How can I get readers to not become fixated on minor characters?

Well, this makes it a little clearer than it was in previous threads. What I have to ask now is this:

What charge is the prosecutor trying to take the arrested gang member to trial on?

Kidnapping? If from the beginning the alleged victim says "No, officer, you misunderstand, we were just playing a game," where is the crime?

Weapons violations? Why do they need the woman for that? The officer witnessed that for himself.

Being a member of a gang? Hmm. I don't know how far the Constitutional right to freedom of association goes, but it seems to me that a gang has to commit an actual crime before any of its members can rightly be arrested.

Disturbing the peace? I doubt all this kerfuffle is about that.

If the alleged victim initially claims to have been kidnapped ("Oh my, Officer, you saved me, my hero!"), that's simple. Don't make her uncooperative; not on the surface. Have her assure the prosecutor she'll happily testify at the preliminary hearing, then when she gets on the stand she can change her story to the one about the roleplaying game. If she wasn't under oath while talking to the prosecutor beforehand, I doubt they could get her for perjury, and if she's clever she could leave the impression she was intimidated into changing her tune. I mean, do the cops know she's actually working for the gang?

(I'm reminded of the 1951 film Storm Warning, where Ginger Rogers plays a visitor to a small Southern town who witnesses the KKK murder of a reporter who's come down from the North to expose their activities. The prosecutor, played by Ronald Reagan, gets her to agree to name the men who exposed their faces after the shooting. But one of the identifiable men is her brother-in-law, and on the stand she recants and claims she never saw any faces at all. The prosecutor can't do a damn thing about it, and no formal charges can be made.)

But again, it gets back to the same thing: If your "victim" is just playacting to help the gang members see if the new recruits really are tough guys, where's the crime? And why would she wait until the hearing to say so? Wouldn't that raise the risk of putting her colleague in crime in jeopardy?

(Unless the gang leader wanted to give the arrested member a good scare? But then, what if he talked to get out of prosecution? This can has got a lotta worms in it, my friend.)

 

Well the arrested suspect is not talking, but the gang is worried he will, the longer he is kept under arrest, and if charges are laid later, making him less hopeful.

Basically when discussing this case with a couple of real life lawyers who were willing to give me their time before, they said that the prosecutor would assume that the woman is lying about the role playing thing, and would assume that she is a real victim who is too scared to talk, and therefore not use her as a witness, and go ahead with kidnapping charges anyway, based on the cops' testimony, and just use the cops as witnesses instead to go to court.

Do you think the lawyers are right and that is what would happen?

Basically one of the reasons why the woman doesn't say it was roleplaying, right at the scene, is because she doesn't know what the facts of the police's case are yet. A cop shows up to bust them and radios for back up. The cop stumbled upon the blood in accidentally. But she doesn't know that. For all she knows, the new blood in recruit could have brought the police along in surveillance, and they could know more about the gang. Plus the other gang members fled and the police are currently chasing them, based on the first cop who arrived, radioing ahead for others to pursue.

So she does not know how this chase, will end, or if anyone will be harmed, or what evidence the police have to so far. She also does not know that one of the gang members is arrested necessarily, as I wrote it so that it happens around the corner of the building, out of her sight, while she is tied up, or something like that.

So she would have to lie about who the gang members are, lie about their identities. Cause the gang does not want the police to know who they are. She would have to come up with a lie, like she met them all in a place, with no cameras, so the police cannot do any checking up on her story, and lie about their names or something. But she will also have to lie about how she met the one who was arrested, and say she met him somewhere else for the roleplaying. She has to keep the one arrested gang member disassociated from the others, in her lie, so the police will not think he is one of 'them', and want to connect him to the others more so, since the others are guilty of resisting arrest, and what other crimes they will end up committing in this chase. She does not want to connect the arrested suspect and keep him innocent.

So the reason why she delays telling it was role playing and keeps silent is because she has to wait till all these facts are in, and wait for the situation to die down, before she can quietly make contact with the gang leader to find out what is what, so she knows what detailed story she could tell, that would specifically hold up. Bottom line is, whatever lie she tells, the police or prosecutor is going to ask her "if it was all roleplaying, who were your friends?". She is going to need a lie to cover up her friend's identities, like maybe she doesn't know who they are really are, or some excuse that will hold up enough, legally.

So if this is the case, how long would she wait before she tells the police a story? Maybe not until a preliminary hearing, but how long do you think? And what is she going to say as to why she took longer to tell what happened, and chose to remain silent at first?

Basically I want two ends results to happen in my story from this scenario.

