I can’t tell if he is flirting with her in the first few panels.
You can’t? Really?
And my wife says -I’m- oblivious to flirting…
What makes you think he’s flirting? I was thinking it might be more the other way around; she’s looking at him in every frame, plus there’s that awkward sitting pose (granted, the handcuffs might interfere with her sitting).
Hey, if that’s what it takes to get her guard down and have her confess, I’m sure he won’t feel guilty when he goes back to his husband tonight.
(He’s gay in my headcanon, just FYI.)
And her a married woman, too!
I was thinking maybe this is Mr. Flavors.
I was under the impression that people referred to their spouses by first name, not prefix and surname.
I like that Mrs. Flavor’s color scheme resembles that of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland.
Okay, so I’m not the only one who sees the resemblance. The coloration, the dress, the hairstyle with the headband… I’m assuming it’s intentional, it’s pretty dead-on.
Is that third panel an up-skirt shot?
I guess technically, but seeing as she’s wearing tights…
What record is the officer talking about? I know that Mrs. Flavors broke out of prison when she still had 10 years left on her sentence. But what was she in prison for in the first place that is worse than what any of the other criminals did?
Well it seems she has a history of cardiac larceny.
Do you mean stealing hearts? If so, do you mean that metaphorically or literally?
If it’s literally, I hope they put her in max security this time.
The most to lose? No matter how this turns out, she’s got ten more years and an escape charge… what more has she got to lose?
I think “the most to lose” means in comparison to her fellow conspirators. Her previous record means she’ll receive a harsher sentence for her latest crimes, plus there’s the charges for escaping from prison as you mentioned. She’s less likely to be offered a favorable plea deal if she gets one at all.
Being a repeat offender means she’s also more likely to have things happen like being sentenced to serve her terms consecutively instead of concurrently (for instance, being found guilty of 4 counts and being sentenced to a year for each count means one year total if they’re concurrent, four years total if they’re consecutive) or not having a chance at parole.
She’s also the one who committed the actual act. Her involvement will be easiest to prove.
On the other hand, she’s a pretty white woman, so there’s a pretty good chance that she’ll get a much lower sentence than a man would if they committed the crimes she did. Seriously, the sentencing disparities between men and women are ridiculous. All she needs is a half-decent lawyer to play the “poor bullied victim coerced into it by the men” card for her in court, and she’ll get off in a fraction of the time of her co-workers
Does it make up for getting paid less and raped/abused (sorry, am I repeating myself?) more?
Just the opposite. It compounds the moral cost of gender inequality. Benevolent discrimination is still discrimination! None of us are free until all of us are free! Platitude! Cliche! etc. etc. etc.
So she should get a longer term in order to make up for getting paid less and raped/abused more?
(Sorry, I know that’s not what you meant, but it sure sounds like it).
(Initiate Sarcasm)What I meant was either she should get payed more and get raped less and men should get shorter prison sentences, or men should get payed less, get raped more, and women should get longer prison sentences.
More generally, if you can’t make life better for the marginalized, then just make life worse for the privileged. The end result is equality either way. (Terminate sarcasm).
Wow, Nathan. You writing is starting to get really good.
(To which prof Burney responds, “thank you, but we use an anonymous grading system”)
As the others pointed out, it’s hard seeing what she might gain anyway. Even if she spills all the beans, she has at least the ten years remaining on her previous charge, plus the escape charge that isn’t related to this case, and only then come the current situation. The only thing that isn’t in her complete disfavor is that she can argue the shoot-out wasn’t directly her fault, even though, yes, it was shown that she shares accountability for the death of the baby.
She probably doesn’t know much beyond her own involvement, unlike the money, the brains and the ringleader, so except for making the investigation go a little bit faster, she cannot really prove herself useful. So… yep, she’s better off to start working on her next escape plan and then leave for a country without extradition treaties.
Oh, and apparently, the Empire has a patrol near this airport. ;-)
There’s still lots to negotiate on. For example, “Plead guilty, tell us what you know, testify against the guy who actually shot the baby, and we won’t charge you with the murder. And we’ll knock off the escape charge for free”.
Trials take a lot of time, money, and effort for both sides, and neither side really knows what will happen – prosecutors don’t want to risk an acquittal, defendants, don’t want to risk an even harsher punishment. “Make our lives easier by admitting you did what we know you did, and we’ll give you a reduced punishment” is pretty standard procedure.
Only prosecutors have the authority to make those negotiations with defendants. Police officers have no such authority, they just pretend that they do during interrogations to trick the suspect into confessing.
We may be about to get an object lesson in that.
They don’t have the authority, but they do have considerable influence, especially detectives. They can say “She cooperated, cut her a break”, or “She isn’t talking, go after her hard”.
But the comment was that she didn’t really have anything to gain by talking. She totally does, and avoiding a murder charge is a rather large gain.
No suspect ever has anything to gain by talking to the police. The police never intercede on behalf of the suspect in real life.
I note those weren’t exactly Miranda rights he was telling her, he was paraphrasing – the content is similar, but the wording is not. I’m curious how that will stand up to scrutiny in court, as “You don’t have to talk to me” is NOT the same as “You have the right to remain silent” – and while he has obviously read her her rights in the past, IIUC, that does NOT necessarily mean that he isn’t obliged to do so again. I also note that he did not inform her that she was under arrest …which I imagine Nathan might also complicate matters?
Whoops – he said you’re under arrest in previous panels, my bad (…but he did not identify himself as either Police or as a Federal Officer, and there were no uniformed officers present – but a handcuffed suspect was?? – Okay now I’m confused. Where is this going?)
It’s pretty obvious they were cops. Or just assume they did it off panel.
Were those specific words invented by the court, hollywood, or LAPD policy?
The standard warnings come from the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v Arizona in 1966.
How important is it to say the words (I think you covered this before)?
Can the interrogating officer, when cross-examined on the stand, reply something like “We arrested the defendant, Professor Smith, as he was teaching a Criminal Procedures class, lecturing on Miranda v. Arizona. We assumed he was aware of his rights.” and get away with not actually informing Professor Smith of his rights?
We’re actually going to cover all this. Just sit tight. No spoilers yet.
I’m pretty sure that you just provided a spoiler. :-)
I wish my local airport hat MiG-15s hanging around the flightline.
I have a question. What the officer says to Mrs. Flavors in the 2nd panel, does that count as him reading her Miranda rights? I know it pretty much covers the Miranda Rights, but could she get off with saying that she didn’t understand them? Does he need to recite them verbatim?
Keep reading! I think that gets answered shortly.