The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Why is Cop B involved with the villain?
Why does Cop A know or care about Cop B? Is that directly related to the other interactions between Cop A and the villain, or are the two links coincidental?
Why did Cop B turn up at the shootout?
Why did a shootout that ended with a cop's death magically have not a single prosecutable piece of evidence against the villain?
How can the villain come up with a whole bag of evidence against Cop B, not one bit of it allowing prosecution of the villain?
Why is every last little piece of evidence dependent on Cop A's honesty, so that it's lost if Cop A doesn't look like a good guy?
If Cop A has behaved that badly, why don't the police just put him in jail, too?
Why is Cop A being released if the police AND the news think that he's out to kill the villain?
How can the villain hide if the police AND the news know, and broadcast, everything they know about him?
Added: Why doesn't the villain just kill Cop A? He's killing people right and left, right? Why is it that the one who can harm him is the one he isn't willing to kill?

 

Cop B is involved with the villain because they go back and he believes in the villains cause.
Cop A is good friends with Cop B, and does not like Cops being killed and the killer's getting away with it. Cop A does not know anything of Cop B's criminal activities.
Cop B turned up at the shootout because before it turned into a shootout, the villain called Cop B, for assistance in some criminal activity where he thought that having a cop helping him would have it's advantages.
The shootout ended with not a single piece of evidence because the villain wore gloves and a mask, and any DNA left at the scene, was in a public place that the villain was already in previously with an alibi.
When the villain comes up with evidence to prove Cop B's involvement, he cares about saving his own life, rather than going to jail. He does not want Cop A to kill him, and would rather be arrested and get a lawyer and see what happens, other than being killed.
Not every last piece of evidence is reliant on Cop A's honesty. They just don't have enough evidence at the moment. That does mean that every piece of evidence has to come out of Cop A, they just don't have enough.
The reason why the police do not put Cop A in jail is because he is on the run, and hiding, while looking for the villain. The cops are currently looking for him.
The villain can hide from the police, because he is hiding in a place where no one knows where he is. He only comes out of hiding to give Cop A the evidence, but other than that, he stays completely out of sight till the time being.
If the villain kills Cop A, then more cops can want revenge. He does not want to create a domino effect problem that will just get more angry cops after him.

 

What cause?
So Cop A is good friends with Cop B AND, purely by coincidence, is an enemy of the villain? Pretty big coincidence.
Cop B turning up just in time to get shot is a pretty big coincidence.
A shootout that leaves no evidence whatsoever is quite unlikely.
The villain handing over evidence that could send him to jail seems quite unlikely. Evidence that could condemn Cop B without sending the villain to jail seems quite unlikely.

It's an elaborate, teetering, unlikely structure. I say again, you need to start over.

 

Also, how does this work? It would certainly be nice for the villain if he were completely invisible, somehow getting power and water and food and communication without there ever being a trace, obtaining access to the place without anyone ever knowing about it, handling all the financial transactions without there being any record at all. But that doesn't mean that it's possible.

 

Okay thanks. However, Cop A does not become an enemy of the villain until the villain kills his friend. So is it really that big of coincidence when the event causes him to become an enemy?

Is Cop B turning up in time, really a coincidence when the villain calls him and tells him to come? I thought if someone calls you and tells you to go somewhere, and you go, that it's not a coincidence because you were told to go there, and you did.

Plus, you also answered the question of why the villain is willing to come forth. He needs to get food and water, and does not want to hide in some hole for who knows how long. So that's why he would rather come forth, even if it means being arrested, than hide.

When it comes to wanting to get all the characters in the same place and time for the climax, how do I approach that in a plausible way? I think I am going this all wrong, and I need to structure a story differently for when it comes to getting the character to arrive in the same place and time, when the villains motivation is to stay away from his opponent.

I have come up with some other outlines for the story, where it is much more straightfoward, I guess you could say, and much more simple. The only thing is, is that I am not satisfied with the simple straightforward plot structure, because I feel the villain is caught too easily on all of them. Basically it seems whenever I come up with a much more simple plot, it ends too soon, and the climax itself feels underwhelming.

Perhaps I am too hard on myself and a simple and short story, that is very low key is okay but I feel something is missing with all the simple outlines I have come up with. I am using the term simple, because I was told on here, that I need to make it much more simple before, but simple leads to short and more predictable and less dramatic outcomes, it seems like, at least to me.