1. I want the gang to worry, and go after with the intention of silencing her or threatening her with an attack or something, causing her to want to seek protection from the police even though she is going to tell the police that it was all roleplaying, but for some reason her roleplayers are now after her.

2. I also want her to tell the story and get the defendant off, and the rest of the gangs' identities are not found out, without her and the defendant being charged with obstruction of justice. I was told that since she waits to talk, and the defendant remains silent and does not confirm the same roleplaying story as her, they would be charged with obstruction of justice for dragging out the arrest and charges. Can I write it so this doesn't happen, and she gets him off, and they both walk out of there, free?

Are these two end results possible with the given scenario?

 

?

I'm sorry, but I'm still finding it difficult to comprehend this. Role-playing? It makes no sense. Gangs of people do not role play like that. It would have been more believable if she just said that they were shooting an indie movie.

Ok. I'll respond upon that scenario though.

The Victim: In case said victim had to confess the nature of her kidnapping was just a really confusing misunderstanding, then she would have done so on the spot! And nobody would run. All gang members would be doing the same thing. If they were innocent to begin with, then why on earth would they run away? If later on she thought about admitting to a false misunderstanding, then it would not stand. Nobody would believe her to begin with. It just sounds so fake and nonsensical.

The Gang: The Gang would not chase after or scare the victim. It would be a dead give away, when they have nothing to be afraid of. Furthermore, the victim is a gang member. Why would she turn them in and put herself in a dangerous position?

The Prosecutor: In order to want to chase after said gang and gang-leader, it means that of course he has been building a case upon them from before this event took place. Otherwise, he would not have anything to stand on in the preliminary. He wouldn't even have enough evidence in order to file a report against said gang-leader. You can't just point your finger and claim that someone is even considered a suspect without having anything on him. So, I'm guessing that the prosecutor must have had other bits and pieces of proof, before he made this bold move to take somebody to court. Something relevant to the case he wants to build against the gang-leader. Anything! The witnesses of this scenario are not enough for a pre. Reason? Because their witness of events does not make up for a probable cause.

The prosecutor would take it very far if he suspected that the gang leader was a serious criminal. He would exact an investigation. He would start collecting evidence. He would try to support his case. But he wouldn't go bare to court. He would have to be sure that the evidence are convincing enough to determine probable cause from the start.

If you want to take this at pre, then build a case beforehand. Have him already obtaining some evidence. Not for kidnapping though. Kidnapping is a very tough case to build, especially when the victim and the arrested gang member are not confessing. Have the prosecutor, targeting on another misdoing of the gang leader. I don't know what. Money laundering? Drug trafficking? Illegal money lending is my best bet though. Let him start investigating from there and as the investigation goes on, more evidence for different illegal acts start to show up. One evidence leads to another. He could be charged for multiple convictions. That's a case well built.

 

Okay thanks for the points. But let's start from the beginning.

The gang is responsible for other crimes in the past. Since one cop burst in, they do not know what the police know. What if the police know more than just stumbling upon a blood in? What if it was a deliberate sting operation, and the police already had evidence on some of the gang members from past crimes? The gang does not want to give their names to the police and let them know who they are. If they all don't run and just tell the cops it was all an indie movie shoot or something like that, the police might connect them to the past crimes per say. They don't want to take the risk, and would rather just run. They meant to take the woman with them, so she wouldn't be caught either, but she got stuck behind.

But what makes you think that the gang is so certain that the cop stumbled upon the kidnapping accidentally. The gang feels that it is unlikely that a cop stumbled upon the scene by coincidence. They thing that the new blood in recruit, may have informed the cops, that he was invited to a blood in, and it was a sting operation for the cops to bust them. The new recruit did not call the cops, and a cop just stumbled upon it by coincidence. However, why would the gang assume the cop stumbled upon it by coincidence?

Wouldn't they assume that the new recruit brought the cops with them, since a cop happened to show up, right before the new recruit was suppose to do the blood in?

You haven't said why the gang assumes the cop showing up is a coincidence. I mean if a gang was giving a new recruit a blood in, test, and a cop bursts in to save the victim, wouldn't the gang assume that the new recruit told the cop, who the gang members are? If this is true, and the new recruit did tell the cop who they are, it means that the new recruit could have possibly recorded past conversations with the gang members, who recruited him. If this is true, then those gang members are not going to want to stick around, because if they say it was an indie movie shoot or something, the cops will know they are lying cause the new recruit would have recorded past conversations with the gang, that would incriminate them.

So why would the gang stick around, when they would naturally assume that the new blood in recruit probably brought the cops, and therefore, could have incriminating recorded conversations on them from before?

