The collected musings of Ryan Elder

I dont think it's plausible for a cop to disfigure the body and to swap his clothes, it just doesnt seem like something a cop would do. I also think that if the guy is having a crisis of conscience then he wouldnt go along with killing the cop.

 

I don't see a huge problem with it, except that I agree with croak3r that I don't think a cop would disfigure a body - unless he's gone bad. Maybe you could still have the moral gang member shot in the face, but do some research to see what kind of gun at what kind of range would be able to disfigure a face beyond the point of recognition. That way the cop doesn't have to do it - he just sees the opportunity. Might not be pleasant research though. Also, how does he have time to do this? Is it still in the middle of the gun fight? Do the gang members not go check to see who died after its over?

 

Okay thanks. The reason why the gang member agrees to kill the cop is cause he actually wants to save the cop, and not let him die. But the gang member dies of course and the cop makes it out. As for the cop disfiguring him, the character is written so he accepts desperate situations for what they are and has been on that side of the fence, where he is forced to do something to survive, even though it's bad.

I could write it so that the gang member is disfigured so bad he is beyond regnogition, but the gang members are using hand guns for concealment, and I don't know if any handgun can do that. I mean these are civilian handguns and not military grade weapons they have. I also feel that if the face is destroyed beyond recgognition by the gunshot, it may come off as too convenient, as if the cop's work is done. But maybe not.

Yes it will be tricky to write it so he has time to do it in the middle of a fight.

However, aside from those points, the biggest criticism from other readers is that the fact that they would let one of their own go, if he wants out. I was told by other readers that they would kill him and not let him go, just because he kills someone else.

The gang sees that a dead body, but think it's the cop since the face is blown away, and the clothes have been switched. So they only assume it's the cop by looking, if that's plausible.

But is it possible for it to be believable that they would just let one of their own members go, just because they were willing to perform a murder to get out? Something like this happens in the TV show Gotham.

In season 1 episode 1, the mafia wants Gordon to kill someone in order to prove he can be trusted. They don't kill Gordon, they actually have him kill someone, shows he can be trusted, and then let him go. So is it possible to write it in a way that's believable, like this, in my scenario?

 

Okay thanks. I already saw fracture . Well for my story perhaps I should take a different approach. Mainly the MC wants revenge on the villains. I want the cops to go after him because they find out that he is intending to kill the gang of crooks, so they want to stop him. However, I cannot find a way for it to make sense. Cause the cops will not go after someone who has not committed a crime yet, and they would have to wait in a realistic world. I tried to think of ways he could get into trouble for something before hand, but none of that is doing much good, since he hasn't really done much of anything yet.

Is their a way I can get the police after him beforehand, since they have nothing to charge him with, or something I could apply?

 

Just a loop hole I found. If the Cop shoots the Gang Member in the face than the mask would be destroyed or at least have a bullet in it (depending on the material).

 

I'm not clear on the purpose of this whole plot sequence.

 

Why must it be a gunshot that destroys the face? Where does this gunfight take place? Perhaps there are some other elements of the environment that you can use to your creative advantage, instead of just taking the shortest step from A to B.

For example, if the gunfight occurs in the street or another area where cars are driven, consider this - perhaps one of the gang members tries to escape in a heavy van or truck (like the kind that has the dual sets of rear tires), and the driver of the vehicle is injured/distracted/possibly killed/whatever, causing the vehicle to run over the "moral" gang member and the aforementioned dual tires crush his skull like a egg.

Take a look around at different objects that are present in different real-life environments and think of ways that things can fall, move, or otherwise become a mortal danger.

 

Seems a bit random, but it definitely makes the story interesting. Perhaps instead of making him get shot in the face maybe the cop and gang member just look alike and they can't tell because it's dim where the cop is.

 

Well I asked two real cops to help me with it as well, and they say that the fruit of the poisonous tree law does count if a murder happens a few days later, based on if the cop said something to the villain which got him to commit that murder. I am not really confused and do not know if it applies or not.

