The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Lecter only needed to get into the ambulance and away from the prison room (away from the police cordon around it) to complete his escape by overpowering the ambulance crew.

He was relying on the uniform and the apparent injuries to fool the rest of the cops (in the dark and confusion) into thinking "man down".

OK, this could work - except, how does he kill a killer who's out to kill him? And who has a shotgun in his bag? Why wouldn't the killer take the easy way out and use the shotgun on our hero?
You need to work out the mechanics of what weapon the killer is using (if he's using a handgun, why would he have a shotgun in his bag?) to kill our hero, and how our hero turns the tables.

 

Okay thanks. And yes, the witness is a sociopathic scumbag, and the cops know this, which is why they are pissed off. However, perhaps I have not structured it in the most convincing logical way. Basically here are two things I need to happen to build into the ending I want. I want Cop A, and some other angry cops to go after the crook to get revenge. It doesn't necessarily have to be murder at first. They could just be setting up the crook if need be, but things go wrong, and it turns to revenge murder after.

But I also need the rogue cops to be pursued by honest cops who are out to arrest them before they find the crook and do any harm. So I need the rogue cops to have motive for revenge, since the legal system has failed them, enough where they are willing to do jail time to get justice. And I also need the honest cops to find out about this in advance, and want to arrest them in advance, cause they know they are going to do it.

But I am stuck on how to make this work logically, since most cops would wait to see what happens in the system for quite a while. Any ideas on how to get these two things to work?

 

In my plot I need a cop to enter a house, cause he smells something serious is up. He discovers a kidnapping. However, later when the perpetrator goes to trial, the judge has to let him go, saying that the cop had no probable cause to think any crime was in progress to enter the house on. Therefore, all the evidence found at the house, is inadmissible on grounds of being 'fruit of the poisonous tree', as the term goes.

This is a very difficult scenario to write though, because I have to come up with a way in which to make the cop, feel compelled to kick down the door pretty much to see if a dangerous felony as in progress, but at the same time, he cannot have legal 'probable cause' in order for it to hold up in court.

Does anyone have any ideas, on how to write this for the character and the situation? Thanks for the help

 

If it is a veteran cop that tends to act rationally then I think him sporadically breaking into a home would be out of character. No matter his suspicions, if he knows what he's doing, he would not break into a home without probably cause; he'd know it wouldn't hold up in court.

However, if this is a young cop that acts rashly it would be more believable. If it's a kidnapping then I can't think of what would be readily apparent to the cop without knowing more about where he is, and what the situation is. I wouldn't expect someone that is currently part of a kidnapping to do anything incriminating at the same home, unless he's not a very bright criminal. Again, without knowing more about these characters and plot it's hard to help.

 

Okay thanks. Well the cop is around 35-ish years old cause I already have an actor in mind, that I worked with before, But perhaps with some make up we can make him look younger. The kidnappers inside are basically a group of terrorists, who plan on filming the kidnapping and making demands. One of them is also a newbie in the group, and he has to pass a test of devotion to get in, by bringing harm to the hostage on camera. However, I want the cop to stop it before the harm is done. The police are aware of the terrorists cause of recent threats with other kidnap victims, so they are on the look out. So this is the scenario basically. I don't have much more of a scenario than that, cause I need to build lack of probable cause around this, and not sure where else to go.

 

Does he find the victim, or just evidence? Because if he finds the victim I doubt many judges would not find probable cause.

There is a difference between a crime in progress (the victim is there) in which there is a lot more leeway, and searching without cause in which evidence is recovered.

 

Okay thanks. Yes he finds the victim, but something happens with the victim later, in which she cannot testify, so they cannot rely on her to supply evident testimony.

 

Doesn't matter, if he found the victim I doubt many judges are going to find no probable cause. Perhaps some other critical evidence might be lost to improper search elsewhere? Say something that ties him to the kidnapping as opposed to the criminal's claim he was an innocent bystander?

 

Okay thanks. Yes this is what makes it very tricky. Basically I just need the crooks to get away with for my story to work. It doesn't necessarily have to be probable cause, but they have to get away with it, after they are caught in the act. That's what makes it very tricky. The best example I can think of Dirty Harry (1971), where Harry broke into the bad guys residence and actually found him at the scene, with his recent stab wound from before, and he found the rifle that was used in his murders. But the perp got off scott free still. If I can write it so it's as plausible as that...?

