S03.E03: Sunk Costs

[Bryce Lynch]

12 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I notice in the clip above that Chuck tells Jimmy that people don't change.  Does he apply that pearl of wisdom to himself?  Has he always been a controlling, condescending, jealous, bitter person?  In addition to a great legal mind, of course  . . . does he see the speck in Jimmy's eye while having a plank in his own?  I acknowledge that he has shown familial concern for Jimmy at various times, and exhibits some sporadic warmth (very little), and that is why it is pretty tragic that he allows the nastier impulses to cut Jimmy down to size swallow up his connection to the only person who cares/cared about him. 

Well, clearly Chuck was wrong about Jimmy.  He is able to change.  In BB, we see that he becomes, much, much worse.  In a few years he turns into a guy who launders drug money, sets up chow line stabbings to kill witnesses and becomes a partner in a criminal organization that produces and distributes huge amounts of crystal meth, endangers people's health by secretly cooking meth in their homes, bugs the DEA office, and murders a child.  

By introducing Walt, Mike and Jesse to Todd, he is also indirectly responsible for the deaths of 10 inmates, 2 DEA agents, and a single mother 

[Ohwell]

And you know what?  I'd still prefer Jimmy over Chuck!  

(Besides, one never knows when one might need a criminal lawyer.)

[ShadowFacts]

In the Breaking Bad-verse, people who hurt other people always end up paying (Mike included) and Jimmy is no different.  He is in a prison of his own making in Omaha, deservedly, and I doubt that will change into some kind of freedom/happy ending.  Likewise, I feel pretty sure Chuck will pay some consequences for what he has done to his brother.  He already is, and I don't know if Jimmy's prediction will come exactly true, but Chuck the respected legal mind is surely not upward bound. 

[Captanne]

Is it fair to hold a person responsible in the present for what they will do in the future?  I had to think about that.  Classic example warning:  Do we hold the child Hitler responsible for the adult Hitler's actions?  Do we hold the child John Wayne Gacey (google him, you will be sorry you did) for the adult actions of John Wayne Gacey?  

And once they have grown into adulthood?  How about ourselves?  Do we hold ourselves, now, to blame for what we may do ten years from now in different circumstances and different positions in our lives reflecting on and reacting to events we can't predict?

I wonder, rhetorically, if it's quite fair to hold Jimmy McGill in BCS responsible for actions he takes as Saul Goodman in BB?  We can certainly hold him accountable afterwards but can we blame him now for future acts?

Many years ago, I saw a film called Manhunter (precursor to Silence of the Lambs, may Demme RIP) in which the profiler says of the serial killer, "I feel sorry for the child he was.  Now?  He's a sick fuck who needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth."

[toodles]

On 4/25/2017 at 8:32 AM, SnarkAttack said:

Anyone else wonder why Chuck's house isn't more upscale for being a partner in a law firm?  

His house with Rebecca was much nicer.  Maybe he lost it in a divorce?

[DrSpaceman73]

I assumed Chuck's house is not nicer due to his psychiatric problems.  He probably views the house as more ideal to his situation in some way. 

[RealReality]

23 hours ago, toodles said:

His house with Rebecca was much nicer.  Maybe he lost it in a divorce?

I thought it was the same house, it just became drearier with time (And no lights).  It seems like a joyless mausoleum now.  But having his memories of Rebecca could be what kept him from moving to a nicer house.  He wants to live in that house with the ghost of his past relationship and the one time he was probably truly happy.

It would be sad if Chuck weren't such a prick.

[Bryce Lynch]

On 4/29/2017 at 1:09 PM, Captanne said:

Is it fair to hold a person responsible in the present for what they will do in the future?  I had to think about that.  Classic example warning:  Do we hold the child Hitler responsible for the adult Hitler's actions?  Do we hold the child John Wayne Gacey (google him, you will be sorry you did) for the adult actions of John Wayne Gacey?  

And once they have grown into adulthood?  How about ourselves?  Do we hold ourselves, now, to blame for what we may do ten years from now in different circumstances and different positions in our lives reflecting on and reacting to events we can't predict?

I wonder, rhetorically, if it's quite fair to hold Jimmy McGill in BCS responsible for actions he takes as Saul Goodman in BB?  We can certainly hold him accountable afterwards but can we blame him now for future acts?

