The collected musings of Ryan Elder

It's a group of terrorists, and they go around assassinating and harming people as part of their terror acts. I haven't decided how large the group, is but probably fairly large.

 

In that case, I'd say it's very likely they'd have them kill someone, but maybe someone they know ? To make sure they're really able to kill /anyone/ they're asked to. If they've got a real suspicion, I'd bet they'd either torture them to find out or just kill them and avoid future problems with them.

 

mafia are not terrorist, as for a undercover cop infiltrating a group like that then yes a random kill is plausible.

 

Agreed there, mafia is somewhat misleading.

 

Sorry I just said mafia cause in movies, it usually seems to be a mafia or a gang. Shouldn't have mislead. Well in my case it's terrorists. However, anyone can kill if they have five guys with loaded guns pointed at him saying 'shoot him or we'll kill you'. Lots of cops would pull the trigger, to avoid being killed. So how can you really trust a cop therefore?

Also they do not ask the cop to kill someone he knows well. Their is another innocent person that knows too much, so the terrorists, kill two birds with one stone. Get rid of the guy who knows too much, and gain trust of the new guy in the process. The cop knows the guy from before in the story, but not as well, if that works.

 

Even if a cop would kill the person anyway, it's still a feasible test for a newbie to a criminal organisation. It would show the terrorist guys how the person reacts to killing someone, and how quick they are to obey a command, no matter what it is. It also gives them something to hold over the person's head, since they have now murdered an innocent person. You could also just make this an initial test, and have it so that the undercover person still needs supervision or something.
The terrorists testing the person could also just be grunts, and not very smart ones at that. Not everyone thinks things through.

 

Does the person want to kill, regardless if he's in the organization? If they want to test his loyalty and trust, he can be anyone if he says he's not a killer at all and refuses. Let somebody else do it. See how they respond; maybe then he'd find out they want HIM to kill because they don't trust him yet.

Then it doesn't matter anymore if he's a killer or not; if he's a killer he shouldn't refuse, but can still be an undercover spy or agent. If he's not a killer he should come up with something else to do, for example interrogation or being the big boss' food taste man or drug quality checker.

Is it an actor he's to kill, a target or an innocent kidnappee?

A lot of gangs in South America initiate gang members. There's no way of getting in there without being seriously fanatic. Even cops would have nothing to gain from infiltrating if they did.

Dependable upon the amount of doable damage to the organization, the organization should have appropriate measures to track their members.

An initiation so severe you know there's no way back is extreme, but I'm saying even the police force is not made up out of saints and willing to sacrifice. It's not waterproof.

 

Okay thanks. I want to write it so that they have something to hold over his head later, for when he backs out and goes against them. However, I talked to a real cop about it for research and he said that it's unlikely that a gang could hold that over a cop's head. He says that even if you kill an innocent person, if you were forced to do it at gunpoint, most juries would not convict, since you were forced, so therefore, most prosecutors would not bother to take that to trial. I want to write it so that they hold it over his head later, when he backs out of the terrorist group, but is it true, that it would legally not go to trial likely, and therefore, not work for my story?

 

There could be other means of blackmailing, if that's what you're going for.

An initiation such as your set-up has only a sentimental degree of being in it together. The criminals are fucked both ways in court because they're involved in the same activities.

 

That's true, but the criminals could have a mentally where they think 'if we go down, you go down too'. Just so long as the cop is legally blackmailed and will legally be in serious trouble, and it's logical. But I thought that having him kill someone would be good, cause there is another character I need to die to lead to other consequences for the villains later. So I wanted to combine both needs for the story, in one scenario. Does this scenario work and it's logical, or do I need to come up with something else?

 

Does it matter to the bad guys if he's a cop at all, as long as he's in full support of their cause and cooperates? Even if they knew? Does the cop have a moment of weakness, thinking he'd gain something from proving his worth? I imagine he has goals once he's in. He's already in theory legally immune for being forced to kill. Just how forced is it in theory, and how honest is the cop in court, is all very obscure.

And if they knew, you seem to question whether it's possible to make sure he doesn't switch teams after surely getting on theirs. They want him on their side. Consider the possibilities having a crooked cop working for you.