 

Just a reflection I've made, after seeing all your similar questions regarding this ms lately:
it looks a little like you've started in the wrong end here, by constructing a plot which forces the mc character to act in a way that would not be very likely. Like, what if you start with the character instead, give him a goal and a motive and let him act in a way that comes natural to him, instead of trying to squeeze him into some kind of cookie cutter?

 

Hi Ryan,

I want to make sure my assumptions are correct:

1. MC (cop) want's revenge against an unknown villain,
2. MC has suspicion of a perp, so he blackmails a parolee to hack the 'acquaintance' of the suspected villain,
3. That hack proves useful, so the MC is begins tailing the villain,
4. Meanwhile, the villain finds out that 'someone' has been snooping, but isn't 100% sure who,
5. Villain, mistakenly, targets and kills who he thinks is digging into his acquaintances/background,
6. MC (cop) witnesses this killing...

This is where I got a bit lost ---

Did the cop arrest the villain after witnessing the murder? Meaning, did the cop call it in and watch from a distance while enjoying the downfall of his suspected villain (which is what I would do), or did he run up, say, "I saw the whole thing, and you're going down you SOB!"

Moving forward: I have to assume that somehow the MC (cop) is implicated to have known about (even helped bring about) the mistaken murder during trial or something. Like, the villain claims: "If not for the cop's snooping, I would not have killed this man." Or, "Cop can't bare witness because he has dirty hands, therefore all evidence is inadmissible."

If that's the setup, then 'fruit of the poisonous tree' does not apply to evidence in the trial (especially if the cop called it in and watched from a distance). Even if the cop made the arrest, collected the evidence, conferred with the District Attorney, and is on the witness stand, the evidence would still stand.

My reasoning: Working backward -- A) Witnessing a murder isn't a crime. B) Tailing someone isn't necessarily a crime. C) Hacking is criminal, but how would the villain/defense know this? Even if they do, even if they turned the parolee, the evidence collected isn't 'fruit' of said hacking. Now, this isn't to say that the MC (cop) isn't in trouble -- he has a wealth of crap coming his way, most worrisome is a civil suit from the family of the man 'mistakenly' killed (especially if the cop had opportunity to stop it and that's public knowledge), but the villain would still be tried with all the evidence at hand.

'Fruit of the poisonous tree' is more like this. Cop busts into neighbor's home without a warrant (let's say the homeowner backed into the cop's car). While the cop is in the home he sees a ton of green, he arrests the neighbor, books him and takes the case to the DA -- the neighbor will not (or at least should not) have charges issued because the arrest was unconstitutional and any evidence therefore is 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'.

-----------------------

Okay, so you want this as your twist: "Now I want the villain to be able to get away with it again and for the hero to get into trouble..." For this to work, you'll need to obscure the evidence in the murder case while marginalizing the MC (cop) -- essentially, you have to have evidence near zero so that it's the cop's word against the villains word -- then, have the cop discredited right before or during the case.

To meet the above, you could try something like this scenario:

Villain mistakenly murders wrong man. Cop see's murder, but doesn't make arrest. He wait's for villain to clear the area, plants some evidence, then calls it in. Evidence planted is a gun or something (depends on what the cop came across during those initial days of tailing). Evidence works, arrest warrant issued for villain, but [wait] what is this: someone heard the shot? -- Some nosey kid with a camera phone and he records the cop planting the evidence... Holy crap, the villain goes free and the cop is in deep shit.

 

Okay thanks. Something like that. However, I need a reason for the cop to let the villain go. I asked a cop and he said that if a cop stalks someone by blackmailing a computer hacking expert, and then follows that person around based on the hacker's information, then you cannot arrest him for the future murder, cause the evidence as to how the cop arrived there is tainted. Could that be a reason for the cop to let the villain go, or is that not logical enough and he would still make an arrest after seeing the murder happen?

 

The MC (cop) wants the villain to go down right (your initial statement of revenge)? If that's the case, then why would the cop let the villain go when he has him dead-to-rites? Unless I'm misunderstanding your initial premise...