Many years ago, I saw a film called Manhunter (precursor to Silence of the Lambs, may Demme RIP) in which the profiler says of the serial killer, "I feel sorry for the child he was.  Now?  He's a sick fuck who needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth."

For me, it is not about holding things against Jimmy, but about whether Chuck sort of gets vindicated in regard to his efforts to try to prevent Jimmy from practicing law.  

What if Hitler had a jealous, condescending, snobbish older brother, lets call him Chuck Hitler, who warned people that he knew his younger brother and he had shown tendencies toward being a genocidal, megalomaniac, since childhood.  Suppose, Chuck Hitler did everything he could undermine young Adolph's political ambitions and tried to push him to make his living painting postcards and houses.  In hindsight, would we see Chuck Hitler as a horrible person for not supporting his baby brother's in his dreams and ambitions?  We would fixate on Chuck Hitler's annoying, unlikable, personality traits or on his brother's much more harmful traits and deeds?

That said it is an open question whether Chuck was:

1) Totally right about Jimmy.  Jimmy was unalterably wired to be a con artist and Chuck knew Jimmy as a lawyer would lead to tragedy. 

2) "Right" but not based upon any real insight.  Chuck just had it in for Jimmy and as a result made a lucky guess that he would be a corrupt and dangerous lawyer.  

3) The cause of Jimmy becoming Saul.  Chuck's treatment of Jimmy caused him to become a criminal lawyer, and if he had been more supportive, Jimmy would have been a Supreme Court Justice (or at least on honest, well respected, Elder Law practitioner).  

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[ShellSeeker]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

3) The cause of Jimmy becoming Saul.  Chuck's treatment of Jimmy caused him to become a criminal lawyer, and if he had been more supportive, Jimmy would have been a Supreme Court Justice (or at least on honest, well respected, Elder Law practitioner).  

I think Chuck has let his resentment for Jimmy completely consume him, and now all he cares about is destroying him, and proving that he (Chuck) was right and everyone else was wrong to like Jimmy more than they liked him. Chuck could have easily encouraged Jimmy to specialize in elder law when they were working together to get the Sandpiper case off the ground. It would have been perfect for him. We all know that 'Slippin' Jimmy' is an accomplished scammer, and gets a big thrill out of conning people. That could have nicely transferred into practicing elder law, because the world is full of con-artists who swindle the elderly, and sometimes those con-artists are large companies like Sandpiper. To take them on, outsmart them, and beat them at their own game would have let Jimmy channel his scam-artist skills into something positive (and legal) that would have helped a group of people who would really benefit by having someone as smart and crafty as Jimmy looking out for them. But no, all Chuck can focus on is making everyone hate Jimmy as much as he does.

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, ShellSeeker said:

I think Chuck has let his resentment for Jimmy completely consume him, and now all he cares about is destroying him, and proving that he (Chuck) was right and everyone else was wrong to like Jimmy more than they liked him. Chuck could have easily encouraged Jimmy to specialize in elder law when they were working together to get the Sandpiper case off the ground. It would have been perfect for him. We all know that 'Slippin' Jimmy' is an accomplished scammer, and gets a big thrill out of conning people. That could have nicely transferred into practicing elder law, because the world is full of con-artists who swindle the elderly, and sometimes those con-artists are large companies like Sandpiper. To take them on, outsmart them, and beat them at their own game would have let Jimmy channel his scam-artist skills into something positive (and legal) that would have helped a group of people who would really benefit by having someone as smart and crafty as Jimmy looking out for them. But no, all Chuck can focus on is making everyone hate Jimmy as much as he does.

While your, "it takes a con artist to protect old people from con artists" idea makes some sense.  I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reputable lawyer to think that is a great idea.  Would you hire someone you knew was a former con artist (and you know still pull cons now and then) to handle the affairs of your elderly parents?  I certainly wouldn't.

Also, Chuck was actually fairly supportive of Jimmy's elder law and public defender work. However, he may have felt about it, he did not try to interfere and encouraged Jimmy in them. 

Chuck's obstruction of Jimmy's career was ONLY with respect to him working at HHM, both when he first passed the bar and when HHM took over Sandpiper.  He didn't start plotting to end Jimmy's legal career entirely until after Jimmy sneaked into his home, stole his files, doctored them and replaced them to sabotage Chuck and his client, and then sneaked back in to cover his tracks.  Is it really wrong for Chuck to a) Take that personally b) Believe that a man who would do such a thing has no business having a license to practice law?  