I mean let's say that the gang stuck around, and they told the police "No, no, officer, you got it all wrong! This was just an indie movie shoot". The cops, then say to them "We have other evidence on your past kidnappings, and we are arresting you on that". Why is the gang so sure that the cops are not there to arrest them based on past evidence, as oppose to showing up by coincidence?

You say the gang should play along and act innocent, but you didn't say why they are so sure it will work, since a cop shows up coincidentally, the same time as they are doing a blood in. Wouldn't that indicate that the new recruit probably ratted on them, possibly with prior evidence, and the blood in was a sting operation that was being watched, likely?

 

Okay thanks. However, before, bringing the new recruit to the blood in, they have to meet him in a place, that is not owned by any of the gang members and search him for a possible wire. So during this search, which is done in a secluded area, the cop accidentally sees them while he on a patrol. He gets a glimpse of the wire search, recognizes it as a wire search, and decides to follow them to the woman's place, where the blood in is conducted.

From there the gang sees that a cop is scoping out their place, and panic thinking that the new recruit brought the cops. The cop gets a glimpse of some commotion, and sees the hostage being moved. He calls it in. However, the police have to stumble upon the activity sometime, and the villain has to make some kind of mistake or they would never get caught.

Why do you assume that the villain is a mastermind though? He makes mistakes and get caught like everyone else. So what did I do to give the impression that he was perfect? Why is the gang not aloud to make a mistake that will get the cops to stumble upon one of their crimes?

As for the gang worrying about the new member being an undercover cop, that's what every gang has to worry about in my research. When you read about true crime stories, when a gang finds out one of their own members was a cop, of course they would regret not taking precautions. My gang just wants to take those precautions.

 

Because in the fantasy world where your story takes place, walls and doors have not yet been invented.

 

The MC can be a patrol officer if the plot calls for it. I am willing to change it. I was also told by a cop in my research that the police would not intervene immediately on a patdown, a cop told me. They would observe more, but a pat down for a wire is not illegal enough to intervene.

Also in crime fiction, you see criminals search each other for wires all the time, and it's criminal procedure pretty much. I did actually talk to cops and this is what they said. They said they would not intervene immediately, and would observe more if the dispatcher gave them okay to do so, and he had a little time. That's what real cops told me.

Plus if a cop intervened immediately, all they would be able to do is ask the people what their names were and for some ID. If the guys new a cop was watching them and intervened, they would leave, and the cop would never find out what they were up to.

So the cop cannot intervene if he wants to have a chance to find out what they are up to.

I also did go on a ride along before. The cops stopped someone for 20-25 minutes to write the person a ticket. If they have that much time to write someone a ticket, then they can spare a few minutes to observe someone's actions to see what they are up to, unless they are dispatched to go something else. In this case, my character is not.

 

Ryan, you keep telling us that cops have told you things that we often feel don't make much sense.

And then I consider the fact that you ask us about things, we tell you they won't work, and you keep asking again and again and again and again and again and again and again, trying to get us to tell you that what we know won't work, will work.

And I consider the fact that you tend to forget and misunderstand and misinterpret what we've told you, especially when we've told you that what you want to work won't work.

And I consider that cops don't have an unlimited amount of time.

I suspect that these cops may just be throwing up their hands and saying, "Yeah, that'll work. Whatever. Bye, now."

 

Okay thanks. Sorry I don't mean to not take the advice. I just feel that sometimes there are unanswered questions or hole in the advice before I take it. Basically if people tell me the cops are wrong, then why not go in depth more about it then, so I understand the advice better, or things like that. I feel that there are unanswered questions in the advice that is not covered. That's all. Should I not believe the police then? I mean you said that gangs will not allow themselves to be searched for a wire for example.

But in my research before, there was a real crime story, which I can give a link to if you want, where criminals did actually do pat downs, to check one another for wires, before talking business. So it actually happened in real life. That's just one example. But I feel like things like that should be discussed before agreeing on absolute truth.

You say that one of the lawyers I talked to gave bogus advice for example. What advice was that?

I was also told on here before that the problem is, is that I am not doing the best job of getting the reader to suspend disbelief. If this is true, then should I be concentrating on that? Should I tell the reader for example, that this is how the police and lawyers operate and this is how it is, and somehow open their minds more to it, in order to suspend disbelief?

 

Ryan, you are not understanding the advice that anyone is giving you. Many people in this forum have given you advice, and you have not understood more than the smallest fraction of it, and you rarely seem to understand it for long.

Given the fact that when you repeat our advice, you nearly always repeat it incorrectly, it seems very likely that when you repeat what you say that the police have told you, you are also repeating their advice incorrectly.

