The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Okay thanks. I guess I feel I have enough character development scenes, and could use more plot. Kind of like how movies like The Dark Knight, and The Departed seem just as plot focused as they are character focused, if not more so.

As far as making the captain an opponent, the reason why the captain goes after him, is because he finds out that the MC framed him later. I need a reason for the captain to go after him in the first place, since in most cases of law, you cannot arrest someone since they have not committed a crime yet. I need to give him a reason for the captain to go after him and stop him, so what can that reason be, since he has not killed the villain yet or anything? If it's not planting evidence to implicate the captain, then what can I do get him in trouble, prior, that will legally hold up?

He doesn't want the captain out of the way though, he does want the captain to participate in the villain's take down to a degree. I was also told by one reader who likes this newer draft that he says that as far as the MC's plan being outlandish goes, that it has no more holes in it, compared to what you would see in a John Grisham or Scott Turrow novel. If that's true, how far can push the outlandishness, if' it's no worse than Grisham or Turrow for example?

 

Because the captain knows he's trying to kill the bad guy. A nice and simple reason. The Captain is a cop, after all, and he could be overly dutiful. If the good guy simply steals evidence from the station in order to help his vengeance, that crime alone would be enough.

Often the 'ally opponent' which is the Captain, starts as an opponent, but if the hero convinces him through action or evidence that he is right, the Captain becomes an Ally. That's a tried and tested dramatic device.

 

Okay thanks. But I was told by almost every reader, including cops, that a cop would not go after someone just because they thought that person was going to kill someone. No crime has happened yet to charge him with, so legally they cannot stop him. They can follow him, but they cannot actually stop and detain him, which is what I want for mine. I guess it makes sense, real life is not like the police in Minority Report of course . But is there a way I can make this believable to the reader that I am missing, especially if it's a reader that's about attention to detail to things like that? This is what I mean, the captain needs a reason that legally holds water.

 

That's why he needs to steal evidence. Just ideas. Write what you like, in the end, but this is the direction I'd go.

 

Okay thanks, but the police have no evidence in lock up to use. If they did, they would use it against the villain himself, if the evidence was worth stealing for anything.

Even the MC causing another victim to be killed because of his computer hacking isn't enough to get arrested since it was an accident I was told, he literally needs to kill someone in cold blood himself for the cops to stop him from doing anything on his own time in the real world. So if readers tell me that not even getting someone killed by accident is enough to arrest a cop, then why would stealing evidence get him into trouble? It's not a very prosecutable crime though, they would probably just let him go.

 

Because stealing evidence is a deliberate, planned act, not an accident. And even if they let him go, it seems like enough to get him suspended or fired and therefore cut off from access to all of the resources of the police department.

 

Just because you have evidence doesn't mean you can convict, or even arrest. Maybe that's part of the heroes frustration. Or they think the evidence points to something else, and the hero knows better, but needs to possess it to get the killer. There are lots of options. Get creative. It could be a key or a swipe-card or a document. Murder isn't the only crime. If the captain has issues with the Hero he could trump up charges, even suspend him. Does he actually need to get arrested? What purpose will this serve and can you achieve the desired outcome another way? It seems to be a pointless plot element you're determined to include.

 

Anyway, these are just suggestions and need to be taken as such. As I say to my friend, who I do script editing for before he goes to production, you need to have confidence in your own work and writing to determine what suggestions you adopt and what criticism you respond to. Don't write via committee. Even if all of your readers hate something, if you like it and believe in it, use it. There are plenty of examples where a determined belief has proven itself despite the critics. So with this in mind I will continue to state what I believe should be done, knowing that you have the determined confidence to make the most suitable choice for your story.

 

Okay thanks. It's just I want the police to attempt to stop him by force as oppose to just firing him and then that's it. I want them to actually physically try to stop him but for that he needs to have already done something pretty serious. What if they charge him with felony murder? Since he's a cop. he's knows the difference between a trumped up charge, and a charge that is actually legitimately going to get taken to trial, that he cannot beat easily.

So what if he was charged with felony murder, since his computer hacking and blackmail of the hacker counts as felonies, and it lead to the series of events that got the next victim killed. Would this count as felony murder? I read that in order for it to stick he would have to at least take the killer hostage which leads to another person being killed. I suppose he could do that and try to get some info out of him but is that really better than just following her around to his next would be killing?

But I was told it would be hard to prove hostage taking as oppose to him saying it was an arrest only.

 

What if the guy he's chasing sets him up?

Done to death, I know, but a proven plot device.