How would you feel if someone broke into your lawyers file and sabotaged them, causing you to lose  time and money?  Harmless prank?  Did your lawyer deserve it because he is a bit of a self righteous, condescending prick?

[ShadowFacts]

8 minutes ago, ShellSeeker said:

I think Chuck has let his resentment for Jimmy completely consume him, and now all he cares about is destroying him, and proving that he (Chuck) was right and everyone else was wrong to like Jimmy more than they liked him. Chuck could have easily encouraged Jimmy to specialize in elder law when they were working together to get the Sandpiper case off the ground. It would have been perfect for him. We all know that 'Slippin' Jimmy' is an accomplished scammer, and gets a big thrill out of conning people. That could have nicely transferred into practicing elder law, because the world is full of con-artists who swindle the elderly, and sometimes those con-artists are large companies like Sandpiper. To take them on, outsmart them, and beat them at their own game would have let Jimmy channel his scam-artist skills into something positive (and legal) that would have helped a group of people who would really benefit by having someone as smart and crafty as Jimmy looking out for them. But no, all Chuck can focus on is making everyone hate Jimmy as much as he does.

Bingo, you have said it better than I could have.  I think the causal link between Chuck's nasty behavior and Jimmy's criminal behavior is not 100% solid, but I see it as a very big factor.  Jimmy is not unlike lots of people in lots of professions, who are able to keep their darker impulses under control.  He did it for years.  In fact, he did it better than Chuck.  Chuck has let his hate take over his life.  We don't know what Jimmy would have become but for Chuck's interference.  He might have done very well in elder law, with Kim alongside him, and channeled his endorphin-seeking in other directions as ShellSeeker outlined, or even hang-gliding and frequent trips to Vegas.  After all, he wanted Chuck's approval.  He thought Chuck would be proud.  Instead, look at what Chuck did, he weaponized Jimmy's respect for his brother. 

15 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Chuck's obstruction of Jimmy's career was ONLY with respect to him working at HHM, both when he first passed the bar and when HHM took over Sandpiper.  He didn't start plotting to end Jimmy's legal career entirely until after Jimmy sneaked into his home, stole his files, doctored them and replaced them to sabotage Chuck and his client, and then sneaked back in to cover his tracks.  Is it really wrong for Chuck to a) Take that personally b) Believe that a man who would do such a thing has no business having a license to practice law?  

How would you feel if someone broke into your lawyers file and sabotaged them, causing you to lose  time and money?  Harmless prank?  Did your lawyer deserve it because he is a bit of a self righteous, condescending prick?

What Jimmy did was a huge breach of professional conduct, deserving of discipline, which maybe would have been short of losing his license, I don't know.  It is obviously something a lawyer should never do.  It also is the case that Chuck's modus operandi made the switch possible, he was doing the work at home without word processing or proofreading or locking up files that would have prevented it, because of his phobia/anxiety/whatever it is.  We haven't seen the beginnings of his problem, but until we see otherwise, it is a fair inference that it has much to do with Jimmy being a lawyer.  I think Chuck is more than a bit of a self-righteous, condescending prick.  He was negligent with client files.  He left HHM open to a claim of malpractice.  He is not above conducting his own scams.  I don't think he has much of a moral high ground. 

[PeterPirate]

32 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

Bingo, you have said it better than I could have.  I think the causal link between Chuck's nasty behavior and Jimmy's criminal behavior is not 100% solid, but I see it as a very big factor.  Jimmy is not unlike lots of people in lots of professions, who are able to keep their darker impulses under control.  He did it for years.  In fact, he did it better than Chuck.  Chuck has let his hate take over his life.  We don't know what Jimmy would have become but for Chuck's interference.  He might have done very well in elder law, with Kim alongside him, and channeled his endorphin-seeking in other directions as ShellSeeker outlined, or even hang-gliding and frequent trips to Vegas.  After all, he wanted Chuck's approval.  He thought Chuck would be proud.  Instead, look at what Chuck did, he weaponized Jimmy's respect for his brother. 

But we do know what kind of lawyer Jimmy was without Chuck's interference. He was the kind of lawyer who hires criminals to defraud people into becoming his clients. 