 

If I recall correctly, probable cause isn't enough to enter a home without a warrant to begin with. Probable cause is the basis for getting a warrant. To enter without the warrant there have to be exigent circumstances to justify it. You could probably draw a distinction there, where the cop should have gotten a warrant, but didn't and the subsequent search of the house was impermissible.

 

If the police believe a crime is in progress they do not need a warrant. Any other time they would.

 

Yeah, that's what I mean by exigent circumstances. A crime is in progress or there is some imminent threat, or in some cases evidence is being destroyed, etc.

 

One thing you might do @Ryan Elder, is simply search online for cases where evidence has been thrown out due to lack of probable cause, or lack of a warrant and failure to meet exigent circumstances. Read the facts of those cases and see what happened. Every one of those that makes it to an appeals court is a situation where someone was convicted of a crime and the evidence later found to have been obtained improperly. It could give you some ideas.

 

Yep that's what I meant, exigent circumstances. I looked it up and an cop can enter on exigent circumstances. For my story I need a cop to enter on those circumstances, but then later in court, I want the judge to rule that those circumstances were in correct, and the cop only thought they were, but assumed wrong. There are cases like that online, but a lot of details are left out as to how the cop made a mistake. I will research more... thanks.

 

Well I would start with dirtying up the police station in general. Nothing big but some minor corruption. A little corruption, perhaps a hint of something bigger in the not so distant past. Maybe more then a few complaints of excessive force from multiple people.

Then I would have the police and this gang be pretty much at war at this point. Cop B ends up being the final straw. But before Cop B is killed several other cops have been killed. A few more seriously wounded. Perhaps one disabled in some serious way.

The cops by this point are really gunning for this gang. Tensions are really high and then... Cop B dies who is beyond a doubt everyone's best friend. Everyone just really likes him.

Anyways Cop B dies and this is what sends Cop A over the edge along with the others.

Now all you really need is a good cop to discover the rogues and go after him. Perhaps this good cop seeks help from the Feds or something. They get involved or maybe they round up the cops that are still good and go after the rogues.

Of course if you want to write about the a upstanding police station and it's fall then you can ignore the corruption part. But you will really need to sell just how brutal it's been.

What you need is to give us a reason to believe these cops would go so far. As tragic as one of them dying is... It just won't do. Well it might for Cop A but they might not get any support or even feel remotely safe asking.

Anyways just so e thoughts

 

Okay thanks. One of the reasons why I was only planning on having one cop be killed is that earlier in the story, a female cop is brutally sexually assaulted by the gang. One of the gang members does it without the leader's permission and the leader is disappointed, thinking it was a bad idea, to get back at them, the way he did.

However, I want the female cop's ordeal to be taken seriously, and for it to be the main concern for the police to be frustrated for the first half of the story. Not the whole first half is about that, but their main concern is her. However if I have it so that other cops are killed before her assault, I am worried that the cops would not be so worried about her assault. Basically when she cries out to them for sympathy, they might have the attitude 'boo hoo for you, other officers were killed'. So if other officers are killed before, than her ordeal might not be treated as serious and too overshadowed. What do you think?

 

Well that depends on how heartless you want these cops to be. Cops tend to stick up for their own. They are one big family. It really doesn't matter if another cop doesn't know the other. They will have the others back in a heart beat. When one is shot or assaulted they all tend to mourn. Look at any cop funeral. Many who attend might only know the other in passing if at all. Yet the whole department itself will mourn. In fact cops from other states probably will mourn as well. Unless there happens to be some serious bad blood between the cops I doubt they would dismiss her so easily.

Or you could have the sexual assault be the catalyst for the war between the two groups. Once learning about it they begin to seriously crackdown on this gang doing everything they can to bring them down and everything sort of goes downhill from there. Soon there are more exchanges of gunfire that become deadlier and deadlier.

Whatever you do end up doing you need to find a a very good reason for these good cops to turn rogue and take justice into there own hands.

 

Is she necessarily going to take the damsel-in-distress "cries out for sympathy" route? How about the "I've got training and a gun; I'll go take my own revenge" route?

 

Well yes she wants her own revenge, and I don't consider her to be a damsel in distress or weak. The cops actually go with her with her to get the revenge and she is an equal participant, not a damsel that has to be protected. However, in order to get the cops working together on revenge, they still need to support her in her ordeal. And I feel that if I kill off other cops before her assault, then those killings will overshadow her ordeal, but in a bad way. The cops might not care that much about her, since others have died as oppose to just assaulted, but I want her assault to be taken the most seriously when it happens.