 

Well that's just it, I need a reason to let him go though so the story can continue.

 

Yes, I see that as your desired twist. Your requirements are 1) That the killer get away and 2) that the MC (cop) get's in trouble. My scenario is the only thing I can think of that fulfils those requirements while maintaining a connection between the killer and cop.

"Villain mistakenly murders wrong man. Cop see's murder, but doesn't make arrest. He wait's for villain to clear the area, plants some evidence, then calls it in. Evidence planted is a gun or something (depends on what the cop came across during those initial days of tailing). Evidence works, arrest warrant issued for villain, but [wait] what is this: someone heard the shot? -- Some nosey kid with a camera phone and he records the cop planting the evidence... Holy crap, the villain goes free and the cop is in deep shit."

 

Something like that could work. The thing that doesn't work for me necessarily though, is how would the cop think to have evidence to plant beforehand? It's not like he is going to think to himself "I better get evidence I can plant just in case the villain commits murder and I fail to stop it". What if after the villain kills the wrong man, he just gets the drop on the villain at gunpoint and forces him to plant his own DNA and fingerprints on the body?

Then he is about to arrest the villain but something happens and the villain is able to get away? Does that work better or more logically?

Or I could write it so that the villain just gets away, and the MC does not plant anything, but still gets in trouble cause he inadvertently caused an innocent person to die? Is that better, or is he more assured to get into trouble by being caught framing the villain?

 

Actually, my internal thought is: While the MC (cop) was trailing this guy (let's say for a week) -- the cop has revenge on his mind -- so, he enters the guy's house when he's out. Finds the gun (or any item that has direct ties to the villain), but let's say he finds a gun. MC (cop) takes gun -- maybe to, at some point in the future, kill the villain with his own gun. But as luck would have it, the villain puts himself in a situation that the cop can take advantage of.

So the outline is:

1. MC (cop) want's revenge against an unknown villain,
2. MC has suspicion of a perp, so he blackmails a parolee to hack the 'acquaintance' of the suspected villain,
3. That hack proves useful, so the MC is begins tailing the villain,
4. MC tails villain for a week, at some point MC enters villain's home and steals his weapon,
5. Meanwhile, the villain finds out that 'someone' has been snooping, but isn't 100% sure who,
6. Villain, mistakenly, targets and kills who he thinks is digging into his acquaintances/background,
7. MC (cop) witnesses this killing...But doesn't make arrest,
8. MC (cop) instead, waits for villain to clear crime scene and plant's the stolen weapon,
9. MC (cop) calls in the murder,
10. Detectives quickly tie villain to murder scene, arrest warrant issued,
11. Detectives go to District Attorney with evidence, charges filed, case date is set,
12. Meanwhile, detectives gathering additional witness statements run into a young boy, he has video of the MC (cop) planting the weapon,
13. Case against villain is immediately withdrawn,
14. MC (cop) is in some serious trouble with Internal Affairs....

If you don't write it -- I will. Just kidding.

 

lol at the last part. Thanks. However, I was told that this was a plot hole, and that the MC would not let the villain go. The MC would capture the villain, and then plant the evidence, and then bring the villain in, saying he saw it. But for my story to work, I kind of want the villain to get away, because I do not want the cops to be able to see who it is, just be forced to take the MC's word, in which case they don't believe him. But if they see who it is, then they will believe him, if that makes sense. So I was still told it was a plot hole by some readers. However, since he found the villain by hacking, the arrest will not stick because it is fruit of the poisonous tree, I was told by a cop. So if that's true, then it would probably make sense for him not to say he was there at all?

Also I want to have it so the cops gets into enough trouble to want to go on the run, and even shoot at other cops to prevent his arrest. Not wanting to kill the other cops, but willing to risk firing shots as cover fire for his escape. In order for the MC to be in this much trouble to go that far, is planting evidence enough, and being partially responsible for the innocent person's death enough, or will I have to go further?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. For 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' to apply, the preceding action that resulted in the supposed 'guilty' evidence has to be unconstitutional as in the example I gave.