Let's say, for example, that the old lady who hit the skateboarder was not Tuco Salamanca's grandmother. What are the chances that when Jimmy showed up to the house that he would have changed his mind about threatening her family with prosecution for hit-and-run and demanding a payoff?  Even if we give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt on that, he still initiated the scam that ended up with grandma being called a biznatch.  And even if Jimmy did have change of heart, the skateboarding brothers would have been able to blackmail him into continuing the scam. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by PeterPirate

[scenario]

Jimmy was probably never going to be a fine upstanding citizen. At best he would have ended up being a relatively honest ambulance chasing lawyer. If Chuck had leveled with him and tried to encourage him, he might have pushed Jimmy away from his worse impulses. Instead, you've got a feedback going we're the two brothers are one uping each other into criminal territory. 

Chuck didn't make Jimmy a criminal. His attempts to steer Jimmy away from the criminal path actually pushed him toward being a criminal. 

[ShadowFacts]

34 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

But we do know what kind of lawyer Jimmy was without Chuck's interference. He was the kind of lawyer who hires criminals to defraud people into becoming his clients. 

I think there is no defending that behavior, and I said the causal link is not solid, but I still don't think we can know what would have happened if Chuck had been proud, and supportive, which he was not.  Having Chuck's approval meant a lot, or Jimmy wouldn't have stayed in the mail room for years.  The payoff he expected after toiling to pass the bar wasn't there, and he let the lid off the conman Jimmy he had been successfully controlling.  Chuck plays a big part in what Jimmy becomes, and Jimmy plays a big part in what Chuck becomes.  The opposite of a symbiotic relationship, I can't think of a descriptor right now, but toxic doesn't begin to cover it. 

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

Bingo, you have said it better than I could have.  I think the causal link between Chuck's nasty behavior and Jimmy's criminal behavior is not 100% solid, but I see it as a very big factor.  Jimmy is not unlike lots of people in lots of professions, who are able to keep their darker impulses under control.  He did it for years.  In fact, he did it better than Chuck.  Chuck has let his hate take over his life.  We don't know what Jimmy would have become but for Chuck's interference.  He might have done very well in elder law, with Kim alongside him, and channeled his endorphin-seeking in other directions as ShellSeeker outlined, or even hang-gliding and frequent trips to Vegas.  After all, he wanted Chuck's approval.  He thought Chuck would be proud.  Instead, look at what Chuck did, he weaponized Jimmy's respect for his brother. 

What Jimmy did was a huge breach of professional conduct, deserving of discipline, which maybe would have been short of losing his license, I don't know.  It is obviously something a lawyer should never do.  It also is the case that Chuck's modus operandi made the switch possible, he was doing the work at home without word processing or proofreading or locking up files that would have prevented it, because of his phobia/anxiety/whatever it is.  We haven't seen the beginnings of his problem, but until we see otherwise, it is a fair inference that it has much to do with Jimmy being a lawyer.  I think Chuck is more than a bit of a self-righteous, condescending prick.  He was negligent with client files.  He left HHM open to a claim of malpractice.  He is not above conducting his own scams.  I don't think he has much of a moral high ground. 

It seems like you are blaming the victim, with regard to the files.  I am not a lawyer, but I have been in lawyer's offices, and they often have file boxes, like the one's Chuck used, all over the office, not locked.  I would imagine it is fairly common for lawyers to take work files home with them.  

Jimmy kept his geezers' files in Chuck's house in the same manner, back in Season 1, and Chuck was able to access them.  Of course Chuck helped Jimmy with the wills, rather than alter them in such a way as to embarrass Jimmy professionally and cause harm to his clients.  

Also, it is not like Jimmy wouldn't have broken or scammed his way into HHM to get at the files, if Chuck had kept them there. 

As far as "scams", the only scam Chuck ran was a perfectly legal sting operation to get a criminal to admit to committing felonies against him on tape.  In most cases like this, the audience would probably be filled with glee over the scam artist and saboteur getting busted by a "scam" by the victim.  It is a common TV and movie trope..."Scam artist gets a taste of his own medicine."

But we love Jimmy so much, that we make Chuck into a bad guy for trying to catch Jimmy in his lies and crimes. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It seems like you are blaming the victim, with regard to the files.  I am not a lawyer, but I have been in lawyer's offices, and they often have file boxes, like the one's Chuck used, all over the office, not locked.  I would imagine it is fairly common for lawyers to take work files home with them.  