Plus a lot of times when I come up with a much more clean story, I feel I have to throw theme out the window. Because I have to choose between what characters would logically do, versus the theme I am trying to present at the same time. So I guess I feel that my straightforward attempts are not as strong on theme as they should be.

 

An implausible, incredibly fragile story full of coincidences and unlikely behaviors is simply not going to work. "Theme" is not going to save it from those flaws.

 

@Ryan Elder, I may be wrong but it seems to me that you decide what you want to happen and then try to work out why your characters would do certain things or act in a certain way to make them happen. That isn't inherently wrong but it's not working for your particular story. If I were you I would scrap all your pre-conceived ideas about what events happen and in what order, and start from the beginning.

You have a cop and a villain. The cop needs to catch the villain, so what's the first thing he tries - Plan A? Then, when your villain realises what Plan A is (and he should, if he's a smart villain) what does it do to stop it? Block A. When your cop realises Plan A hasn't worked, he has to get around Block A by creating Plan B. Your villain then has to come up with Block B.

And so on. If I were you I would sit and write out:
Plan A - xxx
Block A - xxx
Plan B - xxx
Block B - xxx
Plan C - xxx
etc...

For each Plan and Block, make sure it is the most logical, realistic and clever thing to do for the situation. Try and come up with multiple possibilities and then choose the one that makes the most sense. When I say possibilities, they have to be possible for the character. For example, your cop is probably not going to be able or willing to harm other people in order to catch the villain, because he's a cop sworn to protect people. So when you're brainstorming, think like your character instead of like Ryan.

Do this until eventually you come up with a plan for which there is no effective block. Or your cop can come up with Plan X and Y at the same time, so while the villain is busy coming up with Block X, your cop puts Plan Y into practice and catches him. There should be no element of luck or coincidence - your cop must catch the villain because of his actions, not because the stars align in the right way and not because your villain does something stupid. Your villain can make mistakes, but not out of stupidity, just because your cop was smarter OR because the villain couldn't conceivably expect his Block to go wrong in the way it did. Readers will feel cheated if the cop wins because the villain is plain stupid. Your cop should also make mistakes, but they shouldn't be fatal.

 

@Ryan Elder: You asked the question, "Would this character make this type of decision logically?"

When the answers were no, instead of considering the issues with logic, you are defending the plot you've come up with. Why did you ask?

You can still write the same story with a few changes to make the villain's actions logical. Take down the barrier that is your desire to write the story as you've thought it up and consider why you asked us the question in the first place.

Go back and re-read the posts. The answers to your OP question are there.

 

Okay thanks. One thing I have a habit of doing is I do what writing books tell me. For example, I read the book The Anatomy of Story by John Truby, and he says to come up with the premise and then come up with the ending next, so you know how to build into that ending. I think that is my problem is that maybe I want to come up with an ending I think is good, and then build into it.

Now I have taken opposite approaches for this story as well, and created outlines where I don't know what the ending is going to be and just had the characters make the most logical, smartest decisions they could. But every outline I come up with, where they do that, I feel that it always leads to an ending I do not like it all. The endings are anticlimatic or undewhelming, because I did not come up with the best ending I could first, and instead the characters decisions have come to an ending that is not good.

I could go with one of those outlines, but I am concerned that readers may read and feel cheated that they did not get more of a thoughtful ending, compared to an ending which may feel anticlimatic, like an ending to a story you may hear on the news, rather than a climatic third act in fiction. When it comes to writing, should I come up with the ending last, and whatever ending that resulted from the characters actions, is the right ending to use? Or should I come up with what I think would be the biggest ending for the reader, for suspense and theme, and try to build into it?

 

The only thing we are posting about here is your character's motivation and the actions which would be consistent with logic. No one is suggesting changing the basics of the story.

 

Okay thanks. Also when it comes to having luck and coincidence in a story, this seems to happen all the time in fiction. For example,, I am going to spoil a couple of movies:


in the No Country for Old Men, the guy finds a tracking device on him, realizing he is being tracked, just before the hitman who is tracking him comes to his door. What a coincidence that he was notified of being tracked, just in time for him to get ready for it.

Or in the movie No Way Out for example, the villain commits murder, and then makes it look like a Russian spy they have been tracking, has done it. They appoint a man to investigate it, to make everything look legit. However they man the appoint not only turns out to be the Russian spy they were tracking but he was also secretly romantically involved with the victim, the villain is trying to frame him for murder on. The whole ending and premise is based on a double coincidence. So I feel that you see these things all the time in stories, and cannot tell how it is breaking the rules.

