The collected musings of Ryan Elder

I think rape can be used in whatever way you want as long as it makes sense and isn't horrendously offensive, like portraying rape as okay. How does he take his revenge? If he's, for example, killing twenty, thirty people one rape might be too little to adequately justify that. Unless the circumstances were particularly sadistic. Maybe he rapes the person back? That would be an interesting response, poetic justice and all, not that I would advocate that in real life.

 

I was thinking of ending my story with one, where the police set up a sting to catch the villain in the act, so to speak.

But there is one thing about sting operations and the legal system, that I am having trouble understanding. When you set up a villain to commit a crime in order to trap him, you can only prosecute him for the current crime, and there will still be no evidence to charge him on the past ones, is that right?

Like for example, in the movie The Departed...

SPOILER

Costello and his gang are busted in a sting operation at the end, when the police catch him in the act of a drug meet, and stop it. However, it seems that the only thing they can charge the gang with is attempting to deal drugs, since they stopped them in the process.

All of those murders, that Costello's gang committed before, including that of the police captain, who the cops were so anxious to get justice for. Yet in the end, they settle for drug transaction charges.

So I feel that I want to make an ending like that work, but how do you have the reader be satisfied if the villain is going down for being caught for a lesser crime, where as still getting away with all the heinous crimes, he committed previously?

Unless the law dictates that you can legally link the villain to his past crimes, based on the current one? I mean the term caught red handed, has some legal precedence to it, or does it really not?

Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it.

 

It depends on the situation exactly what would likely happen but there's a few ways this can go after the camera cuts:

First; the present crime is substantial enough to put a person/group in jail for a long long time, potentially for life.

In this case the cops don't care about getting them on anything else, the guys are going to jail forever and ever and thats good enough. Don't quote me but I believe that most high-end drug offenses have a '...to life' upper bound so just because someone isn't caught murdering someone doesn't mean they won't go away for a long long time. While some 'life' offenses can lead to people leaving jail in 10 or 12 years parole boards really don't look favorably on drug dealers.

Second; holding a bunch of guys on very substantial charges gives you a very good chance to get one to turn on the group and give them concrete evidence of other, earlier crimes.

This can (at least in fiction) be a major reason to run a sting operation to begin with. If you are investigating a gang and can't quite get the evidence to put them away for whatever they are up to you might arrange a sting to grab them all for something and use that leverage to bust your way into a wider enterprise. While some groups are reasonably resistant to this. In fiction the Italian mafia is normally written to be (getting all Omerta up in here) but in practice it's actually much more strictly regimented groups like the Russian Mafia who really won't give up their comrades. More fluid groups like street gangs (of any flavor) have been extremely vulnerable to this kind of attack in the past.

Third; the cops are using RICO or another organised crime statute. This is how the cops might link a number of crimes together.

RICO is a really complex law but in principle (my understanding, you should research) you only need to prove a definable group of people have committed at least one crime as a group in the past and one crime as a group in the present. So your sting is your present crime. You already have evidence of an earlier crime within the RICO statute (this is both weirdly broad and annoyingly narrow - you need evidence of them acting as a group, so one guy slinging crack won't do it but I believe if you can show a bunch of guys handling stolen goods together then that'll count; again you'll have to look it up). If you are setting someone up for a RICO prosecution you want an absolute slam dunk for at least one of the crimes falling under it and a sting is a superb idea for that. The results of RICO can be far reaching and frankly extreme. While the people themselves can't be give (again IIRC) sentences much longer than sentences than they would otherwise have gotten for their actions RICO allows the state to go after the proceeds of their enterprise, so they can take houses, cars, jewelry, anything that anyone in the criminal conspiracy can't prove they bought with legitimate income. This is part of the reason why the modern mob (see The Sopranos) is really really careful about having a legitimate income (so Tony works for a sanitation consulting firm) which will ensure that a RICO prosecution wouldn't be able to attack their homes or families.

There could be several of these happening together. You might be happy just to put people away then find a guy who wants to talk. He might then give you the evidence to use RICO. All of these things can come together. Or fall apart, of course. You might go after a group with RICO, then find your old crime is shaky, then try to flip someone, then have to just settle with the crime you have.