I actually think Mesa Verde is the real victim, and I certainly don't blame them, but I think it's clear that Chuck was negligent.  If he had been working in the office, or locking things up at night at home, alteration would have been much harder.  Lawyers may take their files and laptops home, but they have to exercise diligence in protecting client confidences.  Howard didn't want it known that the fiasco wasn't a simple transpositional error. 

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But we love Jimmy so much, that we make Chuck into a bad guy for trying to catch Jimmy in his lies and crimes. 

I actually don't love Jimmy so much (nor Mike the cold-blooded executioner who is so smooth in outsmarting drug-runners), but Chuck is tainted by and has his judgment clouded by his jealousy.  Capturing the confession on tape and luring Jimmy into a break-in may have been perfectly legal, but using Ernie and then firing him was not necessary and a total dick move.  He can't be above-board and report Jimmy to the state bar because it would reveal what may be his own misconduct, so he resorts to the type of thing he can't stand in Jimmy.  It was also a self-destructive plan because it torpedoed the only semblance of love he had left in his life.  Hollow victory. 

[qtpye]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 1:59 PM, Eulipian 5k said:

Of all the professions Slippin' Jimmy would go into, he picks the hardest one, (part time law school). One that relies heavily on reputation, that his brother has worked at twice as hard to establish himself and HHM in. That seem like the original provocation in this feud. When Jimmy goes down it will reflect on Chuck, so he had a reason to protect HHM and himself by steering Jimmy into say, the car wash industr, (Have an A-1 day). Jimmy chose law to spite Chuck, IMHO, and maybe gain from his brother's reputation while at the same time dragging down the family name. That would send Chuck off the deep end ; never mind messing up his dad's business and (possibly) Chuck's marriage.  Just sayin'.

This is a really interesting way of looking at it.  Obviously, the fact that Jimmy is so lovable and can charm the Habit of a nun, sometimes makes his bad deeds more palatable.   It's funny, Jimmy wants Chuck's respect and Chuck...well, even though Chuck is technically in the right, the guy looks more the bad guy, then his formerly "bad brother" trying to break good.

Quote

What if Hitler had a jealous, condescending, snobbish older brother, lets call him Chuck Hitler, who warned people that he knew his younger brother and he had shown tendencies toward being a genocidal, megalomaniac, since childhood.  Suppose, Chuck Hitler did everything he could undermine young Adolph's political ambitions and tried to push him to make his living painting postcards and houses.  In hindsight, would we see Chuck Hitler as a horrible person for not supporting his baby brother's in his dreams and ambitions?  We would fixate on Chuck Hitler's annoying, unlikable, personality traits or on his brother's much more harmful traits and deeds?

I bet you Chuck Hitler is what caused little A to flunk out of art school.

[Ohwell]

I know there are separate Chuck and Jimmy threads, but wouldn't it better to start a general "Chuck vs. Jimmy" thread, so that discussions about Chuck & Jimmy don't overtake individual episode threads, like what's happening in this one? 

[ShellSeeker]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

I think there is no defending that behavior, and I said the causal link is not solid, but I still don't think we can know what would have happened if Chuck had been proud, and supportive, which he was not.  Having Chuck's approval meant a lot, or Jimmy wouldn't have stayed in the mail room for years.  The payoff he expected after toiling to pass the bar wasn't there, and he let the lid off the conman Jimmy he had been successfully controlling.  Chuck plays a big part in what Jimmy becomes, and Jimmy plays a big part in what Chuck becomes.  The opposite of a symbiotic relationship, I can't think of a descriptor right now, but toxic doesn't begin to cover it. 

Lots of differing viewpoints here (which is all good). I think the side you come down depends on what you think is the basis for Chuck's motivations. I think Chuck has spent his life nursing hurt feelings and harboring petty, bitter, resentments about people having always liked Jimmy better than they liked him -- even his own wife, even after he warned her not to be taken in by him, and even though he is the more upstanding, successful brother. I think he has spent years trying to figure out a way to make people see Jimmy the way he always has, and now has found a way to do just that, and is cloaking himself in righteous indignation about the law being a sacred, precious, holy thing that must be protected at all costs. Someone who thinks that Chuck really believes all the things he's saying about upholding the law and all the rest of it is probably going to view him with a more sympathetic eye than I do. Like I said, it's all good, and YMMV. 

