decision to see if the man in the store had been shot and needed Danny's immediate help when Ruben appeared to be unscathed. Unless he was duty bound to remain after he called, however, that's where Danny started making some really bad decisions. At most he should have checked that he didn't need to administer immediate CPR or whatever and then call for backup and then go immediately follow Ruben. He could have been just a minute behind Ruben even after stopping. He should have at the very least called Rikki and tell her that Ruben was on the way and follow-up to see if he got there. I can't fathom Danny just completely forgetting about Ruben and not following up on him getting home at all! I could have understood calling 911 as he ran and followed Danny home, but then if the shopkeeper had died and Ruben had been fine, would it have been wrong that Danny followed a healthy child a block and a half away from home and didn't stop to render what could have been life saving first aid when he is a police officer? I think Danny was faced with a no-win decision that he had to make on the fly. It's what he did after that point that really showed bad judgement.
But unless Danny had suspected that Ruben had been shot (which he probably wouldn't have since Ruben was still on his bike and seemed fine when Danny sent him off), would he have checked for a gunshot wound? I'm certain he would have called for an ambulance had Ruben passed out but the big question is still 'would Ruben have gotten to the hospital on time?' GreenEyes, that's an excellent post and I totally agree with it. I'll never be able to say it better. I think I've reached the end of this discussion now on to bigger and better things.
Maybe not, be he'd at least have had a chance. Ruben being shot in a place that wasn't obvious doesn't give Danny a free pass on his obligation to stay with the child.
I'm glad you went ahead and watched it! I wouldn't have been able to wait on this one, either, after seeing the previews, and I actually don't think there's much spoilery stuff in this episode (though if you read the grading thread, you'd probably come across contextual spoilers). I agree, and that's why I'm enjoying the discussion so much. While I might have my own point of view, I'm enjoying reading and debating the topic. Unless we get someone in here familiar with NYPD protocol, probably not. Paging KRAD! He's writing the next NY novel...it might be something that came up in his research. Danny was off-duty, but it's still murky. Agreed--once he called 911 and saw the storeowner was hurt but not fatally so, Danny should have run after Ruben and yes, called Rikki. If he'd even done that, he probably would have found Ruben passed out and been able to get him medical attention. But Danny did seem to forget all about Ruben which, even if he thought he was just fine, was irresponsible. I wouldn't have held him responsible if the shopkeeper had died. Danny's primary duty was to Ruben that day. If Danny had called 911 and taken Ruben home and for some reason the shopkeeper had died, well, Danny's not a doctor. He's a cop. The perpetrator was gone; there wasn't much Danny could have done even if the shopkeeper was badly injured. If it was Hawkes we were talking about, it might be a different story, but Danny's not a doctor. Danny's not Superman--again, the gunshot wound could have been found by the EMTs or doctors. But Danny calling for an ambulance could have made a difference. Maybe not, but at least Ruben would have stood a chance and not died in an alley.
No matter how hard you try, it's hard to miss some spolery stuff here anyway when you're a season behind. So, I figured that I might just as well go ahead with it! I think legally he might be held responsible. No, he's not a doctor, but I would be fairly certain that police officers receive First Responder training in most cities. For a non-medical person, it's fairly extensive training to help people until paramedics arrive. It includes training on using a defibrilator. My husband is one of a few people that his company has put through formal First Responder training, and the annual refresher training. I asked him about this, and he is legally obligated to help anyone if there is an incident at his job, on company premesis or I believe at a company event. He is not legally obligated elsewhere. He said that they learned in training that people who do that for a living rather than being a volunteer like he is are legally obligated to help someone in a medical crisis anywhere. He believes that it does include police here. Now, obviously the laws will differ in different cities and states, but based on this, I can see the possibility that in the eyes of the law Danny could have done something to save the shopkeeper if he was critically wounded and possibly may have been obligated to stay with him until medical help arrived. No matter what, he still should have followed up and at the very least called Ricki to look out for her son to be coming home, though.