How do you write fight scenes like this, believably?

[harmonica44]

In a lot of movies, there are scenes like this, where a two guys point guns at each other, and then drop them in order to have an unarmed fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KjROcT4II

Other movies do it too like Coriolanus (2011). Sometimes it's not even to have an armed fight, and one person wants to take the other alive, like Natural Born Killers (1994). I couldn't find those clips online though. But how do you write it so that two guys point guns at each other, and do not shoot. I mean if I myself were in that situation I would shoot if someone pointed a gun at me, and I already had one pointed at them.

I asked a few cops who I acquired for research for the script for, and they said they would shoot immediately as well in those situations, so how do you write a situation where you don't want two armed men to die just yet and point guns at each other without shooting, and make it believable?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Seven is a good example. What about when it comes to chase scenes? A lot of times in thrillers the good guy will cause a chase to happen, which puts innocent people in harms way, so how do you make that dictate the story, logically?

For example, in Bullitt (196, the cop chases after crooks, very aggressively in his car, all down the streets, even though he can get someone killed, and it looks like that the motorcyclist bystander may have been killed or seriously maimed as a result. Or how in Narc (2002), the cop is chasing an armed bad guy through the park, causing the armed man to take a pregnant woman hostage. The cop fires, at him but hits the woman and kills the child inside by accident.

So do you write a chase scene where a cop chases a villain, but write it so that it serves the story without throwing logic out the window, since the police know that them doing it, puts people in danger, especially if car traffic is involved? Seven is also a good example of throwing logic out the window during the chase sequence possibly.

SPOILER

The two detectives no that if they go to John Doe's apartment, and question him, they cannot arrest him because they found out where his apartment was through illegal means and have no probable cause to go see him. Therefore any evidence will be in admissible. However after they arrive at John Doe's apartment, Doe shoots at them, and misses, and then takes off. The two detectives then go after him, and a big foot chase ensues.

But since any evidence they get will be inadmissible, why bother to go after him at all? Why didn't Detective Sommerset just tell Mills, not to go after him and just wait till next time since arresting him for firing shots, will not do any good? Did they just throw logic out the window temporarily to have a chase scene, and it did not really serve the story?

 

[sfoster]

In no circumstance would firing a gun in public at police officers be inadmissible. Lol.

 

[harmonica44]

But all they would be able to charge the perp with is firing at officers. All of the murders he committed before would not be charge-able, so is it even worth catching him if he is only charged with that? Plus the whole case is going to look fishy, when the prosecutor asks how the cops the suspect's apartment, and they refuse to tell how, since they found it through illegal means. If you cannot believe the officer's testimony as to how and why they went there, then why believe that someone shot at them, when they say so?

 

[sfoster]

But all they would be able to charge the perp with is firing at officers. All of the murders he committed before would not be charge-able, so is it even worth catching him if he is only charged with that?

Thank god you never became a police officer.

Yes it's worth it to take a psychopathic serial killer off the streets for 20-40 years.

 

[harmonica44]

Well it's good that in the U.S. shooting a cop is punishable for 20-40 years. Where I live, in Canada, the guy would only get perhaps 5, but that would be worth it too. I just thought the case would be thrown out since they got their by illegal means, but what do I know since I never actually went to law school.

 

[sfoster]

Well it's good that in the U.S. shooting a cop is punishable for 20-40 years. Where I live, in Canada, the guy would only get perhaps 5, but that would be worth it too. I just thought the case would be thrown out since they got their by illegal means, but what do I know since I never actually went to law school.

I never went to law school either, but yes I believe any evidence they collected from unlawful entry would be inadmissible. However that's a totally different animal than shooting a bunch of bullets at cops.

Interesting that it would only be 5 years in canada! I tried googling but couldn't find any news articles.. Very annoying that google.ca kept returning news articles for the US

 

[harmonica44]

A lot of judges in Canada only hand out sentences up to five years in shooting, where no one dies or gets really badly hurt. If you want 10 years someone has to either die, or be seriously maimed on average to that sentence.

So when I write these scenarios, it's harder when you are setting it in Canada lol.

 

[mlesemann]

The evidence obtained illegally would be thrown out, yes. But then the cops set out to find other evidence separately and legally. As long as it's not "fruit of the poisonous tree," meaning found because of the illegally obtained evidence, then THAT evidence would be admissible.

 

[Caidh Mor]

But all they would be able to charge the perp with is firing at officers. All of the murders he committed before would not be charge-able, so is it even worth catching him if he is only charged with that?

Incorrect. The evidence in that room would be inadmissible, since it was an illegal search. However, the arrest would be from firing on police officers, and then they could work to tie him to the other crimes that they did have legal evidence from, like (if I remember correctly) Gluttony, Greed, Pride, Sloth, and Lust. The evidence in that room would have been a nail in the coffin, but being ID'd be the sex shop guy, or just caught on location around the time of some of the murders on various security cameras, and even just some semi-circumstantial evidence like cutting off his finger prints, all would work to tie him to his previous five crimes.

The case would be harder though, and Morgan Freeman would likely have a few issues to discuss with Brad Pitt.