# Better Call Saul 2.02 "Cobbler" 2/22/16 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 22, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804 "2016-02-22T15:34:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/61 "2016-02-24T18:52:59Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I thought Jimmy couldn’t fit it in the cup holder of his old car and then opened the counsel/armrest and tossed it in there. I read that as him out growing his old life and being ready to move on. But then I had no idea what to make of it not fitting in the new cup holder. > > He can’t do that. Some how, and I’m not sure how, Pryce knows that the cops know that the hiding spot exists, which means they also know it’s empty so they can’t go and plant something in there for them to find\*. I know that Jimmy just wants the tape ready in case the cops do come asking for it, but I’d think he could have just said that it was destroyed during the ‘lover’s spat’ and no longer exists. But I guess he did imply that more than one exists. > > \*Unless! Unless there was already a tape in there. That would be different. If Pryce already had a tape in there they could swap it with this one. Or if could be an ongoing fetish activity (not illegal), and the existence of a new video would establish continuity, the the matter come up again. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/62 "2016-02-24T19:48:45Z")
Some observations on the observations here: - I seriously doubt that if you call cops to your house to investigate a robbery you can claim they did a warrantless search. You invited them in to investigate! - Jimmy wasn’t lawyering so much as conning the cops into dropping their suspicions. So yeah he could have stonewalled, but he wanted them to give up and stonewalling wouldn’t have done that. Good episode. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/63 "2016-02-24T20:04:54Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Some observations on the observations here: > > - I seriously doubt that if you call cops to your house to investigate a robbery you can claim they did a warrantless search. You invited them in to investigate! That’s why I sort of backed up and said that if they went down that road, the scene would have to had to be written differently to make it work. For example, maybe they conclude their investigation, Pryce walks them to the door, goes outside and while outside Pryce signs the report and they say their goodbyes and shake hands. Then, somehow, Pryce gets distracted and they re-enter the house, move the couch, remove the baseboard and search inside the wall. But this is just an example, maybe it’s full of holes as well. I’m sure the writers could do a better job if they wanted to go that way, but they aren’t, at least not now and I doubt they’re going to circle back to it since Jimmy embraced the fact that they found it and he ran with it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/64 "2016-02-24T20:34:13Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Some observations on the observations here: > > - I seriously doubt that if you call cops to your house to investigate a robbery you can claim they did a warrantless search. You invited them in to investigate! > - Jimmy wasn’t lawyering so much as conning the cops into dropping their suspicions. So yeah he could have stonewalled, but he wanted them to give up and stonewalling wouldn’t have done that. > > Good episode. The guy called for them to investigate, but not to search his house. If he had been in the room with them when they started to move the couch, he would have been very unhappy. I’m not a cop or lawyer, but I think there still are limits what a cop can do when they are in your house on your invitation. If he had left bags of drugs sitting out they could arrest him, but they couldn’t start digging through his underwear drawer to see if he has drugs hidden there just because he invited them in. But regardless, they didn’t find anything, other than a reason to be suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/65 "2016-02-24T20:39:54Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Seeing Chuck reminded him of how honest and hard-working he tried to be, and how it didn’t get him anywhere, and so then Jimmy rebelled by doing the pro bono work and making up the crazy story and faking evidence. But Jimmy’s honest hard work did get him somewhere. He’s now hugely successful with a company car on partner track. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/66 "2016-02-24T20:52:30Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > But Jimmy’s honest hard work did get him somewhere. He’s now hugely successful with a company car on partner track. That’s true. But he had been wanting the respect of his brother, and he realized he’ll never get that. And he had said something to Mike in last season’s finale that was something about being honest never getting him anywhere and he’s learned from that. If this was a standalone show, we would be watching and hoping that Jimmy will stay honest, and prove his brother wrong, and become a big success, but since it’s the prequel to Breaking Bad we know that something will make him stray from that path. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/67 "2016-02-24T21:07:16Z")