Because of the chronological events in my story, she cannot be assaulted until about half way through, after a number of events happen. Cop B being killed would have to come before her ordeal, but would that overshadow her ordeal in a bad way?

 

"Cries out for sympathy" definitely has that weak vibe, for me. "Demands their help in getting revenge" wouldn't.

I address this because "female gets raped" tends to be a plot element intended to motivate male characters, and the female character us often treated as purely a plot device--there's plenty of deep analysis of how the MEN feel about the woman getting raped, but not much about the woman. In many such plots, the woman might as well be a puppy that was kicked or a piece of property that was stolen, for all she participates. I'm suggesting that you be wary of this.

Why does she have to be assaulted? What is the reason for that part of the plot?

 

Expanding on my thoughts:

Let's say that a male cop was brutally beaten and, let's say, lost an eye. Would you phrase his response as "crying out for sympathy" to the other cops?

So often, a female character is "the female." Her job is to have a romance with a male character, get raped, get beaten up by her partner, or otherwise have something "female" happen to her. And then all the men cluster around and actually act out the plot, with the female essentially passive in the center.

What about your female cop being...a cop? Just a cop? What if the living victim of some brutal event is male, not female? What if the female cop is just one of many cops who want revenge? What if she takes action, drives the plot instead of being an object in the plot? What if she is one of the leaders of the revenge?

No, a story or subplot that's centered on a victim isn't inherently wrong. No, that victim being female isn't inherently wrong. But the victim is so very, very often female. Why not do something different?

 

Good point. Let's make the character male perhaps. If a male cop is assaulted and lost an eye or something like that... that could work and the other cops would feel sorry for him. However, do I have to kill off other cops before him? Cause I feel like if I do it, then they will care more about the dead cops, and his ordeal will be overshadowed? Cause this particular cop who is assaulted I would want to be a main character. Where as the cops that get killed before, are not so main cause they die. However, if I have cops get killed before, would that overshadow the main character's ordeal, to the other cops, and they wouldn't care about him as much, cause he lived?

 

You don't actually need to have cops die other then Cop B if you really don't want too. I only suggested it because it would make it easier for the reader to believe that a bunch of good cops would go as far as you want them too.

Also even if you go this route it doesn't have to overshadow anything. Not unless you want it to be overshadowed which you clearly don't.

 

Okay thanks. Well the way the story goes, is that the villains do not have much reason to kill cops. They are targeting other people but not cops. I think I can kill two cops off at the most, if that's enough.

One thing that occurred to me though, is that perhaps another cop should die and not Cop B, during the break in. Perhaps Cop B should live, and another cop should die later instead.

If I kill off Cop B, Cop A still has to protect the witness who kills Cop B, but the safe house is compromised. Cop A, has to hide out with that witness and pretend to be on her side. He takes the witness back to his place to hide out, while he is undercover, but his girlfriend is unexpectedly home. I need the gf to be there, so she can the witness's face and play a part for later.

With his gf there, he still decides to keep up the protection charade, with his gf there temporarily before she goes back home.

However, would a sane cop keep up the charade with the gf, even though the witness just killed another cop?

So if the answer is no, and Cop A would not keep the witness in hiding at his place at that point, then maybe killing off that other cop earlier would not work plot wise?

What do you think?

 

Hmm... What about something like in Breaking Bad? In the scene, Hank came to Jesse's RV, saw bullet holes, heard voices, and suspected criminal activity. But he was hit with trespassing on private property, breaking and entering, and unlawful search and seizure. On top of that, to find the bullet holes, he performed an unconstitutional search by manipulating the duct tape covering them. Maybe a situation like this could apply. Perhaps the policeman hears the crime occurring in the criminal's private-property home, but doesn't see it. With no visible proof of the incident, and the only 'probable cause' being a small amount of noise, if he were to barge in and hold them up, the perp's lawyer may say private property, no real probable cause as he didn't see the crime being committed, and unlawful search and seizure due to all of the above. That's about all I can think of though. At the very least, if the property was private and there was no concrete proof, a warrant would be necessary.

All in all, it would take a very specific situation and a perfect storm of loopholes and/or technicalities to convince a judge to let an obvious criminal go, especially if he was holding a hostage. This really is a tricky circumstance. You're trying to write up.