 

For lack of a better term, rape in fiction can be very flippant. TV Tropes used to have a page called Rape is the New Dead Parents, by which they meant that "I was raped" had replaced "my parents were murdered" as the go-to means of motivating a character with as little time and authorial effort as possible. As far as emotional impact or honest acknowledgement of trauma, they might as well be taking vengeance against a bird for pooping on their head.

The best-handled rape I've seen in a published novel was a single sentence: "He made me watch while he did things to Mom, and he made Mom watch while he did things to me." The worst-handled rape I've seen in a published novel was also a single sentence: "Well, I was raped too." The former sounds like the speaker isn't capable of talking about it in detail. The latter sounds like it's not important enough to bother discussing

 

Okay thanks. But I don't think RICO would work in this case, since my villains have already gotten a rid of all the evidence that connects them all to their past crimes in the story. At least I cannot think of a reason why they wouldn't have, or why they would keep any evidence.

As for the current crime they are being stung for by the police, the current crime is being in possession of blackmail material that they were blackmailing one of their alleged members, who was murdered. But just because they have blackmail material, does not necessarily mean they are the same ones who murdered the man, especially if their is no physical evidence to tie them to it.

I cannot have physical evidence tie them to it, otherwise they would be arrested much earlier in the story, and it would be over too soon. But at the same time, I cannot think of anything else to catch them on, besides that, since their crime is over at this point, and they do not have any other to commit.

I am setting the story in Canada, where I live, and there, the penalty for blackmail is only a few years.

 

There's two potential ways you can go -

First - Conspiracy.

Blackmail, as you say, is not a serious crime. Conspiracy to commit murder on the other hand, that's a big deal. If they guy ends up dead (ie the conspiracy was successful) then every member of the conspiracy can be charged with conspiracy to commit, which in law is punishable the same as the primary act. If you were to hire a hit man then you'd get charged with conspiracy to commit murder and that'll get you a life sentence (although I'm reasonably sure not a death sentence in the US). So perhaps the blackmail stuff is the missing link the cops need to build up a broader picture of the murder. Especially if they were already suspicious of this group having a concrete motive might crack the case wide open.

Second - Felony Murder (which in this case means 'A murder while performing a felony' not 'a murder that is a felony.)

Alongside conspiracy there is a third way you can get charged for a murder you didn't actually personally commit (the first one being straight murder by the way; if you were acting as part of a group the whole group gets charged with the crime even if someone else pulled the trigger). Felony murder means you (or an accomplice) killed someone in the commission of another crime. Felony murder means that, in essence, you can't claim self defense if you were committing a crime, nor can you really be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide or even really reckless endangerment if someone died. If you were committing (or intending to commit) a crime then any death can be laid at your door. I believe people have even been charged with felony murder when someone had a heart attack. You don't have to kill them, you don't even have to touch them, simply that they died while you were committing a crime; the idea being you shouldn't have been there and whatever happened you are responsible for. If a security guard shoots at your buddy who is waiting in the car while you are five floors up breaking into the safe, if he shoots the guard even to protect his own life your buddy will get murder, and you will get felony murder.

So how does this relate to you?

Well, if your gang were blackmailing someone and through the commission of that blackmail they killed him then they might all be on the hook for Felony Murder. They were committing a crime, they had no business being wherever they were (say to take money off the guy) and when he died, even if he fell out a window or had an unexpected stroke, they could reasonably all be charged with his death under certain circumstances. So perhaps your cops, being clever people, might ask the gang a carefully constructed set of questions that doesn't seem to be incriminating any of them for anything more than the blackmail but in fact puts the whole of them on the hook for his death in the commission of a crime.

Felony murder is a really weird thing for lots of reasons and you definitely should look it up and find the relevent statutes. It's not a commonly used law because the circumstances for it are kind of contrived but, well, it's out there. I don't know exactly what it's called in Canada (the term Constructive Homicide comes to mind but don't quote me) but it may well just be in your regular murder statute but it's a common law principal that exists in most developed countries in some form. Even an accident in the commission of a crime is murder because of the circumstances.