 

I know but I don't want to use it's since it's been done to death, and it also feels like nothing more than a plot device. At least the MC framing the captain, although illogical, he had a reason for it, cause he in disdain of cops who don't take rapes seriously enough. I feel that my villain does not have enough motive to frame the MC at this point in the story, as he has other things going on, and does not know the MC is onto him so much at that point. It just feels like a plot device, where as the illogical captain framing, feels more special because it's personal. But I guess personal doesn't cut it.

 

Funny thing you said to ignore critics and use what you have, because I was told by others to use the plot about him framing the captain lol. But I suppose I shouldn't use it, unless he would do it out if disdain towards him. I am honestly not sure where to go at this point.

Especially since some readers thought I was going for a rape and revenge type story in the tone of Natural Born Killers (1994), or something like that. Where as others think I am going for something super realistic, like The Wire (2002). How do I know what tone I should use and how unrealistic I can go, with such dark material?

But I have lost a lot of confidence over the weeks, especially since a lot of writers are able to debunk a lot of ideas as being unrealistic.

 

The best advice I took to heart a long time ago was: It doesn't need to be possible, only plausible.

Readers would think something unrealistic because it doesn't make sense, not because that's 'not how it works in real life'. Many movies are technically unrealistic, yet we accept them because they are plausible in context of the story. Crazy films go crazy, while straight films try to remain authentic. Superhero films go totally insane, while crime dramas need to base themselves on plausible logic (not reality, understand, but plausible logic.)

You seem to be losing confidence because people keep telling you to do something, and when you do, others tell you not to. They do this because, as you say, they have different ideas on what the film is. And this will never change. You will always get contradictions. But YOU know what it is, so in the end, you are the only person who will know what is the best way to go. You don't have to come up with all the ideas yourself, but you do need to choose what works for you and your story. If you don't understand an idea, or can't make it work, scrap it.

As to how realistic? Depends. I can't tell you how you can know. That's part of the craft. You need to build a world that makes sense to itself, and stick to the rules you design. The Crow is unrealistic, but gritty and plausible. Dark City is technically ludicrous, but an engaging, cinematic masterpiece. As is Blade Runner, another alternate take on a detective story that falls apart under scrutiny. Even Heat, as mentioned before, it completely spitting in the face of reality. But it feels real. You buy into the world. And achieving that, unfortunately, is why writing is hard.

My advice, is that advice is critical. But only useful if you learn how to filter it.

I think you're on the right path, as far as screenwriting is concerned. But it's a bumpy road.

edit: fuck me. Not blowing my own horn but that's some of the best script-writing advice I've given here....

 

Okay thanks. That helps a lot. What about what BayView said about the idea of the captain being framed before?

For my story which deals with controversial and dark material, how far can I push the realism, especially when it comes a general action/crime story?

There is one more thing. In the climax of my story, I want it to end in a police sting operation. Where the cops trick the villain into being at a certain place, so he can do something particular to incriminate himself

However, is their any reason why the captain would reject this idea, and need to be pushed into moving forward with it? I mean the captain doesn't really care a lot about his subordinate officer being violated by the killer, but would he still pass up the opportunity for whatever reason and need to be pushed into doing so?

 

In my script, there is a complicated scenario, where I would need an opinion from people who are more familiar with the law then I am. Here goes:

So in my script a cop wants revenge on the villain because the villain got away with his crimes, and damaged the cop. Pretty standard.

The cop does not know who the villain is, though, and it's a mystery killer. He knows someone who could know who he is, but they are not in contact anymore, and there is no evidence that he can find to link them. Since he is not allowed to go into that person's personal information, the cop blackmails a parolee, who was good at computer hacking in his past crime life. He forces the parolee to hack into the man's information, which the cops did have probable cause for a warrant to get into it of course.

From here, the cop discovers who the villain could very well be. He then starts tailing the villain on his own time. The villain finds out that he has been hacked and someone is onto him.

He has reason to believe that it's someone else though, and he goes and murders that man instead. The cop who was following the villain while this happens, fails to stop the murder in time, but witnesses it while following him.

Now I want the villain to be able to get away with it again and for the hero to get into trouble. I was wondering if it count's as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' as the saying goes?

Basically the hero is a witness to the murder, but it was his illegal extortion and computer hacking felonies, that got him to that point. So because of that, would it then count as fruit of the poisonous tree, and his testimony would be thrown out?

Or does that not apply in this scenario?

Thanks for advice

 

Is your story set in the US?