It's already an interesting plot you've put the character in. It raises some questions you shouldn't worry about being a nuisance. Just work them out writing, don't see why it should be all that difficult. Don't change your ideas, they're original. And I think they're good.

 

Okay thanks. The cop is not corrupt or wanting to work for them. The cop wants to stop them, but I want to write it that he is having trouble stopping them, because he now legally blackmailable. I want to write it so that he cannot stop them without getting the cops after him for what he did, but if he is immune, what can I do to change that?

The bad guys know he is a cop, and that's why they want him. Having a cop on their side, can be used to their advantage. They want a mole in the police department, but need to know if they can trust that mole.

Basically, I know how I want to end the premise, but I need two things to happen in the story to get the ending.

1. The cop cannot stop them without going to jail himself for a long time, because they made him blackmailable.

2. I need the innocent person who gets killed to still be killed by the organization, in order for twists and turns to happen to also, get to the ending.

If I can use these two things to get to the ending, then the story will work. But if the cop would legally be immune from prosecution, then the idea does not work, and I will probably have to think of something else, to make him blackmailable, right?

 

Criminals take risks. It's part of the job. Understand that, and don't worry about taking too much a distance from your creation. It sounds like you need to do some thinking. Good luck.

 

Greetings and welcome, 'Elder Ryan'!

My initial thoughts are;

COP B has infiltrated the gang to help take down the gang...why else then, would he (or she!) have infiltrated it? So, even COP B dying would not stop the whole point of the combined endeavour, which is to get the witness to testify, no matter what.

The dramatic priority is the survival of the witness to testify...delaying that to question the witness detracts from that.

And the (much) higher ups, the ones who have set all this in play to bring the gang down, will know, or have been told by this time, that the killed gang member was actually an undercover cop. But you know what, that is the cop's job...to possibly die in the service of his/her duty. So it will be put down to being killed in the line of duty.

Of course, if COP A has an issue with this, then that possibly points to some failing in him/her. You can't really blame the witness for trying to protect themselves. Cops die in the line of duty, it's a dangerous occupation, so they can't decide to go and murder someone who killed their buddy.

If, however, the witness is a villainous character, or just a downright stinking piece of crap, then COP A might justifiably be pissed off enough to knock him/her off.

But there would have to be some good reason for the Captain to go along with it (ie, they feel the same about issues with the predicament, ie, corruption, criminal witnesses as bad as the crooks getting away with it, or has a terminal illness and wants to stick it to the man before he goes) Otherwise, the Captain would maybe not turn in COP A, but attempt some obstacle.

Hope my ten cents worth help!

 

Okay thanks. But is it true, that the cop would be immune, and that him being forced to kill the person, would not get him into trouble at all?

 

Yikes ! This question is a lot tougher than I thought ...

Killing the innocent person should be really simple if they're a terrorist organization, and I'd say you can still have your cop kill them ( this will also help with number 1 because it adds to the stuff they could prosecute him for ).

As far as how to blackmail him, is he working with the police ? As like a double mole ? Because in that case he could do something his superiors had forbid him from doing or just anything extra ( like he killed someone the org. wasn't making him kill to build trust but if he'd let the guy live it wouldn't have put him in extra danger ).

If the police /aren't/ working with him, you have it a lot easier, as you can have him just throw himself so far in that it wouldn't be clear to law enforcement whether he started out as a terrorist fanatic and then decided to turn everyone in or it was his plan for the beginning, plus he'd also probably get in trouble for being a mole.

He would probably have to go to trial over killing the innocent but it wouldn't be hard to convince the jury it was essentially self-defense.
Not sure if you're able to do any off this in your story or if I phrased things so that they're understandable to you but I can elaborate on ideas or whatever if you need ... Good luck !

 

Okay thanks. Sorry I should have explained more. He is ultimately, not evil, and morally wants to stop the terrorism. He just killed the innocent person so they wouldn't kill him, as well as the innocent. Even though the terrorists want him to be a mole, he decides to not be, and just pretends to be to survive, and still be undercover to stop them.