Now what I wish is that the writers had come up with some scenario where Chuck would be able to catch Jimmy red-handed, with enough evidence to get him disbarred, and could finally prove to everyone that what he'd been saying all along was true: that Jimmy has no business being a lawyer and brings disgrace to the legal profession. But to do that would require Chuck to break the law that he cherishes so dearly and holds so sacred. Would he do it?

25 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I bet you Chuck Hitler is what caused little A to flunk out of art school.

LOL! That made me laugh.

Quote

While your, "it takes a con artist to protect old people from con artists" idea makes some sense.  I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reputable lawyer to think that is a great idea.  Would you hire someone you knew was a former con artist (and you know still pull cons now and then) to handle the affairs of your elderly parents?  I certainly wouldn't.

I'm thinking it could have been a relationship like the one between Carl Hanratty and Frank Abagnale in Catch Me If You Can. Hanratty pursued Abagnale for years, finally caught him, and then ended up hiring him to help catch criminals who did the same thing he did.

[LoneHaranguer]

5 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

As far as "scams", the only scam Chuck ran was a perfectly legal sting operation to get a criminal to admit to committing felonies against him on tape.

It looked more like entrapment to me, but either way it was illegal for Chuck to do it; only police are allowed to conduct a sting. Chuck was a private citizen who conned someone into doing something illegal to use as blackmail.

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I think there is no defending that behavior, and I said the causal link is not solid, but I still don't think we can know what would have happened if Chuck had been proud, and supportive, which he was not.  Having Chuck's approval meant a lot, or Jimmy wouldn't have stayed in the mail room for years.  The payoff he expected after toiling to pass the bar wasn't there, and he let the lid off the conman Jimmy he had been successfully controlling.  Chuck plays a big part in what Jimmy becomes, and Jimmy plays a big part in what Chuck becomes. 

There is a symbiotic relationship but there's also individual agency where we have to consider at what point is a person responsible for who they are and what they become?  I see Jimmy/Saul and Chuck as a bit of a chicken or an egg situation.  Did Jimmy become who became because of lack of support from Chuck or did he earn lack of support from Chuck because of who he was.

I tend to fall on the side of Jimmy being ultimately responsible for the path he takes and choices he makes.  We saw him as a child take money from his father.  We knew he and a friend ran cons in Chicago which led Chuck to eventually come and bail him out.  We've seen him skirt the law as a lawyer. 

I do think, with more support, Chuck could have possibly pushed Jimmy into being a more reputable soul but he didn't instill in Jimmy the side of him that is not. 

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

It looked more like entrapment to me, but either way it was illegal for Chuck to do it; only police are allowed to conduct a sting. Chuck was a private citizen who conned someone into doing something illegal to use as blackmail.

What case law prohibits an average citizen from running a sting operation?  Reporters do it all the time.  There may be a challenge to get it admitted but that doesn't make it illegal.  Entrapment, as I understand it, would involve a more active approach than what Chuck took. He didn't try to convince Jimmy to commit an illegal act, he simply gave him motive to commit one and even that involved a risk in hoping Ernesto would spill the beans he was specifically asked not to spill.

5 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I actually think Mesa Verde is the real victim, and I certainly don't blame them, but I think it's clear that Chuck was negligent. 

He could have put in extra protections to protect the material but I don't see it as clear that he was negligent. He had the files in his house which was locked.  No one else lived there and they were never left alone.  He was a victim of fraud.

[carrps]

7 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It seems like you are blaming the victim, with regard to the files.  I am not a lawyer, but I have been in lawyer's offices, and they often have file boxes, like the one's Chuck used, all over the office, not locked.  I would imagine it is fairly common for lawyers to take work files home with them.  

 

I'm not a lawyer, either. I was a data analyst and worked with confidential files all the time. All those files were kept in a lockable office that was always locked when we went away -- even for a bathroom break. We were not allowed to remove any of the data from the premises. I could see someone taking files  home, but it would be against procedure, and they'd be in trouble if anyone found out.

Home is not the same kind of secure environment as the office.