I think that all the years that Jimmy was working hard to become a lawyer and succeed legitimately, he never really considered two things: one, how much the scams and other shady stuff were in his blood; and two, the fact that such stuff wasn’t compatible with being a a respectable lawyer (until Kim spelled it out for him). ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/68 "2016-02-24T21:38:51Z")
Is “faking evidence” of a non-crime (pie sitting) actually unethical? ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/69 "2016-02-24T21:46:17Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > I think that all the years that Jimmy was working hard to become a lawyer and succeed legitimately, he never really considered two things: one, how much the scams and other shady stuff were in his blood; and two, the fact that such stuff wasn’t compatible with being a a respectable lawyer (until Kim spelled it out for him). Hence the “lead us not into temptation” flicking of the switch at the end of the previous episode. You can take the boy off the streets, but you can’t take the streets out of the boy. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/70 "2016-02-24T21:47:55Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > There’s still [the podcast](http://podbay.fm/show/966297954). Awesome! Thanks for this. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/71 "2016-02-24T21:51:00Z")
As a lawyer myself, the part of the show I found odd was that Kim was upset only about Jimmy fabricating evidence - but thought nothing about Jimmy knowingly lying to the cops on behalf of his client (indeed, thought that was hilarious). Struck me as odd that she’d draw the line there. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/72 "2016-02-24T21:53:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Great episode. I liked seeing Nacho’s background, and that he has a legit job working for his honest father. I’m guessing we won’t see the nerdy drug guy again, but this is the start of Mike and Nacho working more together. > > Really, Chuck doesn’t have to do anything. From all appearances, nothing Chuck did this episode was dickish. He had the right to be at the meeting, and he disrupted it since everyone had to turn in their cell phones, but he didn’t try to put Jimmy on the spot. But it still ruffled Jimmy, and then he was open to Mike’s call afterward. If Mike had called before that meeting, Jimmy might have taken it, but he might not have. All Chuck has to do is be a reminder, and Jimmy will play too fast and loose with the rules on his own and things could blow up for him. > > There’s definitely still some of the old-timey conman patter that Jimmy has going on. The pie-sitting story is clever because it’s not something the cops would want to investigate too much, but it’s also just more fun for Jimmy to tell. > > I think you’re right though that pulling the couch away from the wall and removing the baseboard counts as going too far, but they didn’t find any evidence in the hidey hole, just the existence of a hidey hole. If they had found drugs or drug residue and arrested the guy, I think that arrest might be overturned, but since all it led to was suspicion, there’s no reason to not question him more. > > I’m not a lawyer, but how would that have protected Jimmy in any way? If Pryce broke down later under interrogation, and said he had been selling drugs, and his lawyer made up the crazy story about the videos and made him make one for proof, then having the story written out on a legal pad and signed wouldn’t give Jimmy any cover. > > It’s funny, because I don’t think the video was strictly necessary. It didn’t seem like they had any evidence tying the guy to anything, he just looked really suspicious with his car and job and hidden compartment in his house. But Jimmy’s story was pretty convincing, and a lot of his other behavior could be explained that he’s an IT guy and you know how weird those computer nerds can be. Jimmy made the video to really shore up the defense, but also because he still enjoys the conman life to some degree, and thinks it’s fun pulling the wool over people’s eyes. I thought that was interesting. You’re right; it wasn’t strictly necessary, but it was needed to sell the story. It was needed to get the cops to back off. It was also needed to reinforce the working relationship between Jimmy and Mike. In other words, it was needed for narrative reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/73 "2016-02-24T22:02:30Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Is “faking evidence” of a non-crime (pie sitting) actually unethical? Yes. The New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct: > [@](#): > > Rule 16-102 Scope of Representation > > … > D. Course of Conduct. A lawyer shall not engage, or counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent or which misleads the court, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law. > [@](#): > > Rule 16-401 Truthfulness in Statements to Others > > In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: > > (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or > > (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 16-106 > **[legal ethics](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_ethics)** In summary, Jimmy cooking up a bullshit story (and propping it up with faked evidence) is unethical - both because it’s a lie, and because he’s doing it to shield a criminal (and so further that criminal’s acts). ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/74 "2016-02-25T00:35:18Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Jimmy told the police “there’s a costume involved”. I want to know what the costume is! They couldn’t give us a clue? Pies are involved, so I’m guessing clown. OTOH, a mess is involved, so imagine Pryce in a maid’s outfit… ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4bbf92/32.png) [@Charlie\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/75 "2016-02-25T01:14:35Z")