"I kind of want the villain to get away, because I do not want the cops to be able to see who it is, just be forced to take the MC's word, in which case they don't believe him." -- that's a tough one. You need a "reason" for the cop to do this that doesn't swing contrary to every Law and Order episode I've seen. 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' will never work with these constraints because it's a legal term, and legal settings require a plaintiff and defendant -- both of whom will be seen and known by everyone.

But just out of curiosity -- I sense a conflict in that you 1) don't want the villain known, but 2) want the cops to take the MC's word for it. The MC would undoubtedly state who he thinks the villain is right?

Or maybe you're saying that you just want the MC as the only witness and that his statement about the killer is so outlandish that his fellow men in uniform don't believe him?

I'll go with that last one, I think that's what you're getting at and maybe you don't want to spill-the-beans (hell, at this point I'm convinced you're the killer )

So the scenario is this:

Jamestown, located on the city's downtown waterfront, was once a low-rent, semi-industrial district. It sits northwest of downtown Hampton and in recent decades the neighborhood has been revitalized and transformed into a district of night spots, small specialty shops, swank restaurants, and residential towers, as well as old warehouses, some converted, most not. However some towns never outlive their reputation and Jamestown has a reputation for having more than its share of crime: burglary, theft, beat-downs, and murders. Many murders were drive-bys that didn’t seem to target anyone in particular and the police linked most of the crime in the area to gang activity.

For our villain, Jamestown was the perfect place to add to the city's murder rate. Crime was escalating in the area and the police chief and mayor had publicly announced plans for an anti-crime program. The public announcement afforded the villain an opportunity many citizens just didn’t consider. They never thought of the downside of such a program. All they heard was the positive ring of anti-crime, but many criminals, especially our villain, knew the other side of it.

Our villain knew that once a public statement was made by the politically connected mayor, it had to be supported by results. Big, bold, newsworthy, positive results, and as such crimes were dealt with quickly and usually by overworked detectives, some willing to hastily link victims to circumstance to clear the dockets. Our villain could kill (the mistaken man), and in a day or two it would be linked to drugs and forgotten. Followed by an apt quote in the newspaper that another crime has been solved.

Our MC (COP) snubbed the Lucky Strike under his shoe as he watched the villain dip into an alleyway near an abandoned warehouse. He had been trailing him for days like a bloodhound with a hard on for bad guys. "What the hell is a priest doing in this part of town?" The MC (cop) thought. "This fuck has some serious unresolved issues."

As our MC (COP) crosses the street and looks up, to his left -- he spots a city camera on a pole. "Damn!"

Suddenly, the alleyway is full of escaping screams. Our MC (COP) un-holsters his weapon and eases toward the screams. A man rushes from the dark alleyway into the street lights, his throat nearly severed to his spine on one side. "Help me!" He screams as he rushes toward our MC (COP). "Help!" The unknown man falls into the MC (COP) wraps his dying arms around him and they both fall to the ground.

"Pull it out!" The man screams. "Pull it out."

Without thinking, our MC(COP) grabs the knife lodged in the mans throat and tosses it to the sidewalk. He applies pressure on the wound while saying over and over, "you're going to be okay."

Just then, the villain (priest), exits the alleyway and calmly walks away.

Thirty minutes later the questions came at our MC (COP) like a machine gun. "Why were you here again?" The detective asked our MC (COP).

"I was in the neighborhood."

"Know anyone in this neighborhood?"

"No."

"Then why were you here?"

"I don't know."

"And you say a priest did this?"

"Yes." Our MC (COP) thought about giving up the name, but he couldn't. "How in the hell would I know the priest's name if I hadn't been following him? Who am I, Ms. Cleo?"

"You don't believe a thing I say, do you John?" Our MC (COP) asks.

"Have to admit. It's a bit out there. Whose blood is that on you?"

"The victims."

"Why were you here again?"​

The above is a rough draft to set the scene. But to be clear, none of this would allow you to use: 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'. In order to use that, you must be in a legal setting, which may come later in your story. Also, you can fill a lot of plot holes with 'reasoning' and 'reaction' -- that's fiction. The above would never happen, but as you read it, you're like -- Okay, I'll go with it.

