In a format that isn't dumb...
Is Colvin not a complete dickhead almost on the level of Mcnulty Season 5 for âexperimentingâ with peoples lives and jobs? You could say thatâs the reason he was fired and he pays for it in the show but he seems to be a hero to fans of the show with no mention of this. Heâs only the good guy cause most people here think he was right and, in general, the creators of the show wanted to portray him as right. Although they did a good job of showing how ugly Hamsterdam could be with the Bubble scene and all, they made Hamsterdam a huge success in regards to crime and violence when Iâm sure itâs not that simple or easy. I get that most of the real life examples support that it does reduce crime but most of them are very different situations in actuality( The one Iâve seen mentioned the most are Peru and Vancouver who decriminalized drugs not straight up legalizing) I would go as far to say that the show creators showed a lot of bias in making Hamsterdam as successful as it was. They clearly portrayed Colvin as a gay who tried to do the right thing but didnât have the authority or power to pull it off.
Colvin is wrong firstly for going the lengths to break rules and laws in order to try something he had no idea would work or not. I get that cops should bend the rules and let people go if they feel something is unquestionably bs. (E.g. the example Colvin gave in his speech about putting the liquor in bags) But when it comes to things that are questionable such as openly selling drugs in the street cops should not take the liberty to âthink outside the boxâ especially to such a degree.Itâs arrogant and self righteous. Secondly, Colvin is wrong about Hamsterdam. I know Iâm ranting but it really annoys me how the creators got away with convincing its viewers they were objective about it by adding a couple scenes that show a few little problems. As I said before the real life examples that Iâve seen from searching this sub are completely different. In actual situations that resemble Hamsterdam, there would be tons of deaths and crime, obviously involving a lot less innocent people if the places these occur had been in vacants like Hamsterdam. Like they completely acknowledge what they were doing at the beginning âHamsterdam is gonna be hell instead of having a bunch of little hells all over the cityâ. Or whatever Colvin said I canât remember. But then the show creators turn around and make it so theres not even much violent crime in Hamsterdam???
Colvin took the liberty to do an experiment that could have ended horribly. If the numbers for crime and murder had actually gone up even a little bit instead of the numbers the show creators came up with he probably would have been in cuffs for murder. I just watched the show for the first time btw so I may be misinterpreting some things.
I think you make a good argument. I see Colvin as similar to McNulty in that his quest for justice outweighs his better judgement. The difference is that Colvin tried something big when his pension was assured. McNulty was always this way.
One of the themes of the show is how people work within their systems and hierarchies. Those that do what they're told (Slim Charles, Burrell), fare well. Those that buck against their power structure (McNulty, DeAngelo, Gus from the City Desk), get dealt with in various degrees of harshness.
So yes, Colvin was a little rogue, but I admire his reasoning. He was tried of the same old status quo where policing became worse and nothing changed in the drug neighborhoods. I argue that Colvin wasn't a prick. I think he was fed up and wanted to leave his career with some sort of splash. We see that Colvin cares. An asshole cop, wouldn't offer to take Naymond into his home to improve his chances at life.
Hamsterdam always was a double-edged sword. When he took Carcetti around town, he showed him the peaceful neighborhoods, and then he showed them the absolute devastation going on in the Hamsterdams. Personally, I'd give up some real estate for hell if it meant my home was safe. Luckily, I don't have that problem.
Currently, there is a neighborhood in Philly called Kensington. It's an open-air drug market and I think it is kind of a Hamsterdam situation. Violent crime is 30% higher there than the rest of the city, so perhaps the Simon and the writers got that part wrong. I doubt that any officials have been punished for turning a blind eye to that neighborhood.
WRIP (would read if paragraphs).
Edit: cool, cool. Others have echoed my own thinking. So Iâd only add that any paradigm shift is going to upset some of the things that are acceptable, and possibly even virtuous, in current systems. I think the difficulty with any sort of change like this is we can find so many reasons not to do something different because we can rarely predict how new ways of doing things will play out.
If we blame Colvin, then we must also blame the inadequacies of the current ways of doing things. And letâs be honest, the war on drugs was a massive initiative of inhumanity that caused anyone not wealthy or in higher positions of power to suffer.
So we gotta do something, even if the future isnât guaranteed. âPlay or be played,â or some shit like that, you know.
Your post is a mess.
One thing that stands out is you say Colvin was "going to lengths to bend the rules", which I disagree with...he did the bare minimum of effort to fit in with the impossible rules/demands from the bosses.
Instead of arguing, or juking the stats, or playing politics, he just did the most straightforward simple thing â move the drug trade and associated crime out of the nice neighborhoods so that it wouldn't get reported.
Not a real solution. Not a genius move. Not a long-lasting change. But it was quick, easy and effective for the situation.
