Question about how this would happen in my story.

[harmonica44]

In a lot of movies, the detective is kicked off the case, for some reason then goes out and solves it on his own, proving he was right all along. He also ends up going to where ever the bad guys are, alone, and kills them in self defense, usually.

How would that look realistically though? You were kicked off the case, then you follow a trail of evidence, kick down, doors, without legal warrants or anything, and then go off somewhere. Next thing your superiors know is that you call them, and tell them you found the real perps, only you had to kill them in self defense, and all the evidence you gathered to get to them, all on your own, was gathered, without legal warrant.

For my script I need to know what would happen in real life, after the fact, and a lot of movies don't really deal with the aftermath. I'm guessing of course he would be in at least some trouble, but the question is what exactly, for the third act of my script to play out, and how he would deal with it?

 

[thesociety]

soo...you're basically asking the member of this forum to write your movie for you?

 

[harmonica44]

No I just want to know exactly what would happen so I can have a clear way of connecting the third act to the second, and make it flow. I guess I could write it however I want, I just want it to be logical.

 

[that1guyy]

It would go to trial and lawyers would argue about it for years.

 

[harmonica44]

What would the charges be?

 

[cameronchapman]

A lot would depend on the DA. If it's a clearcut case of self-defense, and the evidence all points towartd the guys who were killed, then the DA might not pursue any charges. Then again, if the DA has a grudge against the cop, or there are accusations from the community that it was a case of vigilantism, the DA might pursue the harshest charges possible (murder, possibly even first degree). A lot of it really just depends on the specifics. And even if the DA doesn't want to pursue it, he might still have to go before a judge, who might have different ideas.

 

[PaulGriffith]

What if the boss never found out? Surely a good detective knows how to hide evidence.

 

[harmonica44]

A lot would depend on the DA. If it's a clearcut case of self-defense, and the evidence all points towartd the guys who were killed, then the DA might not pursue any charges. Then again, if the DA has a grudge against the cop, or there are accusations from the community that it was a case of vigilantism, the DA might pursue the harshest charges possible (murder, possibly even first degree). A lot of it really just depends on the specifics. And even if the DA doesn't want to pursue it, he might still have to go before a judge, who might have different ideas.

Yeah that's what I thought. Well I want to have it so the cop is worried about the DA getting him into trouble. Even though he finds some of the bad guys, he has not found all of them. So he doesn't want to get fired or worse, when he's so close. So I want to have him hide the evidence for the third act, but just so long as he has enough logical motive to do so. Would an overall moral cop, hide it, or come clean, about following evidence illegally, leading to self defense killings. As long as he has enough motive, than the third act will work. There was also one innocent witness that saw it, that he has to make sure she keeps her mouth shut too, so it's a risk covering it up. She's a main character who has to be there, so I can't just not have her.

 

[cameronchapman]

It would make things easier if he'd been fired from the force, rather than just kicked off the case. That would mean that evidence he turned over could come from an "anonymous source" (ie, it shows up in an envelope at the police station) rather than from the cop.

The easiest way for you to give him logical motivation for hiding evidence is to make him think there's a mole inside the force. Until he figures out who it is, he trusts no one, and keeps the evidence to himself until he figures out who the mole is. The other logical motive could be to protect someone who's innocent.

 

[harmonica44]

Are you talking about him hiding evidence before or after, he killed them in self defense, and has to clean it up?

 

[Dreadylocks]

I'm pretty sure it would be investigated by IA, probably in conjunction with the DA if/when charges are pressed (as Cameron said.)

But sometimes I get the feeling that you hate movies, harmonica. lol. I mean, movies aren't supposed to be realistic. They're movies. It's fiction. Making a 'realistic' movie is going to bore the pants off of everyone.

 

[Alcove Audio]

"We suspend our disbelief, and we are entertained."