I think that you need to step back from the fiction that you are writing and figure out what's going on with your ability and/or willingness to hear, understand, and retain what people are telling you. My view is that you are so determined to hear what you want to hear, that you refuse to hear anything else. But the problem may be something else.

A scenario:

Fred's conversation with Jane:

Fred: "Chocolate cake is healthy, right? I need my story to have a health spa that serves chocolate cake."

Jane: "Well, no. It's not healthy at all."

Fred: "But eggs are part of a healthy diet."

Jane: "'Part of', yes. In limited quantities. And chocolate cake has a lot of other stuff, like refined sugar."

Fred: "But you agree that eggs can be part of a healthy diet?"

Jane: "Well, sure."

---

Fred's conversation with Frank:

Fred: "So, the nutritionists that I know tell me that chocolate cake is healthy. I'm writing a story about a health spa..."

Frank: "Wait a minute. Chocolate cake isn't healthy."

Fred: "Well, the nutritionists said it was."

Frank: "What nutritionists are you talking to? Chocolate cake isn't healthy."

Fred: "So you're saying that the nutritionists are lying?"

Frank: "I don't know, I just know chocolate cake is not healthy."

Fred: "OK, thanks. Well, let's say that we put kale in the chocolate cake. It would be healthy then, right?"

Frank: "It's not normal to put kale in chocolate cake."

Fred: "But I read in a recipe book about someone who put zucchini in a chocolate cake."

Frank: "Zucchini's a completely different vegetable. Anyway, kale OR zucchini aren't going to make chocolate cake healthy."

Fred: "But you agree that kale is healthy?"

Frank: "I guess so."

---

Fred's conversation with Wilbur:

Fred: "So, I have this chocolate cake with kale in it, at a health spa, and..."

Wilbur: "You have WHAT?"

Fred: "The nutritionists I know said that chocolate cake was healthy, and a writer friend said that as long as I put kale in it, it's fine."

 

Okay thanks. I want to take the advice in better. I'm sorry if I haven't been doing that. Perhaps I am too anxious to get the story done.

So for example, when big soft moose says that the way I wrote for the cop to spot the blood in, is stupid, how can I write it correctly then? I didn't really understand what the solution was. I get that maybe seeing a pat down is not enough, and maybe a crack in the cabin for the cop to look through and see the blood in, is too convenient.

But if the cop is now allowed to actually see it, cause it happens behind closed doors, how can he spot it plausibly then?

Another thing is I actually do talk to real cops. That's what I was told to do, to get facts on how these things can work. But then when I use their examples, I am told it's wrong, even though I was told to ask them in the first place.

So it feels like I am being told to do something, and then no one believes the situations as a result. So what I am doing wrong there, if you don't mind telling me?

However though, I have taken a large portion of the advice, and my story is really improved now, since. There are some parts where I feel that there were unanswered questions in the advice, but I did take a lot of it before, and it's helped. Thank you all for the advice. Not just the advice I took, but the advice I haven't yet as well. Thank you. I really appreciate it and it has really helped.

 

X 1,000,000,000

 

Your whole problem, Ryan, is that you are WRITING BY COMMITTEE. You say you are incorporating all of this advice and the story is no longer yours. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: WRITE YOUR STORY.

Once you've written your story, find a few beta readers and address these issues in the story as a whole. STOP ASKING OTHER PEOPLE TO WRITE YOUR STORY BECAUSE IT IS CAUSING YOU WAY TOO MUCH CONFUSION.

 

This point has been made multiple times, by different people, to no avail

 

I know but...CAPS

 

True...

 

You should always pay attention to feedback bc it represents what will be going through your readers' minds.

They are saying it's unrealistic for a prosecutor to bring insufficient evidence to a court, bc that means the prosecutor doesn't really have a case against them.

There are other ways for the villains to get off the hook

They know the prosecutor is a minor character they just aren't convinced about his actions

 

Okay thanks. Should I listen to lawyers when doing my research? Cause I asked two lawyers and they both said that the prosecutor would just use the testimony from the arriving police officers that discovered the crime, as enough evidence, to take it to a probable cause hearing.

So if that's what lawyers think, should I somehow try to convince readers that that's the way it is then?

 

You don't know what the lawyers think.

 

You should teach classes on how to properly troll The Internet. You're putting on a clinic, a masterpiece, really.

 

Okay thanks. Well the lawyers told me that there have been several cases, where a prosecutor would make an indictment, without the victim's testimony. He said it's called 'evidence-based prosecution', and said that the cops testimony will be enough, compared to one victim. So if two lawyers tell me this, shouldn't I believe them, since they are the ones with the law degrees, and the readers I do not have any?