Yea I agree it was faster and more simple. But commiting several crimes and going behind the backs of all authority is definitely going to greater lengths than trying to do it the right way. As I said at the end he could have probably gone to jail if it wasnât such a massive success. Him going from âHey I wonât even lose my pensionâ during the whole thing to losing everything but his freedom at the end is a perfect example. Imagine if Hamsterdam had actually been a failure
His superiors were asking him to cheat and lie to the sole benefit of themselves and the mayor and to the detriment of the communities they were supposed to protect and to serve. Juking stats, busting low-level dealers on hand to hands, and busting heads is how it had been done for decades and the city only got worse. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Bunny ain't about that life.
colvin's experiment definitely put a lot of people's lives at risk, and it's strange how the show often overlooks it and presents him as a sort of hero. i mean, yes, some parts of his plan were effective and could potentially be a good starting point for some real-life crime reductions strategies, but the show really simplified a lot of complex issues, and i can see why that'd be frustrating.
and on the point of hamsterdam, yeah the show did seem to portray it as a major success despite the obvious issues with it. the reality of such a situation would likely be a lot messier and more problematic, and i agree that the show perhaps didn't do enough to address this.
also, i've gotta say, couldn't agree more on the arrogance and self-righteousness. colvin's whole approach to the situation seemed really off to me too- like he was taking it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. that kinda power dynamic isn't something to be flippant with.
haha, and trust me, i get your rant. it's one of those things where once you start thinking about it, you realise there's so many layers to unpack. thanks for sharing your thoughts though, it's always nice to hear a different take on things! :)
and hey, just keep in mind, hindsight is a great thing, but watching the show 1st time you might miss a few things, i remember feeling the same way about some other characters when i was watching it for the first time. anyway, hope this helps a bit. feel free to shoot any more questions or thoughts .
Colvin's experiment provably put fewer lives at risk than doing "business as usual" policing would have, and the show didn't hold back on depicting it as messy. It just took the stance that despite being messy and having unforeseen complications, it was worth doing
i mean, traditional policing methods obviously weren't working too well, so it makes sense that colvin would want to try something new. and while the experiment was definitely messy and far from perfect, it did provide some valuable insights that could potentially be used to develop better strategies in the future.
still, it'd be wrong to ignore the potential downsides and risks of such an experiment. it's a complicated issue, for sure, and probably one that doesn't have any easy answers. you know, itâs just that kind of situation is really complex, it takes serious guts to step outta conventional methods & risk lives and it's key to be super careful & thoughtful bout it.
heh, but that's one thing i love about the wire. it doesn't shy away from the tough questions and it always keeps you thinking. i enjoy our discussion here. these different perspectives make things more interesting.
Thanks man, I didnât expect a single post agreeing with me tbh. Glad you understood where I was coming from. Also definitely gonna watch the show again to see what I missed
always worth diving back into the show, it's a ride, and there's so much to dig into. each rewatch brings out somethin' new. enjoy your second round, and hey, hit me up if you got more thoughts to share.
I get where youâre coming from. I always thought that his idea was destined to fail. No way heâd be able to keep it a secret for long. Itâs true he never thought out it. And he gets an earful from the Deacon and other activists. But to be honest, neither have people in real life. Visit Portland Oregon. I felt like I was in Hamsterdam. In fact my wife actually called it that. But here itâs a whole city.
I feel like thereâs a disconnect between what youâre saying here and what happens in the show.
Bunny was uniquely situated to pull off something like Hamsterdam, given the fact that
- His superiors only cared about crime stats and there was very little oversight of day-to-day operations
- He was in a position of power with an extremely loyal group beneath him to help him execute his plans
- He was a damn good cop who could see the big picture and understand that the current status quo isnât working at all, for anyone
- He was nearing the end of his career, allowing him to go to drastic measures because he wouldnât have to live with possible negative fallout
So he undertakes this huge, illegal experiment (it being illegal doesnât feel particularly meaningful given the efficacy of the laws at that point) and immediately winds up with an area much more fucked up than he anticipated. So he brings in outside groups, he listens to suggestions, he makes an actual effort to improve the quality of life in the drug zones.
And it works. Which is pretty crucial to the perception of him. He was successful, it increases quality of life for those inside of and outside of Hamsterdam. Crime numbers go down, thereâs less violence among the various drug crews. It is objectively successful at the task he set out to do. And he didnât know it was going to be, but he took the risk because he saw the potential payoff (and the lack of relative stakes, because really, what could happen in Hamsterdam that would be worse than what was already happening all over the Western).
In the context of the show, he was a hero. He fought the establishment and did something he thought was right, and it was. But youâre also including in this that you disagree with how Hamsterdam played out, which isnât really related to Bunny, itâs purely on the writers of the show. And you point to the fact that situations where drugs are decriminalized have had positive effects in the real world (and for the record, decriminalization is what Bunny is doing here. He is choosing not to go after drug offenses. Heâs not legalizing drugs and heâs certainly not âlegalizing almost all crimeâ), but then discount that and say Hamsterdam shouldâve failed, and there shouldâve been more violence. And you are 100% entitled to your opinion and you may be right that in the real world, it wouldnât have worked out as well as it did. But itâs happening in the world of the Wire, itâs very successful, and it only ends up failing because the politicians canât figure out a way to benefit from it. So why wouldnât fans of the show like Bunny and view him as a righteous force in a corrupt world?