However, since it may not be hard to convince a jury it was self defense, would it even go to trial, logically? As long as the audience buys it, the story works. But I want to have it so that he is charged with the person's death, after not giving into blackmail (and can no longer pretend to be a mole when that happens), and therefore, he is on his own, and both sides are working against him. As long as I can have him be charged and going to trial, then the idea will work, but would they take it trial, if it's likely easy to convince a jury otherwise?

 

Ah, sorry, I just meant whether or not the police would interpret him as a terrorist or an undercover agent if he isn't officially working with the police.

I can't say too much about how the trial would go over or if they would even press charges, I'm not very good at law ! All I know is so long as he had a fairly decent lawyer, the jury would probably listen and be like " yeah, he didn't have a choice. "

 

Okay thanks. I already got how the police would interpret it, because his two superiors are characters with specific opinions about him. Basically they think as high of him cause something that happened earlier. I am just wondering if I should go ahead and write it this way, or no, if it does not work, and would not go to trial, cause the DA would know that it is a likely loose? Or would the DA even bother? I asked other people and everyone seems to be 50/50 on whether or not it would work. So I am not sure if I should use this plot device or not, but on the otherhand would like to get the script, finished, but still want it to work of course.

 

In my script, I want to write it so that these crooks are committing a heist, and a bystander happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They go after him and search the premises for him.

He manages to kill one of them and since the crooks are wearing masks, he switches clothes with the dead one, and puts on his mask. He then maims the dead guys face, so he cannot be recognized by the others. The others think that their comrad has now killed the bystander, as soon as they see their comrad in the bystander's clothes, with his face maimed.

The bystander, wearing the comrad's clothes, then has to disguise his voice by coughing, in order to come up with something to fool them and escape.

However, is this believable, that they would believe that the bystander is their friend, just because the clothes were switched, as well as putting on the mask, and vice versa, for the dead man?

I mean Silence of the Lambs, had a similar scenario, so I am wondering if mine is pushing it too far, but what do you think?

 

And following on from this, wouldn't it be in the police department's interest not to let the gang know the dead Cop B is really a cop? So no police funeral (yet) and so on, until the gang is taken down?

@Ryan Elder, you could do something with this. Is there someone, perhaps a family member, whom this pisses off?

I really like your basic idea about Cop B getting killed by the witness under protection. It's shocking and tragic and something I could see happening. I wonder, though, if you're forcing the Cop A Gets Renegade Revenge angle. Do policemen usually "get revenge" for the deaths of their colleagues, in that extra-legal, violent fashion? I doubt it. Seems to me the death would just be a greater incentive to bringing the gang to justice in the usual way.

If you're totally dedicated to the violent revenge idea, you've got your work cut out to convince me, the typical reader, why that particular cop reacted that way and why his colleagues, in a force that you say is not corrupt, would go along with the plan.

 

Anything can be convincing if you make it.

How much time did he have to change the clothes?
Do the crooks know each other well, or are they all contracted strangers who met through a third party?
How long is he going to try and trick them?

 

The crooks do not know each other well actually, and they law low, and only get together in the case of when a major crime has to be committed, which isn't a lot. So that works in my favor. They would be searching the premises for him, while he is switching clothes, so he will have to do it fast, but hopefully just enough time to make it convincing.

He doesn't have to trick them for a long at all if need be. In fact, he could just give a wave to the others, as they give him orders from further away, and perhaps that will be enough.

 

I only see one issue with this scenario, and it's not about whether the disguise would work or not. To put it simply, who is this bystander? I understand that he may kill a guy, but to then mutilate him until he's unrecognisable? I doubt your average person would be capable of that, if it would even cross their mind.

 

Firstly, I'm with @Komposten about the likelihood of a "bystander the crooks are going to kill" being able to kill one of them and then mutilate him. You raised Silence of the Lambs yourself, and it took Hannibal Lecter to do it then!

This doesn't sound convincing...the idea that these crooks "get together...when a major crime..." means that they'd need to do a LOT of planning, so the main players would now each other pretty well. Especially as there is an implication they've done several major crimes in the past, so they've been knocking around for some time.

Plus, a major crime boss would know most of the players on his patch.

Crooks who don't know each other doesn't gel for me.