So, the above setting allows your killer to get away AND puts your MC (cop) on the spot. All he can say is who (or more pointedly what) killed the man -- the priest. Our MC (cop) can't divulge more that that. He has to hope his fellow men in blue will take his word -- at this point - "It ain't looking to good..."

 

Fruit of the poisonous tree is for evidence not witness testimony. I've seen a few cop shows do a similar situation where a cop sees something then gets a warrant to search the premise for evidence, but there is nothing there and no evidence that a murder took place making it look clean because the murderer cleaned the scene. But that has been done, a lot in tv.

 

Correct, it's about the chain of collection of evidence, right? In order for evidence to be used again a perp, the collection has to be constitutional as in my example:

'Fruit of the poisonous tree' is more like this. Cop busts into neighbor's home without a warrant (let's say the homeowner backed into the cop's car). While the cop is in the home he sees a ton of green, he arrests the neighbor, books him and takes the case to the DA -- the neighbor will not (or at least should not) have charges issued because the arrest was unconstitutional and any evidence therefore is 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'.

 

Okay thanks. But I was told by a cop that this counts a fruit of the poisonous three, because the MC committed blackmail and illegal computer hacking to find out who the villain is, then he makes a blackmailing phone call to the villain. This gets the villain in a certain place and time to kill the innocent person. The cop told me that if the MC said he saw this person kill someone, the prosecutor will ask the MC how he came to be following the suspect he says is the killer.

If the MC tells the prosecutor that he came to following him by blackmailing and computer hacking, that right there is fruit of the poisonous tree. It cannot be used, and if there is no other physical evidence at the scene, the prosecutor would be forced to drop the case. That is was the cop told me when helping me research it. I just asked him if it does not count for witness testimony and he says that in this case it does because the evidence is within the witness testimony. The MC says that he found out who the suspect is by hacking and it's the hacking that is the evidence, and if the MC is talking about using tainted evidence, then the testimony itself is tainted. That's what the cop told me, is he right?

"I'll go with that last one, I think that's what you're getting at and maybe you don't want to spill-the-beans (hell, at this point I'm convinced you're the killer )"

And yes I was going for the last one, AspiringNovelist .

 

Well, you're going to have to solidify your MC (cop) because you're kind of all over the place with your constraints:

1. You want the villain to get away unseen, -- you stated this is important for the tale to move forward,
2. You want the MC(cop) to know who the villain is, but only because he's been trailing him via some illegal activity,
3. You want to invoke 'Fruit of the poisonous tree', but the villain is unknown to all except the MC (cop) so there is no legal setting for 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' to even come up,
4. You want the other cops to take the MC(cops) word for who the villain is,
5. You want the MC(cop)'s claims to be so 'out-there' that not even his buddies in blue believe him.

It seems to me that you're in love with the legal concept of 'Fruit of the poisonous tree', yet you won't allow your characters to get into a legal setting where that argument would ever come up. It's not a street term. It's not a cop lingo term, it's a legal argument, that would be argued on behalf of a defendant -- but you don't want a defendant, so that argument would never - ever arise.

I'm not sure how much more I can help. I've given you 2 scenarios that meet 3 out of the 5, but 5 out of the 5 is impossible because they are in conflict.

Now, if you're going for some schizophrenic type story where the cop and killer are one-in-the-same, then -- again, 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' will not apply. Reason: 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' only applies with respect to evidence procured for an arrest and prosecution. Its concept is that "ALL" the evidence collected has to be constitutional. It's impossible for someone to arrest themselves, so for 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' to ever come up -- someone else would have to arrest your schizophrenic MC(cop). And that arrest would stand, as the other cop isn't "all caught up" in your schizophrenic MC(cop)'s world.

Bottom line, if you want to delve into the legal complexities of 'Fruit of the poisonous tree', you have to, absolutely must have a legal setting. That means a defendant that is known to all.