 

Sorry. I am not sure where to set it. I guess any city, U.S.A., cause I am not sure right now, but we will say the U.S. for now.

 

I can't comment on the US, but as far as the UK goes, murder is murder, wherever it is committed in the world.

Your 'fruit of the poisonous tree' (by that name) is peculiar to the US, and denies the admissibility of evidence obtained under certain circumstances (and in the UK e.g. as agent provocateur). From what you're saying, if your hero witnessed a murder - a chain of cause and effect instigated by him - that shouldn't bar any direct testimony he may have. The cop's problem is all the associated offences he's committed. The villain will have no excuse whatever for his crimes.

 

I'm almost wondering about entrapment - the guy committed the murder because of the actions of a law enforcement officer - but I don't know US law well enough to have a good opinion on that.

And, sorry, OP, I don't know US law well enough to know about the fruit of the poisoned tree, either. I know there are circumstances when an off-duty cop is deemed to not be an agent of law enforcement, meaning the doctrine doesn't apply, but I'm not sure how this determination is made.

 

Okay thanks. I asked one person who says they are an expert and says that the doctrine still applies when off duty cause they are still a representative of the law. So it may not work for my story if that's the case.

 

An expert, like, someone practicing criminal law in the US? Okay, trust him or her. But it's just an internet expert, you may want to research yourself.

I found: Even an off-duty police officer "may" not be acting as a law enforcement officer in conducting a search, when he acts in his capacity as a private citizen, and through mere curiosity. (People v. Wachter (1976) 58 Cal.App.3rd 311, 920-923; see also People v. Peterson (1972) 23 Cal.App.3rd 883, 893; off-duty police trainee acting out of concern for his own safety.) http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/290

I don't think either of those exceptions meet your scenario, but possibly you could have your cop take a leave of absence or find some other workaround? I don't think it's an absolute no-go just because he's a cop.

ETA: See also http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2013/03/unlawful-reaction-to-unlawful-action.aspx which has examples of times when the poisonous fruit doctrine was applied to the original crime but not to subsequent crimes committed by the accused. So your guy couldn't use anything he found as evidence of the villain's original crimes, but the doctrine doesn't seem to apply to the subsequent crimes.

Again, I'm far from an expert on US law, but this makes it seem like you'd be okay with your scenario. Disregard my points if your other 'expert' is actually an expert.

 

Fast forward to 34:30, watch for 3 min. for best poisonous fruit tree quote. Good movie, too.

 

For my story, there is a gang of criminals, and one of them has a crisis of conscience and wants out. He doesn't go home and hides from home for a few weeks while other plot sections unfold. The gang calls him though and tells him in order to get out that he will have to do something horribly felonious for them so they can have collateral over him. Possibly he may have to kill someone.

Later, another character, let's call him the cop since he is one, gets too close to the gang and the gang has to deal with him, before they are busted. They call the gang member who wants out and tell him that if he kills the cop for them, he's out.

The gang member rushes their to do so, but it's just a ruse since he has morals now. He is also compelled to save the cop. The cop becomes aware that this gang member is assigned to kill him in order to get out. The gang member gets there and the cop temporarily escapes. In the midst of a gunbattle the gang member is struck by one of the bullets, in the face, and dies.

The cop then maims the gang members face even further to the point where he is not recognizable and switches clothes with him. He also takes the gang member's mask and puts it on. The rest of the gang arrives and sees the gang member dead but think it's the cop, since his face is destroyed and he is wearing the cop's clothes. They see that the actual cop is wearing the gang member's mask and clothes, so they think it's the gang member. Since he did his job, they let him go.

So far a couple of reader's had no problem with it, but another couple didn't buy that a gang would assign one of their own to kill a cop in order to get out. They just said that logically if they didn't want their gang member to do get out, since it's a risk of not being able to trust him, they would just kill him, instead of offering him an ultimatum. Why wait till someone has to be killed when you can just kill the cop? Basically I figured that one murder is better for two, since it's double the risk of being caught if you do it twice.

But what do you think? Is this idea realistic or logical? Thanks for the input .

 

If they are good friends with the person who wants out, even if they didn't respect the decision I doubt they would want to kill a friend.

 

Perhaps you could get in to the habit of mentioning things in a bit more detail (such as the MC being too poor to bail herself out), and then go back and consider removing or simplifying your explanations when editing. You could also set the story to a place where bailing people out is illegal, or even claim that the MC is stupid or wasn't in her right mind if you're willing to go that far. Of course you may also want to consider a major rewrite or to purposefully ignore the plot hole and just move on like nothing's wrong.