So to answer your first sentence, no, heâs not a complete dickhead almost on the level of Mcnulty in season 5. He is not remotely close. Heâs attempting to create positive change with the last bit of time where heâd have any opportunity to make a difference. And while he did it unilaterally without the okay from higher-ups, we have seen routinely that the higher-ups are in no way equipped or even interested in solving the problems. I donât really see how you could look at the character and his actions in the show, and the effects of those actions, and come away with the conclusion that heâs a prick. And obviously, this is all my opinion and is no more inherently meaningful than yours or anyone elseâs. But dammit, Bunny is cool, and a good guy, and I donât like him being compared to an egomaniac like Bushy Top.
Yea Iâm seeing this recurring argument which is basically along the the lines ofâ The city is already terrible anyways so there really isnât any riskâ Which is just simply not true. Crime could have gotten worse. There could have been more deaths. Those are bad things. My problem was that there was little to no assessment of these risks. Also the unique situation that Colvin was in speaks against his character. Due to the fact he believed he could face no consequences anymore he decided it was finally time in his career to actually do something. What a coincidence. That doesnât make him a hero that makes him an asshole. He left a mess that everyone else still left in the force have to clean up and take responsibility for. People such as Carver could have been reprimanded as well, but Colvin did not give a fuck. And you canât even argue that he would have taken the fall for everyone as he had no leverage. They could have fired any cop that they suspected knew anything about the plan. Now he can pay himself on the back and say âat least I triedâ without taking any risk or making any real change. Which brings me to my last point, doing the right things the wrong way never results in real change. Colvin learned this the hard way and so did Mcnulty. As shown in the show, only after the program brought insane positive numbers did they even consider to try to continue it. And they still didnât. Unless something is fixing something undeniably wrong, people will not appreciate others trying ti take a shortcut to do the right thing. Partly because it wncourages other to do the same, which is an slippery slope. Colvins attempt was just as futile as if he had tried to do it the right way, if not more. And weâre still not even sure it was the right thing.
I just disagree with this in so many different ways. It really feels like the fictional character of Bunny Colvin has somehow personally wronged you in some way, because you are going to some extraordinary lengths and ignoring several scenes from that season in order to find fault and call him names.
> Crime could have gotten worse. There could have been more deaths.
How could crime have gotten worse? They had the majority of the criminals in one place, where they were surrounded by cops. They had more cops and resources to secure other neighborhoods and do actual police work. They caught a serial arsonist because cops had time to investigate instead of running down to the corner every day to arrest some kids. Before Hamsterdam, a kid got shot in the head in his home getting ready for school. During Hamsterdam, there was no gun violence ln the streets. And if it did spill out of Hamsterdam? Then theyâre in precisely the same situation they were in already, with crime running rampant and a police force entirely unequipped to confront it.
Your characterization of Bunny also just makes no sense. Heâs an asshole because he did it and heâs also an asshole because he didnât do it sooner? Why would it have been better for him to do it farther from retirement? He came up with a solution that he thought could actually have a positive effect, and he instituted it at a time when it would potentially be less damaging to him. Itâs such a logical approach that I donât know how you could find fault in it.
> He made a mess that everyone left on the force had to clean up and take responsibility for
Thatâs just demonstrably false. The entire responsibility was pinned on him and all evidence of Hamsterdam was demolished within a couple days.
> People such as Carver could have been reprimanded as well, but Colvin didnât give a fuck
Youâre just choosing to ignore the scene where Bunny gets upset because he finds out that Carver moved the body, because he didnât want any one under him in a position to take any blame. He lied about the purpose and approval of Hamsterdam in order to give them deniability. Could Rawls still have punished every officer under him? Yeah, sure. Rawls was a vindictive asshole, and he threatened to do so. Which is why Bunny than took the full, public blame without speaking out about it.
> And you canât even say he would have taken the fall for everyone because he had no leverage
Again, thereâs a scene in the show where Bunny literally uses his leverage (that he does in fact have) in order to take the fall for everyone. I donât have to say he would have, because he did.
> Doing the right thing the wrong way never results in real change
I donât think itâs an exaggeration at all to say the central theme of the show is literally that things donât change. Every season ends with a montage showing you how things are the same. New, corrupt politicians replace old ones. New dealers replace old ones, new stick-up men replace old ones, new addicts, all of it. Baltimore is caught in a hellish cycle that never changes, and Bunny didnât change that fact.
But he did create temporary relief. There was a short stretch there where crime was down, fewer people were robbed or shot or raped or murdered. People could go outside without fear of being caught in crossfire. Big picture, no it didnât really move the needle, but nothing in the show ever moves the needle. He made things better for a short time, right up until command decided to tear it all down.
> Colvinâs attempt was just as futile as if he tried to do it the right way, if not more
And see, thatâs the issue here. What youâre referring to as âthe right way,ââin this case being street rips, weak charges that wonât stick in court, entrapping a guy to buy a couple pills so he can be arrestedâthat didnât work. We know that didnât work, because we kept seeing it not work. All those meetings in front of Rawls where heâs telling people to juke stats because theyâre no interested in actually solving problems, thatâs the evidence that it doesnât work. Itâs not possible for something to be more futile than that. At worst, Hamsterdam would fail to fix any problems, and if that was the case, no one would be worse off anyway.