When Jimmy was sitting with the two cops and they were asking him to explain what was going on with his client, I didn’t understand why he didn’t just clam up and say that he would not answer any further questions without his lawyer present. I thought the man with the Hummer should have just told the police that he would only answer questions if his lawyer was present and then instructed Jimmy to not allow him to answer any questions. Why would either of them have talked to the police? I had always thought the best strategy was just to be polite to the police but not to answer any questions unless your lawyer is present. In other words, why didn’t the man with the Hummer just “lawyer up” with a good criminal lawyer? Why go through that charade in the first place? I would guess he could have been in a lot more trouble for maybe obstructing justice or fabricating evidence than simply “lawyering up”. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/76 "2016-02-25T01:21:28Z")
> [@Charlie\_Wayne](#): > > When Jimmy was sitting with the two cops and they were asking him to explain what was going on with his client, I didn’t understand why he didn’t just clam up and say that he would not answer any further questions without his lawyer present. Because Jimmy _was_ the lawyer. And the reason they didn’t just refuse to answer questions is that the cops would have continued to investigate Pryce. Pryce and especially Mike wanted the police to drop the investigation. ---
**Author:** ![jsquire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@jsquire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsquire)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/77 "2016-02-25T03:01:28Z")
Love this show, and kind of wondering if it could extend to examining other characters from the BB/ABQ universe. My wife suggests a show based on Saul Goodman’s bodyguard and says it should be titled “Huell Miss Me”. ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/78 "2016-02-25T03:01:54Z")
> [@Charlie\_Wayne](#): > > When Jimmy was sitting with the two cops and they were asking him to explain what was going on with his client, I didn’t understand why he didn’t just clam up and say that he would not answer any further questions without his lawyer present. > > I thought the man with the Hummer should have just told the police that he would only answer questions if his lawyer was present and then instructed Jimmy to not allow him to answer any questions. > > Why would either of them have talked to the police? I had always thought the best strategy was just to be polite to the police but not to answer any questions unless your lawyer is present. > > In other words, why didn’t the man with the Hummer just “lawyer up” with a good criminal lawyer? Why go through that charade in the first place? > > I would guess he could have been in a lot more trouble for maybe obstructing justice or fabricating evidence than simply “lawyering up”. Jimmy is a lawyer. Why else would he have been there? ---
**Author:** ![soonerblue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/soonerblue/32/3302_2.png) [@soonerblue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soonerblue)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/79 "2016-02-25T03:38:10Z")
I still think Jimmy’s brother is a mean prick. That last closeup of Chuck’s face at the piano … those cold blue eyes … pure evil. Chuck seems to want to destroy Jimmy, so much that he’s made himself sick, or mentally unbalanced with the electricity-allergy thing. And he knows the power he holds over Jimmy, or he wouldn’t have dropped in at that meeting to upset him … delivering the sucker punch - “To bear witness.!” He hopes to goad Jimmy into doing something wrong, or shady, so they’ll fire him … so Chuck can berate and revile him … and ‘be right’ about him. But I did enjoy seeing Jimmy use a little Saul to spin that bizzare, minutely detailed yarn about squat cobbler … loved his straight face saying, “Like I would make this up?” (Some of Odenkirk’s best comedic work on the show yet.) Jimmy will never give up this sort of fun to practice only dry lawyering. He’ll just not tell Kim. Sort of hated to see the Suzuki Esteem go … will miss its knocking after he turned it off … made me nostalgic for my first car. And I agree with everyone about the symbolism of the cup not fitting. It was nice seeing Saul’s LWYRUP Caddy again. It was also nice to see Kim wearing my University of American Samoa Law School T-shirt as she ate pie and scolded Jimmy. Go Land Crabs! ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804/80 "2016-02-25T04:01:31Z")
> [@jsquire](#): > > Love this show, and kind of wondering if it could extend to examining other characters from the BB/ABQ universe. My wife suggests a show based on Saul Goodman’s bodyguard and says it should be titled “Huell Miss Me”. Huell’s still sitting in that motel room. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-2-02-cobbler-2-22-16/746804.md?page=5)