Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 9 comments on “Police vs Privacy pg 80
  1. Jason says

    So he pitches the contraband that gets the stopped in the first place but is worried about what ELSE they might find in the car?

    What a lovable, stupid criminal.

  2. Jason says

    On a semi-related note (and if I make myself clear enough I’d love to get your perspective on this, Nate), Jake’s theatrics – while certainly designed to make points in subsequent frames – might invite someone to observe (wrongly, if you ask me) that the people who protest the most about their “rights” are the people who know that they are doing or have done bad things anyway. It’s the chestnut about people having no reason to worry if they have nothing to hide.

    I expect that we’re going to see an explanation about why the police can do what they’re going to do. And it goes without saying that rights are for everyone. But in the broader sense (“Rights are for the guilty; why are you so worried if you haven’t done anything?”) this seems like the kind of thing that plays differently at the prosecutor’s table than it does at the defense table.

    You’ve sat in both places – what do you think?

    • I would think that anyone with that perspective didn’t read the previous “case” in this very storyline, where the whaling-loving gentlemen actually had nothing to hide, but protested the situation anyway.

      So we’ve seen the guilty and we’ve seen the innocent, and the points is that BOTH have rights (and those rights always have limits).

      • All of what you say is true, but much of it misses the point.

        For one thing, the funny thing about having a “perspective” is that people will have them irrespective of the circumstances. Reading a comic certainly isn’t going to change it; besides that, a person who is secure in the notion that “only the guilty protest about their rights would have no trouble in believing that what happened in the preceding this case (people protesting about their rights when in fact, they had nothing to hide) is the exceedingly-rare exception, or maybe even one in which the police didn’t look hard enough for the particular “contraband” that those gentlemen were surely eager to hide. That doesn’t begin to make the perspective right – it just makes it so.

        Getting back to my original point, I have no problem asserting that the most important recipients of rights in a free society are those who are suspected of being criminals. Most of us sleep securely (and often unwittingly) under the blanket provided by Justice lifting her blindfold, looking the State in the eye, and saying “Prove it” – this despite the fact that many “law-abiding citizens” would have little problem looking the other way on certain things if they thought it meant a decrease in the menace of crime, or routinely decry the actions of a defense attorney who gets “guilty people” off on “legal technicalities.”

        The police are free to use deception as an investigative tactic, so I find it easy to believe that things like “You want a lawyer? Lawyers just get in the way” and “If you didn’t do anything, then what do you have to hide?” rank high on the Interrogation Room Greatest Hits list. I can’t really see that a prosecuting attorney would go through great lengths to rein it in (assuming that things didn’t stray into the downright suppressible) or that a defense attorney wouldn’t at least try to have a field day getting the fruits of it suppressed.

        That’s the perspective I’m really talking about. I just suspect that it plays differently on different sides of a courtroom.

      • Tl; dr: It can be about what people actually believe, but it doesn’t have to be. As my query to Nate should have indicated (“But in the broader sense…”) I’m far more interested in how it plays as something you would have someone believe than I am in discussing it as an actual belief.

      • I think you’re confused. The whalers complained at being pulled over, but didn’t assert their privacy rights at all, consenting to a thorough search.

    • If you have nothing to hide, you should not object to surveillance.
      In other news, the CIA has just announced a new program to raise money for the deficit, webcams of all sorts of formerly private locations. Pay per view of your neighbor’s bedroom, bathroom, the local college girl’s locker room (or boy’s locker room if you are into that), etc.
      Nothing to hide, right?

  3. NB says

    Hey, I just read a fanfiction about this comic book (sort of)! Well, it seems it’s mostly about the scene on this page. Probably not what you had in mind when you wrote/drew this! Anyway it’s at http://archiveofourown.org/works/7726969 if you’re curious.

Class Participation

___