Also what if for the ending I want, I want the MC or the villain, or both to make decisions that are revelations of their characters. Can I have a character revelation in the ending, or no? If my character has to make decisions from the beginning, how do I have him or her end up at a revelation, if all his decisions would logically lead to a different revelation than intended?

 

I am trying to come up with a new ending for my story, and I would like to hear if you think my villain or main character would do this.

Basically the MC is a cop who wants to find proof on the villain and investigates the villain on his own time, after the villain is found not guilty in court for his past crimes. After monitoring the villain for a few weeks and getting nowhere, the MC decides to break into his house and finds a safe. He breaks into the safe, and finds evidence that can be used, in other crimes, so the double jeopardy law does not apply because the evidence pertains to other crimes.

After the MC breaks into the safe though, a silent alarm is triggered that calls the villains sell phone. The villain rushes back to his house and intercepts the MC as he is examining the evidence in the safe. A shootout starts, and people who hear the shots from afar, call the cops. The MC ends up not escaping with the evidence and leaving the evidence behind as he escapes.

The villain knows that the cops have been called likely, so he puts the evidence back in the safe and locks it before they get there. He reports a break in, saying it was an armed man and acting aloof, like he doesn't know anything more.

Since the MC is guilty of breaking and entering, the evidence cannot be used of course, and the cops have no legal grounds to search the man's safe. The MC's superiors find out about it and fire him for what he did. The villain cannot go back to the residence to get his stuff out of the safe, without being seen now, though cause the place is now a crime scene and can very likely be watched. So he has to leave it there, hoping the cops will not get a warrant to search it.

Later on in the plot in climax, the MC goes back to the residence, and busts open the safe again. This alerts the villain again, but this time the MC gets the cops their ahead of time to catch the villain. Now when I did legal research before, evidence cannot be admissible in court, if the cop had to commit breaking and entering to get it there obviously, because then it's tainted. However, if a civilian breaks and enters, they are allowed to use the evidence legally I was told, because civilians don't need warrants, but they can still be charged with breaking and entering of course.

Now that the cop is a civilian since he was fired, him breaking into the safe, and getting the cops there, ahead of time, makes the evidence admissible. Plus if the cops get there while the safe is still open, it can be considered as evidence found upon arrival of a the call to the police, now.

However, will the readers believe that technicality to work? And would the readers believe that the villain would go back to a safe, a second time, after the residence has been deemed a crime scene, even if it's to protect the evidence and get rid of it, if he has to?

 

There are those that would believe it, and those that won't. You can't expect everyone to find something plausible in a story. I personally may find it a little too convenient how everything went down, but others may not. Just write your story however you want.

 

a couple of things here.

1.) MC cop breaks into the house off duty, without a warrent, and looks for evidence. : This is not search without a warrant. This is a straight up Breaking and Entering Case. Officer isn't just getting suspended, the officer is probably going to jail. Police don't do well in prison. At the very least he is getting probation.

2.) There is a shootout. Depending on the State, the homeowner may or may not have the right to shoot intruders on sight. The officer would be in heaps of trouble yet again. BE and then firing at the home owner in their own home?

3.) Officer break in again. More BE, this cop will be spending a ton of time in jail...hope you dont have a second book planned using this character.

Side Question.) The bad guy kept the evidence in the exact same safe which had already been broken in to? Is he a complete idiot? Seems like somebody this dumb would slip up and be caught through normal legal means, but i digress.

4.) To be considered a Private Persons search it must be determined that the Private Citizen had a reasonable personal cause for being in the premise. This normally goes along the lines of --man was hiking in the woods, found what appeared to be marijuana plants on someone property, investigates, confirms, reports-- or --A private investigator, enters a location to find evidence of a wives infidelity for her client, only to discover that the wife has hired a hitman to kill her husband--. The Private Citizen can not be acting as an agent of the police or have his reasoning for entering the premise be based expressly around solving an open police case. Having been an officer involved with the case, reprimanded for it, and suspended your MC no longer has reasonable personal cause. His actions are being moved by his involvement in the case, and he would be deemed as acting as an agent of the law. There is no way that anything that he finds will be usable in court.

So if your intent is to be realistic, then i think you are going to want to go back and look at the ways you can change some story aspects. That said, your average Castle, CSI, or Bones episode is less realistic that what you have thought up, and part of storytelling is a little bit of suspension of belief.