[Dev F]

So there's been a lot of talk about Jimmy and Chuck's relationship after this episode, as usual, but I actually thought the implications for Jimmy and Kim's relationship were pretty dire as well. I think it's significant that the last scene of the episode, Jimmy and Kim joining hands in silhouette and promising to fight this thing together, directly mirrors the first scene of the episode -- two shoes joined by fragile intertwined laces that eventually break and send them plummeting to the ground.

The comparison isn't flattering to Jimmy and Kim. The shoes were something that had played an important part in an earlier event, but they'd been literally emptied of their only significance, and now they were just hanging where someone left them, devoid of purpose and full of holes, waiting for the inevitable weight gravity to pull them apart. Is that meant to portend the state of our heroes' relationship as well? Is it meant to suggest that in some way it's already over, but clinging to the fallacy of sunk costs, as Kim said, they just refuse to see it?

Edited May 2, 2017 by Dev F

[qtpye]

12 hours ago, Dev F said:

The comparison isn't flattering to Jimmy and Kim. The shoes were something that had played an important part in an earlier event, but they'd been literally emptied of their only significance, and now they were just hanging where someone left them, devoid of purpose and full of holes, waiting for the inevitable weight gravity to pull them apart. Is that meant to portend the state of our heroes' relationship as well? Is it meant to suggest that in some way it's already over, but clinging to the fallacy of sunk costs, as Kim said, they just refuse to see it?

I really think this show brings out some really awesome posts.  I never would have put that together.  I did feel that the shoes were more important then a neat trick Mike pulled to bust the truck, but I did not think about Jimmy and Kim.

[LoneHaranguer]

14 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

What case law prohibits an average citizen from running a sting operation?  Reporters do it all the time.

It's not in the public interest for anyone to encourage others to commit crimes; that's why it's illegal to be an "accessory before the fact". Police and prosecutors have to prioritize what crimes to pursue based on the chances that a jury would be sympathetic. 

[Tikichick]

16 hours ago, Dev F said:

So there's been a lot of talk about Jimmy and Chuck's relationship after this episode, as usual, but I actually thought the implications for Jimmy and Kim's relationship were pretty dire as well. I think it's significant that the last scene of the episode, Jimmy and Kim joining hands in silhouette and promising to fight this thing together, directly mirrors the first scene of the episode -- two shoes joined by fragile intertwined laces that eventually break and send them plummeting to the ground.

The comparison isn't flattering to Jimmy and Kim. The shoes were something that had played an important part in an earlier event, but they'd been literally emptied of their only significance, and now they were just hanging where someone left them, devoid of purpose and full of holes, waiting for the inevitable weight gravity to pull them apart. Is that meant to portend the state of our heroes' relationship as well? Is it meant to suggest that in some way it's already over, but clinging to the fallacy of sunk costs, as Kim said, they just refuse to see it?

Spectacular insight.  This is the type of thinking usually engaged in when reading a particularly fine piece of writing or literature and points to exactly why I think this show is far and away better than even the other great shows available on our screens today.

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

It's not in the public interest for anyone to encourage others to commit crimes; that's why it's illegal to be an "accessory before the fact". Police and prosecutors have to prioritize what crimes to pursue based on the chances that a jury would be sympathetic. 

What did Chuck do that would make him an accessory?  Wouldn't 'accessory before the fact' have to involve something a little more illegal or at least grease the wheel for something illegal Jimmy does?

Chuck dangled a carrot but he's not responsible for Jimmy's decision to bite.  He didn't give him means to bite. He didn't tell him to bite. Knowing he'd bite doesn't come close to encouraging him to bite.

[Gobi]

Apologies if this was mentioned upthread. I loved how the camera cut from the bell ringing over the free clinic door to a wheelchair. Hector's fate foreshadowed.

[qtpye]

18 hours ago, Gobi said:

Apologies if this was mentioned upthread. I loved how the camera cut from the bell ringing over the free clinic door to a wheelchair. Hector's fate foreshadowed.

Holy crap, did not even think of that.  The visual symbolism of the show is amazing.

[Jextella]

I'm rewatching season 2 before jumping into 3 so I haven't seen any of the new season yet.  But....from what I see in Season 2, two things are going on where Chuck and Jimmy are concerned.