 

I agree that impactful dark concepts can be weakly represented making them less serious, and rape like all mature conc is more and more acceptable to depict, this leads to such depictions. I get the impression the author is going to depict quite thoroughly so insensitivity is unlikely. They be plenty of emotional moments on it and respect for it as an issue.

 

Yep in Canada it's called constructive murder as far as I know.

What I mean is, though, is that in court, the prosecutor could tell the jury, that the defendants were in position of material, they were using to blackmail the dead victim. But the defense lawyer can argue that just because they were blackmailing the victim, doesn't mean they killed him, and it seems that they would likely get off, based on that argument alone. I mean it's possible that someone else killed him, even though they were the ones blackmailing. It's unlikely, but still possible enough to a jury to raise reasonable doubt, right?

I am not planning on showing the actual trial, after, but the reader can assume that they would get off, based on this argument, no?

 

For my story, I want an undercover cop to work alone. But I am finding the premise difficult to make it work, cause I cannot think of why an undercover cop would. I mean you don't want to send a cop to infiltrate a dangerous criminal organization, without monitoring him, and wanting to keep him safe.

But I would like the cop to witness things, that no other cop does. Therefore later on, he has trouble getting his superiors to believe certain things about the case. It becomes the crooks word against his. But if he has back up, the other officers will support what he says, and it's easier for superiors to believe more than one cop, telling the same thing, compared to one only, against everyone else.

Plus since it's a very low budget screenplay, I would like him to work alone, so less actors would needed, if possible.

Is the concept feasible, or is it just not logical enough, and the police would just want to give the cop back up, that is surveying him, ready to go, in case his cover is blown?

 

Do you mean he'd work alone always? Like, he'd never check in with his handler or anything? I think that would be hard to explain.

But if you just have him being alone for the actual undercover part, I think that would make sense - I don't know much about real-world police procedure, but in TV/movie situations, the UC is almost always working alone when he's with the actual criminals. It's hard enough to get one officer in close to the bad guys--quite a bit harder to get more than one. And even if there were two working the same job, it would blow their cover pretty quickly if they insisted on always being together.

 

It's not that he has to be together with another one in person. But you think that there would be others in civilian looking cars, parked nearby the meeting places in case something were to go wrong. Basically there in my opening scene, the undercover cop, is having a meeting with some sinister criminals he is making contact with, for the first time.

However, you think that this would be dangerous and that other cops would want to be waiting a few blocks away, parked in cars, or observing the meeting from for away, out of sight, in case the undercover gets hurt, or it's an ambush.

It just seems odd to me that the handler would not provide any back up that stays out of sight, or anything like that, and I cannot think of a reason why the handler would not. But I kind of need a reason, if I am to have the undercover cop, witness things, that no other cops that are back up nearby, can see or hear.

I understand how a cop would not have back up all the time, but during the big sting operation, or during a meeting when you are to meet some dangerous individuals, for some crime discussion, wouldn't there be back up all around, and hidden?

 

I know one guy who works undercover, and when he's working, he's gone. Like, he doesn't go to his own house at the end of the day, he's out all hours with the bikers he's investigating, etc. He's with them day after day, week after week. So there really isn't a chance to have backup nearby all the time. He could get a call in the middle of the night or a knock on his door and he'd be on - not much chance to set things up.

So have your bad guys just show up at the UC's apartment and tell him to get in the car, or something. No time to plan anything.

 

Okay thanks. I guess I just have trouble buying it for some reason. In my story, the main character is going to meet the gang for the first time. However, he is being recruited in a way, in which he does not know who any of the gang members are. They would have to recruit newcomers by social media or something, that is untraceable, in order for the cops to not know who they are, even the undercover officer.

The gang is also recruiting the newcomer to commit a felony for them in order to prove his worth.

However, if he tells the superiors that is going to a strange remote location at night to meet a gang in which he has never met any of the members before, not knowing what they will have him do, or do to him... would his superiors just say good luck, and let him out on his own?

I just don't buy it myself. I mean if the cop disappears after, and the police have to tell the family, the family will ask "Why didn't you give him back up, to see if he would be okay, just in case something were to happen to him?"