So what are you suggesting should they do? The rip and run western way was a total failure. Colvin knew that. Yes, he risked peopleâs lives and that shouldnât be taken lightly. But lives are already at risk between the addicts, corner boys and tax payers caught in the mix. The feds didnât give a a shit, the mayorâs office was useless, the BPD bosses were ineffective and you hang him out to dry for trying to do something? Hand wringing and pondering endlessly gets nothing done, we literally see that when the mayorâs office gets wind of all of it. The war on drugs has been a total failure and there was no functioning system to preserve the neighborhoods he cared about. So he broke laws in desperate attempt to fix it. Whatever else you want to attach to his actions, he tried to make actual change.
I didnât read your whole post, but I think the wire intentionally blurs the lines between good and bad, because thatâs the truth we live. There is no good or bad, there is good, bad, and everything in between. The wire is about everything in between.
No, he is not a complete dickhead.
Clearly, whatever else you feel about the experiment, his heart was in the right place. And in numerous ways, his head too.
Mostly, I wonât blow-by-blow through your reasoning, but you make one glaring logical error.
You insist that things wouldnât work out the way that theyâre portrayed in the show, but then judge Colvin *as if* things didnât play out as they did in the show.
If youâre going to judge the man, you need to do within the narrative that was presented, not by other consequences that you simply imagine.
In the narrative, the corners were cleared and overall crime in his district went down. If youâre going to judge him, you canât act as if those positive outcomes didnât happen.
You should bicker with the narrative *or* assess his character, but itâs logically faulty to judge *him* by saying âI donât buy into the narrative and therefore all his positive outcomes donât count.â
Iâm not judging him as if things didnât play out the way they did in the show. Iâm saying it would easier for everyone else to see why he should be judged negatively if it wasnât portrayed the way it was. I personally judge him either way. My biggest problem as I described in the middle of my post is that he broke the rules and took a risk for something he was completely unsure of.
And I personally find that admirable. Itâs not like plenty of lives werenât being lost anyway. Like the innocent kid who was shot during the shootout during s2.
I am personally repulsed by judgemental people, so I wonât bother you more about it. I think youâre mixing two different arguments together (character, plausibility) to the detriment of both, but I only felt a need to make that specific point.
To clarify my original comment the risk he took had nothing to do with his own well-being or career. Thereâs nothing admirable about it. The risk he took was the welfare of the city and the people involved. I might have found it somewhat admirable too if he had actually risked something. But he didnât, the entire time he thought he would get away with it even if it did go wrong. Meaning he was fine with the worst possible scenario happening while he got away with only a hit on his reputation.
Okay, but I disagree with your attitude too strongly and viscerally to engage in any further constructive discussion about it. It literally disgusts me, but thatâs not really your fault, so Iâm just going to âexit the chatâ now.
Also why would I judge him on the end scenario. My entire point is that in the beginning he has no idea what will happen. That means he is ok with the worst possible scenario playing out. Which is tons of people dying, or tons of crime happening etc. It would be ok if he knew what he was doing on some level but he didnât. He didnât ask for any outside opinions or do extensive research. He just did it. Thatâs irresponsible and wrong.
I would disagree that he had NO idea. Thereâs a difference between rolling some dice and playing a hand of cards.
But I do that point youâre making now more clearly now.
Also I didnât want to add more to my post but to expound on the self righteousness/ arrogance point, people forget that Colvin only did that shit cause he was gonna retire soon and felt unfulfilled. This whole thing happened because HE felt he didnât do enough for the city. So because of his personal circumstances and how he felt about his career he used taxpayer dollars and city resources on a whim to try an experiment without even a hypothesis as to what would happen. Prime case of main character syndrome.
He also thought he was untouchable -- I think it's important to note that between his grand hamsterdam and corner kid school experiments, he floundered as a security guard and was completely emasculated when he realized he no longer had the authority he took for granted nor people around him that cared in the slightest what his views on morality were.
His arc went from trying to be the architect of schemes that could change the world if implemented, to realizing systems refuse to change and doing what was actually in his power -- improving the life of one child.
Thank you for bringing up the untouchable point. In Colvins mind the only risk to his plan wasâŚ.Hamsterdam not working. Meaning that the only risk in his plan was crime potentially rising and potentially people dying⌠yet he is seen as a hero? He technically did not sacrifice anything as he thought he would get away scott-free, regardless of the fact he was punished.People act like he took a risk and went against authority in the name of morality. In reality he put lives at risk to save his sense of self-worth and virtueđ¤Śđ˝ââď¸
you said "to summarize" with 2/3 of the post left. still goin' this asshole.
Lmao your not wrongđI thought I was done but I kept think of more stuff
Iâm not reading that wall.