 

Okay thanks. I was told by police in my research that a private citizen can get around the fruit of the poisonous tree laws, but yes I should have gotten more specifics. But I guess that's the point of brainstorming ideas, to determine if they work.

I was told before by other readers though, that the villain would not go back to his safe, if it is being watched a crime scene and he would keep the evidence in it. Because if he takes it out and the cops see him do it, if they could be watching, then he incriminates himself. So I was told by others that he would leave it in, hoping the cops would eventually go away, and would only go in the safe to get it, if he had to, hence in the case of another break in.

However, even though a citizen does not have the right to break in, to get evidence, if the cops are called and they get there in time to SEE the evidence in the open, such as an safe that is open, they have the legal right to use the evidence to arrest the owner in the court of law. I mean if I have drugs or illegal material in my house for example, and someone breaks in, and the cops are called to my house, they have the right to arrest me, if they see the illegal material out in the open. So wouldn't that work here, and it wouldn't matter what reason the intruder had to break in?

 

I don't see how your last paragraph is significantly different from your original situation. The evidence was revealed as a result of the actions of a former police officer who was formerly working on the case that the evidence is specifically relevant to. If that would make the situation legal, then police officers could regularly have their friends and relatives, or even their off-duty colleagues, throw bricks through the windows of all of their suspects in all of their cases, and then call the police about the broken window.

 

Okay thanks. So the law of finding evidence on the scene is only admissible in court then, if the person breaking in, is someone who does not know anything of the case prior then?

 

It sounds to me that you are basing an entire plotline around a weak legal triviality. According to what you said, the entire plot hinges on this "loophole" which in and of itself is not very interesting. Speaking for myself, I will be very disappointed in the author if the villain gets caught by the MC saying "But I'm a civilian. I don't need a warrant to search his house. You can't dismiss this evidence!"

FYI: He's not conducting a search, he's breaking in. Civilians don't need a search warrant because legally, there is no search warrant where civilians are concerned.

About the climax part: If the MC gets fired as a cop halfway through the story, then what gives him the confidence to break the law and open the safe a second time? This also sounds weird because if during the second break-in the MC gets the cops to intercept, how and why do the cops still work with him?

 

Okay thanks. This is suppose to be the climax though, where the villain is caught with the evidence, not the entire plot.

The cops do not still work for the MC. The police have a duty to check out break ins, no matter who is breaking in. They are not going to not respond just because they do not approve of the person breaking in. If the officer's reason for not responding to a break in, was that he didn't approve of the person breaking in, he too would be in trouble, obviously. So the other officers are going to respond, because it's their job.

I was told by a lawyer that if a cop responded to break in and found illegal materials of the owner, then the owner can be arrested because it was found on the scene. If that's not true, then the lawyer was wrong I guess.

 

It's a cop responding to a breakin by a cop.

 

Okay thanks. The law did not say that if a cop breaks in, that the illegal materials become inadmissible. They do when the police perform an illegal search, but not a break in, if they have been fired and are a civilian.

 

Did you read the posts above at all? Even a little bit?

 

Okay thanks. So basically if an officer responds to a break in, finds illegal materials, and then arrests the owner for possessing them, his case will be thrown out of if the intruder turns out to be a former cop associated with the case then. I was not told by the lawyer of that acception to the rule. But if that's the way it works, I will not use it then, and think of something else.

 

The suspended officer would be recognized by the courts as an agent of the police, and any evidence found via his involvement would not be usable in court. The fact is, that because he worked the case he will never be seen as a simple Private Person, and any ongoing harassment will not viewed in the courts as "through the course of normal actions".

In the real world, you criminal would be a free man, and your MC would be spending a pretty long time in prison.

 

This is true, however there are a ton of exceptions and your story falls under them. In the real world, if police officers ask a civilian to check out a location that the police are unable to get a warrent for and report back. That civilian is "acting as a agent of the police" and anything they find, or that the cops find as a result is not usable in court. That said, TV shows like Castle and Bones regularly ignore this rule.

Any officer that is suspended, fired, or retired is always considered and "agent of the police" in any of his/her active investigations. This is to prevent abuse of the system (i.e. the firing of an officer so that he main collect evidence as a civilian, to be re-hired once the case is closed).

Depending on how accurate you want to be to the legal system i would work to change your climax. The current scene you have in mind however will require some suspension of disbelief and will anger many crime drama readers.

Good luck, i know you'll find an even better solution to wrap the whole story up.