It bothered me that the city dropped the charges against Charlie for pointing a loaded gun at two strangers in a public place, just because he was a "9/11 widower". Unbelievable! and scary.
I also didn't like that people let Charlie get away with throwing things around and destroying people's property (ie the dentist's office). It doesn't matter how grief-stricken you are, you can't behave like that.
I saw the movie a few months back (I have PTSD and it was recommended to me on a PTSD forum) but I believe the gun wasn't loaded. Wasn't he just trying to get them to shoot him? Anyway I think you're mistaken. Even if it were loaded I'd understand a blind eye being shown to Charlie considering the mitigating circumstances.
As regards your second point well you're being a bit reductive. It's not as if he was merely having a bad day. Flashes of temper are characteristic of PTSD. Think of it as having a wound on your arm. If someone came up to you and aggravated it by poking a finger into it wouldn't you lash out instinctively?
I enjoyed the film but it was a little cheesy in places. Certainly not Oscar worthy.
You're right about the gun not being loaded. He was reminded of his family when he told Alan his story. He went home, found the gun, and looked in the chamber to see it was empty. At this point he was already drunk.
He went to the restaurant across the street where he saw the 2 cops and was waiting for them to be able to see him. From the moment the cop aimed his gun at him, you knew he couldn't kill himself, that he wanted the cops to do it.
I totally agree with you. It was ridiculous how he was so violent and unpredictable, and people just put up with it. He DID need to be committed, until he was ready to start grieving and dealing with it, and talking about it. You can't be self-indulgent like a toddler, and be considered "normal". He was unstable and dangerous. Lots of people have PTSD and have had horrific tragedies happen to them, and they don't act violent and unpredictable like this.
shareI don't think the post before yours was in agreement with you, on the contrary-
He was pointing out that angry outbursts can be typical of PTSD.
I'm sorry but you seem to lack empathy for this character and those with PTSD-- what he needed was what he finally got-which isn't what he would have gotten had he been committed-- I fear, as well as his friends and the young therapist had, that being committed would have sent him further over the edge.
While I understand your point, I also disagree. Judges in criminal courts routinely take exentuating circumstances into account. In fact, many District Attorneys do as well and they are the people that determine if charges will be brought against someone. I'm not saying that we should just excuse everybody for everything but the judicial system does not happen inside a vacuum. More times that not, a person is charged and tried differently SOLELY based on their race. We'd like to believe that "Lady Justice" is blind but it's not true and anyone that has spent even a few hours in a courtroom knows this. It's not right or fair, but there it is.
Hopefully, you will never face the kind of trauma one has to in order to develop PTSD. I can tell you, personally, that other than losing my children, I would gladly endure just about any other diagnosis NOT to have PTSD as it truly does impact every facet of one's life - and doesn't even go away in one's sleep (we often deal with nightmares as well so restorative sleep in the sense that non-sufferers know it no longer exists). I hope you will come to a place where you can begin to understand another person's point of view. It doesn't mean that you ignore it or excuse it, but develop just a little bit of empathy for others who may not seem like they deserve it. Sometimes, our ability to provide just a little compassion, a warm smile and hold back on judgment can go a long way in helping to make someone else's journey a bit more bearable. It's not always easy, but it's almost always appreciated.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying." Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
The gun wasn't loaded. He wanted suicide by cop. Who are you to tell others how to grieve? Kinda the point of the movie. Sad you missed it...but you also didn't notice the obvious unloaded gun...smh
The people you idolize wouldn't like you.
i too thought it was weird he could get away with that no matter his condition. Yes it wasnt loaded but whos to say he wouldnt get bullets or cause another incident to kill himself
he shouldve been sent to the nut house. that would help him more than letting him br wacked out and on the loose
+1, the psych evaluators recommended 1 year of treatment for him.
Over the past few years, it seems many of the mass shooting perpetrators had red flag psych evaluations that were ignored somewhere along the line.
I don't remember the entire ending but my impression was they left it ambiguous? Or was it insinuated that the in-laws would support his freedom?
Yeah, the in-laws appeared to favor his release at the end. For earlier post - Charlie opened the gun chamber and saw it empty and searched his apartment for bullets. He then appeared to try and end it all by "police suicide" unfortunately which was becoming a recurring thing around the time this film was made. You also have to assume as he was a multi-millionaire that his personal attorney had to make restitution for the damages he caused as the only thing admitted by the DA was his attempt at "police suicide" and his deep withdrawal and abstract behavior nothing about his destruction of property.
share[deleted]