 

Okay thanks. I wouldn't say I am in love with fruit of the poisonous tree, it just seems to be the way to go, to get the villain off the hook.

Sorry I should be more specific. What would happen is, is that the cop would tell the prosecutor who the killer he saw is. The prosecutor would then tell him that he is not going to press any charges, because the judge will just rule it fruit of the poisonous tree. So it doesn't go as far as the killer being charged because of that.

I won't be all over the place once I figure out what the best option is, then I can be more grounded. I want the villain to be free, and the MC to get in trouble, but big trouble that he would want to escape arrest, in order to get revenge on the villain. Basically I want him to be out for revenge but also as a fugitive, evading the police in the process.

I see three ways this can happen, but correct me if I am wrong.

1. The MC sees the suspect kill someone and tries to catch him but he gets away. He then admits to what happened but they cannot do anything about it since the evidence and his word, is tainted.

2. The MC sees the suspect kill someone, but either fails to catch him or he lets him get away, and he keeps quiet cause he knows that the evidence is all tainted and no charges will be pressed anyway. He keeps quiet hoping that the cops can find other evidence at the crime scene instead.

3. He decides to capture the villain at gunpoint after failing to stop the murder, and force him to plant his own DNA, prints, etc. He will then either let the villain go or bring him in. If he chooses to bring him in, something must happen for the villain to escape. The MC is later found out that he tried to frame him, and gets in trouble that way. But since the MC already tainted the evidence with his hacking and blackmailing, perhaps, planting DNA is not a necessary plot device.

Which way of these three, do you think is the best to meet the desired end goal? Or do they all have problems?

 

All three will kill your story. You'll have a few good chapters, but eventually you're going to box yourself in as a writer.

Take a day or two to mull of your MC(cop)'s motives. Look at the numbered items I created throughout our discussion -- those are your outlines as you gave them to me and that's how I write to avoid conflict.


First outline:

1. MC (cop) want's revenge against an unknown villain,
   2. MC has suspicion of a perp, so he blackmails a parolee to hack the 'acquaintance' of the suspected villain,
   3. That hack proves useful, so the MC is begins tailing the villain,
   4. Meanwhile, the villain finds out that 'someone' has been snooping, but isn't 100% sure who,
   5. Villain, mistakenly, targets and kills who he thinks is digging into his acquaintances/background,
   6. MC (cop) witnesses this killing...

Second outline:

1. MC (cop) want's revenge against an unknown villain,
   2. MC has suspicion of a perp, so he blackmails a parolee to hack the 'acquaintance' of the suspected villain,
   3. That hack proves useful, so the MC is begins tailing the villain,
   4. MC tails villain for a week, at some point MC enters villain's home and steals his weapon,
   5. Meanwhile, the villain finds out that 'someone' has been snooping, but isn't 100% sure who,
   6. Villain, mistakenly, targets and kills who he thinks is digging into his acquaintances/background,
   7. MC (cop) witnesses this killing...But doesn't make arrest,
   8. MC (cop) instead, waits for villain to clear crime scene and plant's the stolen weapon,
   9. MC (cop) calls in the murder,
   10. Detectives quickly tie villain to murder scene, arrest warrant issued,
   11. Detectives go to District Attorney with evidence, charges filed, case date is set,
   12. Meanwhile, detectives gathering additional witness statements run into a young boy, he has video of the MC (cop) planting the weapon,
   13. Case against villain is immediately withdrawn,
   14. MC (cop) is in some serious trouble with Internal Affairs....

Third outline:

1. You want the villain to get away unseen, -- you stated this is important for the tale to move forward,
2. You want the MC(cop) to know who the villain is, but only because he's been trailing him via some illegal activity,
3. You want to invoke 'Fruit of the poisonous tree', but the villain is unknown to all except the MC (cop) so there is no legal setting for 'Fruit of the poisonous tree' to even come up,
4. You want the other cops to take the MC(cops) word for who the villain is,
5. You want the MC(cop)'s claims to be so 'out-there' that not even his buddies in blue believe him.