The superiors would then have to say that it's standard protocol, that all undercovers must work alone with no surveillance. The family would then ask, who these gangsters are that made the cop disappear, and the police would then have to tell them, "since he was working alone, we do not have any idea who any of them are".

It just makes the cops come off as stupid and incompetent to the reader though, doesn't it?

 

I got some feedback from readers, where they didn't believe the scenario in my thriller.

A cop goes undercover to infiltrate a gang, but they said that it's not believable because the cop is from the same city as the gang and the police department would bring in someone from a different city, to avoid the gang, not ever recognizing the person from somewhere.

However, I have seen several works of fiction where they do the same thing, and I would assume that in a big city, the police count on the criminals not knowing everyone, since a lot of other works of fiction, bet on the same assumption.

However, does this come off as a plot hole, like the feedback suggests, I was wondering? Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it

 

Are the gang of the same ethnicity as the policeman?


And as far as I know, I always thought that the police reduced gang criminals sentences considerably if they betrayed their gang and became moles. I'd have thought most undercover people would be ex-gang members.

 

Yes they are the same ethnicity overall, why?

Also the police were not able to get any of the gang members to turn, so they have use an undercover cop to infiltrate them.

 

You can make the reader believe anything if your words are strong enough

 

Because it's easier to infiltrate the Sicilian Mafia if you're a Sicilian Italian rather than a US policeman.

On another note, the people reading your manuscript are doing so with a "critique mindset". Your average reader will suspend their disbelief more than a critique-er, keep that in mind.

 

I can see the beta readers' issue. Maybe your cop could be from a different precinct in the city, where the gang doesn't have eyes? It'd also depend on how competent your portray the gang - if they seem to be really on top of things otherwise, yeah, it'd stick out if they're not familiar with a cop who's been around for a while. If they're a bit less organized/competent then I'd excuse it more easily.

 

Or there could be reasons why it would have to be that particular cop and why it would be safe to use them ? Perhaps the cop has particular language skills, but has been looking after the evidence store for 3 years due to annoying the bosses... could be loads of ways to make it feasible ☺

Edited to add, I think the point I was making is that there are other roles in addition to front line policing roles, that could explain why they are not recognised.

 

Okay thanks. Actually the police do not know who any of the gang members are. The gang has been going around committing their crimes while wearing masks. And they are recruiting members while wearing masks. They do this so in case any of the recruits reject them. That way if any of the recruits want to tell the police that the gang attempted to recruit them, they will not be able to give any of their names to the police, since they do not know who they are.

The way I wrote it though, is that it's not exactly explained how the undercover cop got recruited. The story starts out with this first scene, if the undercover cop meeting the gang for potential recruitment, but it's not explained how he got in exactly. A lot of thriller stories do that though, where they will start out, right in the middle of a mission or an operation, and not know how the cop or spy got there in the first place. It's just left up to the reader's imagination.

The openings of the movies Skyfall and Lethal Weapon 2, come to mind, as to starting out in the middle of an operation, without explaining how the hero got there, especially since they do not even know who they are after in both examples.

So I wanted to start of my plot like that, already in the middle of encountering the gang for the first time, but could this be a problem, if the only explanation is in a few sentences by the superior officer, giving a briefing to his superiors on what happened later?

 

I think the only thing you have to watch out for is how the police man gets infiltrated into the gang. If it is something like he just walks in and proves his loyalty (or something) then it wouldn't be that believable. It needs to seem like an accidental encounter (at least to the gang) or something of the sort.

 

Well see the thing is:
Any kind of fiction, there is always going to be parts of the audience that know a great deal more about it than you do, especially if you've never taken part in what you're writing about.

You can do all the research you like, you aren't ever going to get every detail right unless you have personal experience.

To be honest, the vast majority of people would believe any kind of cop story to be true, because most people don't know much about it. The lovely thing about fiction, is no one is really expecting it to be perfectly realistic, especially if it tells a good story.

So I'd say it would be quite easy to make readers believe it. But there will be a portion who knows otherwise who won't.

Kind of like that guy in the science fiction and/or action movie who has to point out every single thing that wouldn't work in real life or the way it was presented. But most people are just like "OH COOL,".

Similar concept.