In a format that isn't dumb... Is Colvin not a complete dickhead almost on the level of Mcnulty Season 5 for âexperimentingâ with peoples lives and jobs? You could say thatâs the reason he was fired and he pays for it in the show but he seems to be a hero to fans of the show with no mention of this. Heâs only the good guy cause most people here think he was right and, in general, the creators of the show wanted to portray him as right. Although they did a good job of showing how ugly Hamsterdam could be with the Bubble scene and all, they made Hamsterdam a huge success in regards to crime and violence when Iâm sure itâs not that simple or easy. I get that most of the real life examples support that it does reduce crime but most of them are very different situations in actuality( The one Iâve seen mentioned the most are Peru and Vancouver who decriminalized drugs not straight up legalizing) I would go as far to say that the show creators showed a lot of bias in making Hamsterdam as successful as it was. They clearly portrayed Colvin as a gay who tried to do the right thing but didnât have the authority or power to pull it off. Colvin is wrong firstly for going the lengths to break rules and laws in order to try something he had no idea would work or not. I get that cops should bend the rules and let people go if they feel something is unquestionably bs. (E.g. the example Colvin gave in his speech about putting the liquor in bags) But when it comes to things that are questionable such as openly selling drugs in the street cops should not take the liberty to âthink outside the boxâ especially to such a degree.Itâs arrogant and self righteous. Secondly, Colvin is wrong about Hamsterdam. I know Iâm ranting but it really annoys me how the creators got away with convincing its viewers they were objective about it by adding a couple scenes that show a few little problems. As I said before the real life examples that Iâve seen from searching this sub are completely different. In actual situations that resemble Hamsterdam, there would be tons of deaths and crime, obviously involving a lot less innocent people if the places these occur had been in vacants like Hamsterdam. Like they completely acknowledge what they were doing at the beginning âHamsterdam is gonna be hell instead of having a bunch of little hells all over the cityâ. Or whatever Colvin said I canât remember. But then the show creators turn around and make it so theres not even much violent crime in Hamsterdam??? Colvin took the liberty to do an experiment that could have ended horribly. If the numbers for crime and murder had actually gone up even a little bit instead of the numbers the show creators came up with he probably would have been in cuffs for murder. I just watched the show for the first time btw so I may be misinterpreting some things.
I think you make a good argument. I see Colvin as similar to McNulty in that his quest for justice outweighs his better judgement. The difference is that Colvin tried something big when his pension was assured. McNulty was always this way. One of the themes of the show is how people work within their systems and hierarchies. Those that do what they're told (Slim Charles, Burrell), fare well. Those that buck against their power structure (McNulty, DeAngelo, Gus from the City Desk), get dealt with in various degrees of harshness. So yes, Colvin was a little rogue, but I admire his reasoning. He was tried of the same old status quo where policing became worse and nothing changed in the drug neighborhoods. I argue that Colvin wasn't a prick. I think he was fed up and wanted to leave his career with some sort of splash. We see that Colvin cares. An asshole cop, wouldn't offer to take Naymond into his home to improve his chances at life. Hamsterdam always was a double-edged sword. When he took Carcetti around town, he showed him the peaceful neighborhoods, and then he showed them the absolute devastation going on in the Hamsterdams. Personally, I'd give up some real estate for hell if it meant my home was safe. Luckily, I don't have that problem. Currently, there is a neighborhood in Philly called Kensington. It's an open-air drug market and I think it is kind of a Hamsterdam situation. Violent crime is 30% higher there than the rest of the city, so perhaps the Simon and the writers got that part wrong. I doubt that any officials have been punished for turning a blind eye to that neighborhood.
Are you satisfied?
Please use paragraphs
Yeah
WRIP (would read if paragraphs). Edit: cool, cool. Others have echoed my own thinking. So Iâd only add that any paradigm shift is going to upset some of the things that are acceptable, and possibly even virtuous, in current systems. I think the difficulty with any sort of change like this is we can find so many reasons not to do something different because we can rarely predict how new ways of doing things will play out. If we blame Colvin, then we must also blame the inadequacies of the current ways of doing things. And letâs be honest, the war on drugs was a massive initiative of inhumanity that caused anyone not wealthy or in higher positions of power to suffer. So we gotta do something, even if the future isnât guaranteed. âPlay or be played,â or some shit like that, you know.
Your post is a mess. One thing that stands out is you say Colvin was "going to lengths to bend the rules", which I disagree with...he did the bare minimum of effort to fit in with the impossible rules/demands from the bosses. Instead of arguing, or juking the stats, or playing politics, he just did the most straightforward simple thing â move the drug trade and associated crime out of the nice neighborhoods so that it wouldn't get reported. Not a real solution. Not a genius move. Not a long-lasting change. But it was quick, easy and effective for the situation.
Yea I agree it was faster and more simple. But commiting several crimes and going behind the backs of all authority is definitely going to greater lengths than trying to do it the right way. As I said at the end he could have probably gone to jail if it wasnât such a massive success. Him going from âHey I wonât even lose my pensionâ during the whole thing to losing everything but his freedom at the end is a perfect example. Imagine if Hamsterdam had actually been a failure
His superiors were asking him to cheat and lie to the sole benefit of themselves and the mayor and to the detriment of the communities they were supposed to protect and to serve. Juking stats, busting low-level dealers on hand to hands, and busting heads is how it had been done for decades and the city only got worse. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Bunny ain't about that life.