Jimmy reflects back to when he was a child and con artist asked his dad for a handout at a gas station/convenience store he owned.  Jimmy's dad went to the back of the store looking for car cables and the con artist told Jimmy that there are two kinds of people in the world - sheep and wolves - and that he needed to decide what he's going to be.  His dad was completely naive to the fact that he was being hoodwinked and despite Jimmy's pleas to not be so trusting, his father couldn't help himself.  The fact that his father let himself be taken advantage of clearly bothered Jimmy.  He then took $8 from the till for himself.  Seems as if at that moment, he decided to be a wolf  - not a sheep.

Jimmy wasn't born into the con artist way of life.  He chose to be part of it - likely due in large part to his father being so naive..."I'll never be like that" mentality.

Then in another episode, Jimmy's and Chuck's mother is on her deathbed.  Chuck and Jimmy are together by her bedside for days.  Chuck won't leave, but Jimmy does for a few minutes to grab a bit to eat.  While he's gone, the mother dies but the name she calls out is Jimmy's - not Chuck's even though Chuck had tried to correct her ("no mom, it's me, Chuck").  Jimmy comes back and asks Chuck if their mother had said anything before she died.  Chuck said "no".  It could be that Chuck was trying to protect Jimmy's feelings for having left her bedside, but I took it as an expression of anger/resentment towards Jimmy  for being the child the mother called out to. 

My guess is that Chuck played it straight-and-narrow growing up to gain favor from parents and peers.  It didn't work and Jimmy was the favored child - even though, and possibly because, he chose to be a wolf.   IMO, Chuck is merely jealous of Jimmy and goes back to childhood.  I recall an interview with one of OJ Simpson's attorney.  When asked if he thought OJ was guilty or innocent he just said something like "there's real law and paper law" ... sort of implying that OJ could be guilty but on paper, he was declared innocent.

Chuck and Jimmy are like this.  Jimmy, at this juncture, is more about real law than paper law.   If he thinks it's "right" or "just" he'll defer to shenanigans.  Chuck, on the other hand, had no problem stealing Kim's form of income for the sake of his own name and fancy firm and in an effort to hurt Jimmy.

Chuck is no better than Jimmy...it's just that he uses paper law to accomplish his end goal (thus far).

Edited May 5, 2017 by Jextella

[qtpye]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:15 PM, Jextella said:

Chuck is no better than Jimmy...it's just that he uses legal means to accomplish his end goal (thus far).

I think the recapper said it best...both Chuck and Jimmy run cons...Chuck's are just a little more elegant.

[DangerousMinds]

On May 1, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Irlandesa said:

There is a symbiotic relationship but there's also individual agency where we have to consider at what point is a person responsible for who they are and what they become?  I see Jimmy/Saul and Chuck as a bit of a chicken or an egg situation.  Did Jimmy become who became because of lack of support from Chuck or did he earn lack of support from Chuck because of who he was.

I tend to fall on the side of Jimmy being ultimately responsible for the path he takes and choices he makes.  We saw him as a child take money from his father.  We knew he and a friend ran cons in Chicago which led Chuck to eventually come and bail him out.  We've seen him skirt the law as a lawyer. 

I do think, with more support, Chuck could have possibly pushed Jimmy into being a more reputable soul but he didn't instill in Jimmy the side of him that is not. 

What case law prohibits an average citizen from running a sting operation?  Reporters do it all the time.  There may be a challenge to get it admitted but that doesn't make it illegal.  Entrapment, as I understand it, would involve a more active approach than what Chuck took. He didn't try to convince Jimmy to commit an illegal act, he simply gave him motive to commit one and even that involved a risk in hoping Ernesto would spill the beans he was specifically asked not to spill.

He could have put in extra protections to protect the material but I don't see it as clear that he was negligent. He had the files in his house which was locked.  No one else lived there and they were never left alone.  He was a victim of fraud.

"To Catch a Predator" was a great (and legal) sting operation.

[ByTor]

On 5/1/2017 at 11:22 AM, ShellSeeker said:

We all know that 'Slippin' Jimmy' is an accomplished scammer, and gets a big thrill out of conning people. That could have nicely transferred into practicing elder law, because the world is full of con-artists who swindle the elderly, and sometimes those con-artists are large companies like Sandpiper. To take them on, outsmart them, and beat them at their own game would have let Jimmy channel his scam-artist skills into something positive (and legal) that would have helped a group of people who would really benefit by having someone as smart and crafty as Jimmy looking out for them.

I like this.  Jimmy could have been kind of analogous to an ethical hacker.

Edited June 14, 2017 by ByTor