So I'd recommend you do some real world research: Go look up some documentaries about real life under cover cops, as well as read a few articals about how it would work, and I'd say you'd be perfectly well armed to write a believable story.

 

Okay thanks. Well in my research before I watched a few episodes of FBI Files. It seems that more of the time, they get someone from out of town, and sometimes they don't.

One thing is though, is that I am not sure how the cop gets infiltrated into the gang. I wanted to have the cop be put through a test to prove his loyalty right in the opening scene, actually. So already the plot starts off with him about to prove his loyalty, without any set up, prior to that. A lot of stories start out that way though, where a cop or a spy, is already in the middle of an operation, and you do not know how they got their.

The thing is though, is that my cop has no idea who any of the gang members are. He ends up having to blow his cover, after failing to prove his loyalty. Basically they want to him to do something such as kill someone or something and he has to blow his cover to attempt to stop an innocent person from being harmed.

But then the gang members get away, but he has no idea who the were, and they all wore masks. So he would have to get recruited in the gang, in a way, in which he does not know any of them. But this is safer for the gang though, because then they can recruit people, without those people having to know who they are, in case the new recruits cannot be trusted or anything like that.

However, I am not sure how exactly he would get recruited into a gang, in which he, or his police department, do not know any of the members. They know there is a gang going around committing crimes in masks, but I want him to infiltrate them intentionally, without knowing who they are.

One story, I can think of that did something like this was the opening to Lethal Weapon 2. In the opening, the cops are chasing after some drugdealers, and the crooks get away. The police captain, said it was routine drug bust gone wrong, when talking it over, with other officers in the scene later.

However, if the cops were going on a drug bust, how did they manage to do that without knowing who any of the drugdealers are? They all got away as a result.

I would like something similar where the MC is infiltrating the gang, but not knowing who they are. But I do not want to explain the details. Like the Lethal Weapon example, I want to leave it up to the reader's imagination, and open in the middle of it, to start off with a bang.

Is that possible, or do I have to come up with a very specific explanation for the reader to grasp it?

 

I am writing a thriller, where the MC, who is a cop, is trying to put a gang of crooks in jail, and I have written several outlines, where he and other police use sting operations to lure the villains into traps and trick them into incriminating themselves.

But I was told before by others that the felt that the villains were too smart to fall for the sting operations that I came up with, and they would see them as traps.

I was wondering, what if the MC took it to much more of an extreme, and kidnapped the gang leader's loved ones, such as siblings or parents... He then held them ransom and told the gang leader, that he has 36 hours to turn himself into the police with enough evidence, to get him and his gang members charged on all counts, for their crimes. Whatever evidence he turns in, it has to be enough for a prosecutor to press charges on all the counts listed in the ransom demand. If he doesn't do it in 36 hours or some other time limit, his family dies.

It's an extreme measure on the MC's part, but since the villain is so smart and cannot be caught by other means, the MC figures that extreme measures are called for in this case. However, there is always the risk that the villain would go to the police and report the ransom. He could act totally innocent and pretend that he does not have evidence to support such crimes, that the kidnapper is demanding.

There is always that risk of the villain doing that, but since this is the end of the story, I want the MC's plan to work, with no more rebuttals from the villain. The villain has to be accept defeat at this point. If the villain is afraid that the family will be killed from the prosecutor not laying charges in a certain amount of time though, and he turns himself in with the evidence, the family will have to be released, once the charges are filed. So the family will probably then go to the police, and once the gang leader hears that his family is safe, he will then tell the police that he only turned in evidence and gave himself up cause someone kidnapped his family, and he most likely knows who, since he has had problems with that cop in the past.

However, the prosecutor or judge in the case, can look at this two ways. Either they will buy the family and him saying he was turned in to save his family, and feel that the evidence is tainted as a result of his claim. Or he will still try the case, and just think of the villain and his family as trying to come up with the story as an excuse to renege on him turning himself in. The judge might just say it's a renege, and their is no substantial proof of a kidnapping, and he cannot drop the charges, just by taking someone's word over it who is most likely trying to renege and cover his arse.

What do you think? Is this ending more plausible, for the villain to be brought down and defeated rather than falling for stings?