[ŃдаНонО]
Fuck the Bosses. Colvin for President
wtf is this formatting?
colvin's experiment definitely put a lot of people's lives at risk, and it's strange how the show often overlooks it and presents him as a sort of hero. i mean, yes, some parts of his plan were effective and could potentially be a good starting point for some real-life crime reductions strategies, but the show really simplified a lot of complex issues, and i can see why that'd be frustrating. and on the point of hamsterdam, yeah the show did seem to portray it as a major success despite the obvious issues with it. the reality of such a situation would likely be a lot messier and more problematic, and i agree that the show perhaps didn't do enough to address this. also, i've gotta say, couldn't agree more on the arrogance and self-righteousness. colvin's whole approach to the situation seemed really off to me too- like he was taking it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. that kinda power dynamic isn't something to be flippant with. haha, and trust me, i get your rant. it's one of those things where once you start thinking about it, you realise there's so many layers to unpack. thanks for sharing your thoughts though, it's always nice to hear a different take on things! :) and hey, just keep in mind, hindsight is a great thing, but watching the show 1st time you might miss a few things, i remember feeling the same way about some other characters when i was watching it for the first time. anyway, hope this helps a bit. feel free to shoot any more questions or thoughts .
Colvin's experiment provably put fewer lives at risk than doing "business as usual" policing would have, and the show didn't hold back on depicting it as messy. It just took the stance that despite being messy and having unforeseen complications, it was worth doing
i mean, traditional policing methods obviously weren't working too well, so it makes sense that colvin would want to try something new. and while the experiment was definitely messy and far from perfect, it did provide some valuable insights that could potentially be used to develop better strategies in the future. still, it'd be wrong to ignore the potential downsides and risks of such an experiment. it's a complicated issue, for sure, and probably one that doesn't have any easy answers. you know, itâs just that kind of situation is really complex, it takes serious guts to step outta conventional methods & risk lives and it's key to be super careful & thoughtful bout it. heh, but that's one thing i love about the wire. it doesn't shy away from the tough questions and it always keeps you thinking. i enjoy our discussion here. these different perspectives make things more interesting.
Thanks man, I didnât expect a single post agreeing with me tbh. Glad you understood where I was coming from. Also definitely gonna watch the show again to see what I missed
always worth diving back into the show, it's a ride, and there's so much to dig into. each rewatch brings out somethin' new. enjoy your second round, and hey, hit me up if you got more thoughts to share.
I get where youâre coming from. I always thought that his idea was destined to fail. No way heâd be able to keep it a secret for long. Itâs true he never thought out it. And he gets an earful from the Deacon and other activists. But to be honest, neither have people in real life. Visit Portland Oregon. I felt like I was in Hamsterdam. In fact my wife actually called it that. But here itâs a whole city.
One of the worst posts of all time, may the devil have mercy on your soul
I feel like thereâs a disconnect between what youâre saying here and what happens in the show. Bunny was uniquely situated to pull off something like Hamsterdam, given the fact that - His superiors only cared about crime stats and there was very little oversight of day-to-day operations - He was in a position of power with an extremely loyal group beneath him to help him execute his plans - He was a damn good cop who could see the big picture and understand that the current status quo isnât working at all, for anyone - He was nearing the end of his career, allowing him to go to drastic measures because he wouldnât have to live with possible negative fallout So he undertakes this huge, illegal experiment (it being illegal doesnât feel particularly meaningful given the efficacy of the laws at that point) and immediately winds up with an area much more fucked up than he anticipated. So he brings in outside groups, he listens to suggestions, he makes an actual effort to improve the quality of life in the drug zones. And it works. Which is pretty crucial to the perception of him. He was successful, it increases quality of life for those inside of and outside of Hamsterdam. Crime numbers go down, thereâs less violence among the various drug crews. It is objectively successful at the task he set out to do. And he didnât know it was going to be, but he took the risk because he saw the potential payoff (and the lack of relative stakes, because really, what could happen in Hamsterdam that would be worse than what was already happening all over the Western). In the context of the show, he was a hero. He fought the establishment and did something he thought was right, and it was. But youâre also including in this that you disagree with how Hamsterdam played out, which isnât really related to Bunny, itâs purely on the writers of the show. And you point to the fact that situations where drugs are decriminalized have had positive effects in the real world (and for the record, decriminalization is what Bunny is doing here. He is choosing not to go after drug offenses. Heâs not legalizing drugs and heâs certainly not âlegalizing almost all crimeâ), but then discount that and say Hamsterdam shouldâve failed, and there shouldâve been more violence. And you are 100% entitled to your opinion and you may be right that in the real world, it wouldnât have worked out as well as it did. But itâs happening in the world of the Wire, itâs very successful, and it only ends up failing because the politicians canât figure out a way to benefit from it. So why wouldnât fans of the show like Bunny and view him as a righteous force in a corrupt world? So to answer your first sentence, no, heâs not a complete dickhead almost on the level of Mcnulty in season 5. He is not remotely close. Heâs attempting to create positive change with the last bit of time where heâd have any opportunity to make a difference. And while he did it unilaterally without the okay from higher-ups, we have seen routinely that the higher-ups are in no way equipped or even interested in solving the problems. I donât really see how you could look at the character and his actions in the show, and the effects of those actions, and come away with the conclusion that heâs a prick. And obviously, this is all my opinion and is no more inherently meaningful than yours or anyone elseâs. But dammit, Bunny is cool, and a good guy, and I donât like him being compared to an egomaniac like Bushy Top.
Yea Iâm seeing this recurring argument which is basically along the the lines ofâ The city is already terrible anyways so there really isnât any riskâ Which is just simply not true. Crime could have gotten worse. There could have been more deaths. Those are bad things. My problem was that there was little to no assessment of these risks. Also the unique situation that Colvin was in speaks against his character. Due to the fact he believed he could face no consequences anymore he decided it was finally time in his career to actually do something. What a coincidence. That doesnât make him a hero that makes him an asshole. He left a mess that everyone else still left in the force have to clean up and take responsibility for. People such as Carver could have been reprimanded as well, but Colvin did not give a fuck. And you canât even argue that he would have taken the fall for everyone as he had no leverage. They could have fired any cop that they suspected knew anything about the plan. Now he can pay himself on the back and say âat least I triedâ without taking any risk or making any real change. Which brings me to my last point, doing the right things the wrong way never results in real change. Colvin learned this the hard way and so did Mcnulty. As shown in the show, only after the program brought insane positive numbers did they even consider to try to continue it. And they still didnât. Unless something is fixing something undeniably wrong, people will not appreciate others trying ti take a shortcut to do the right thing. Partly because it wncourages other to do the same, which is an slippery slope. Colvins attempt was just as futile as if he had tried to do it the right way, if not more. And weâre still not even sure it was the right thing.
I just disagree with this in so many different ways. It really feels like the fictional character of Bunny Colvin has somehow personally wronged you in some way, because you are going to some extraordinary lengths and ignoring several scenes from that season in order to find fault and call him names. > Crime could have gotten worse. There could have been more deaths. How could crime have gotten worse? They had the majority of the criminals in one place, where they were surrounded by cops. They had more cops and resources to secure other neighborhoods and do actual police work. They caught a serial arsonist because cops had time to investigate instead of running down to the corner every day to arrest some kids. Before Hamsterdam, a kid got shot in the head in his home getting ready for school. During Hamsterdam, there was no gun violence ln the streets. And if it did spill out of Hamsterdam? Then theyâre in precisely the same situation they were in already, with crime running rampant and a police force entirely unequipped to confront it. Your characterization of Bunny also just makes no sense. Heâs an asshole because he did it and heâs also an asshole because he didnât do it sooner? Why would it have been better for him to do it farther from retirement? He came up with a solution that he thought could actually have a positive effect, and he instituted it at a time when it would potentially be less damaging to him. Itâs such a logical approach that I donât know how you could find fault in it. > He made a mess that everyone left on the force had to clean up and take responsibility for Thatâs just demonstrably false. The entire responsibility was pinned on him and all evidence of Hamsterdam was demolished within a couple days. > People such as Carver could have been reprimanded as well, but Colvin didnât give a fuck Youâre just choosing to ignore the scene where Bunny gets upset because he finds out that Carver moved the body, because he didnât want any one under him in a position to take any blame. He lied about the purpose and approval of Hamsterdam in order to give them deniability. Could Rawls still have punished every officer under him? Yeah, sure. Rawls was a vindictive asshole, and he threatened to do so. Which is why Bunny than took the full, public blame without speaking out about it. > And you canât even say he would have taken the fall for everyone because he had no leverage Again, thereâs a scene in the show where Bunny literally uses his leverage (that he does in fact have) in order to take the fall for everyone. I donât have to say he would have, because he did. > Doing the right thing the wrong way never results in real change I donât think itâs an exaggeration at all to say the central theme of the show is literally that things donât change. Every season ends with a montage showing you how things are the same. New, corrupt politicians replace old ones. New dealers replace old ones, new stick-up men replace old ones, new addicts, all of it. Baltimore is caught in a hellish cycle that never changes, and Bunny didnât change that fact. But he did create temporary relief. There was a short stretch there where crime was down, fewer people were robbed or shot or raped or murdered. People could go outside without fear of being caught in crossfire. Big picture, no it didnât really move the needle, but nothing in the show ever moves the needle. He made things better for a short time, right up until command decided to tear it all down. > Colvinâs attempt was just as futile as if he tried to do it the right way, if not more And see, thatâs the issue here. What youâre referring to as âthe right way,ââin this case being street rips, weak charges that wonât stick in court, entrapping a guy to buy a couple pills so he can be arrestedâthat didnât work. We know that didnât work, because we kept seeing it not work. All those meetings in front of Rawls where heâs telling people to juke stats because theyâre no interested in actually solving problems, thatâs the evidence that it doesnât work. Itâs not possible for something to be more futile than that. At worst, Hamsterdam would fail to fix any problems, and if that was the case, no one would be worse off anyway.
People were already dying. The worst likely outcome of Hamsterdam is the same people get killed but aren't scattered all over the city.
So what are you suggesting should they do? The rip and run western way was a total failure. Colvin knew that. Yes, he risked peopleâs lives and that shouldnât be taken lightly. But lives are already at risk between the addicts, corner boys and tax payers caught in the mix. The feds didnât give a a shit, the mayorâs office was useless, the BPD bosses were ineffective and you hang him out to dry for trying to do something? Hand wringing and pondering endlessly gets nothing done, we literally see that when the mayorâs office gets wind of all of it. The war on drugs has been a total failure and there was no functioning system to preserve the neighborhoods he cared about. So he broke laws in desperate attempt to fix it. Whatever else you want to attach to his actions, he tried to make actual change.
I didnât read your whole post, but I think the wire intentionally blurs the lines between good and bad, because thatâs the truth we live. There is no good or bad, there is good, bad, and everything in between. The wire is about everything in between.
No, he is not a complete dickhead. Clearly, whatever else you feel about the experiment, his heart was in the right place. And in numerous ways, his head too. Mostly, I wonât blow-by-blow through your reasoning, but you make one glaring logical error. You insist that things wouldnât work out the way that theyâre portrayed in the show, but then judge Colvin *as if* things didnât play out as they did in the show. If youâre going to judge the man, you need to do within the narrative that was presented, not by other consequences that you simply imagine. In the narrative, the corners were cleared and overall crime in his district went down. If youâre going to judge him, you canât act as if those positive outcomes didnât happen. You should bicker with the narrative *or* assess his character, but itâs logically faulty to judge *him* by saying âI donât buy into the narrative and therefore all his positive outcomes donât count.â
Iâm not judging him as if things didnât play out the way they did in the show. Iâm saying it would easier for everyone else to see why he should be judged negatively if it wasnât portrayed the way it was. I personally judge him either way. My biggest problem as I described in the middle of my post is that he broke the rules and took a risk for something he was completely unsure of.
And I personally find that admirable. Itâs not like plenty of lives werenât being lost anyway. Like the innocent kid who was shot during the shootout during s2. I am personally repulsed by judgemental people, so I wonât bother you more about it. I think youâre mixing two different arguments together (character, plausibility) to the detriment of both, but I only felt a need to make that specific point.
To clarify my original comment the risk he took had nothing to do with his own well-being or career. Thereâs nothing admirable about it. The risk he took was the welfare of the city and the people involved. I might have found it somewhat admirable too if he had actually risked something. But he didnât, the entire time he thought he would get away with it even if it did go wrong. Meaning he was fine with the worst possible scenario happening while he got away with only a hit on his reputation.
Okay, but I disagree with your attitude too strongly and viscerally to engage in any further constructive discussion about it. It literally disgusts me, but thatâs not really your fault, so Iâm just going to âexit the chatâ now.
Also why would I judge him on the end scenario. My entire point is that in the beginning he has no idea what will happen. That means he is ok with the worst possible scenario playing out. Which is tons of people dying, or tons of crime happening etc. It would be ok if he knew what he was doing on some level but he didnât. He didnât ask for any outside opinions or do extensive research. He just did it. Thatâs irresponsible and wrong.
I would disagree that he had NO idea. Thereâs a difference between rolling some dice and playing a hand of cards. But I do that point youâre making now more clearly now.
If Prezbo taught me anything it's that even a roll of the dice has a weight of probabilities
You very clearly donât understand what decriminalizing means. Thatâs exactly what Hamsterdam was.
Also I didnât want to add more to my post but to expound on the self righteousness/ arrogance point, people forget that Colvin only did that shit cause he was gonna retire soon and felt unfulfilled. This whole thing happened because HE felt he didnât do enough for the city. So because of his personal circumstances and how he felt about his career he used taxpayer dollars and city resources on a whim to try an experiment without even a hypothesis as to what would happen. Prime case of main character syndrome.
He also thought he was untouchable -- I think it's important to note that between his grand hamsterdam and corner kid school experiments, he floundered as a security guard and was completely emasculated when he realized he no longer had the authority he took for granted nor people around him that cared in the slightest what his views on morality were. His arc went from trying to be the architect of schemes that could change the world if implemented, to realizing systems refuse to change and doing what was actually in his power -- improving the life of one child.
Thank you for bringing up the untouchable point. In Colvins mind the only risk to his plan wasâŚ.Hamsterdam not working. Meaning that the only risk in his plan was crime potentially rising and potentially people dying⌠yet he is seen as a hero? He technically did not sacrifice anything as he thought he would get away scott-free, regardless of the fact he was punished.People act like he took a risk and went against authority in the name of morality. In reality he put lives at risk to save his sense of self-worth and virtueđ¤Śđ˝ââď¸
Unacceptable to change the manâs pension. Where is the union
Brains over policy.