Filmmakers research procedures and the legalities so there is some semblance of the story happening in the real world. But none of what happens in the movies - with a few exceptions - ever happens in the real world. Real police cases do not happen the way TV and film portray them. Real detective work is actually very, very boring. 95%+ of real arrests happen without any violence whatsoever. For example, both versions of the police search for the Zodiac killer - a real case - were terribly boring movies. There is no such thing as a real hit man waiting around for a phone call to assassinate people. I mean, let's get real here, I mean, fantastic, I mean... How much do you think the events in "Die Hard" would really happen? 90% of his escapes are pure, dumb luck! "Gone, Baby, Gone" is somewhat closer to reality, but the story is the MacGuffin, the reason for a character study. The movie "Summer of Sam" did no focus on the case, but on how it affected people in a neighborhood.

Filmmaking is, for the most part, escapist entertainment; people don't want reality. They want to see the good guy win; they want to see the bad guy get his just desserts. They want to leave the theatre (or get up from their couch) feeling good, not depressed and upset.

 

[Synia]

"We suspend our disbelief, and we are entertained."

Filmmakers research procedures and the legalities so there is some semblance of the story happening in the real world. But none of what happens in the movies - with a few exceptions - ever happens in the real world. Real police cases do not happen the way TV and film portray them. Real detective work is actually very, very boring. 95%+ of real arrests happen without any violence whatsoever. For example, both versions of the police search for the Zodiac killer - a real case - were terribly boring movies. There is no such thing as a real hit man waiting around for a phone call to assassinate people. I mean, let's get real here, I mean, fantastic, I mean... How much do you think the events in "Die Hard" would really happen? 90% of his escapes are pure, dumb luck! "Gone, Baby, Gone" is somewhat closer to reality, but the story is the MacGuffin, the reason for a character study. The movie "Summer of Sam" did no focus on the case, but on how it affected people in a neighborhood.

Filmmaking is, for the most part, escapist entertainment; people don't want reality. They want to see the good guy win; they want to see the bad guy get his just desserts. They want to leave the theatre (or get up from their couch) feeling good, not depressed and upset.

And may i just add that if the audience wanted real, they wouldn't be watching a movie, because there's plenty of "real" in the real world.

Unless you are making a documentary or news report or something, in which case its not really a movie is it?

 

[harmonica44]

Oh yeah, I know it's not suppose to be real. Realistic was perhaps the wrong word. I guess I meant would it make enough logical sense, for a serious thriller, and not cross the line of sensibility, and I'm yet still unknown to where that line is drawn, compared to some serious thrillers.

 

[Alcove Audio]

There's a Grand Canyon of difference between realism and believability; what you really have to worry about is filling in plot holes.

 

[ScottO]

I guess realism and believability can both be achieved through research. Find a professional in law enforcement or whatever field you have need of, and offer to buy them a few coffees in exchange for grilling them for information. Most professionals I've used (granted, they were historians and the like) love to talk shop and answer questions. And most can be imposed upon to help locate any plot holes that might arise in the writing.

Best,

Scott

 

[TheOpusFuller]

the reason most movies never show what happens legally after the fact is because it's asinine to the story... Nobody cares. That's not what the story is about...

but if it IS what your story is about then your off, structurally, if its in the third act. You're either doing a story about a detective looking for these criminals or your doing a story about him being held responsible for his actions.... Structurally speaking of course, not conceptually.

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

People don't want to know what would happen in real life.

To answer the question, in order for anyone to claim self defense, they must legally be where they are. Your suspended Detective/Vigilante would be screwed royally.

If the motivation as strong/personal enough, the audience will believe the good cop turns vigilante line (it's one of the most popular action flick story lines). Your character's major dilemma can be if he should kill the witness and, if not, how to keep her quiet. Then of course she can fall in love with him. Oh wait, you DON'T like formula movies. Never mind, disregard everything I typed after screwed.

 

[harmonica44]

I guess realism and believability can both be achieved through research. Find a professional in law enforcement or whatever field you have need of, and offer to buy them a few coffees in exchange for grilling them for information. Most professionals I've used (granted, they were historians and the like) love to talk shop and answer questions. And most can be imposed upon to help locate any plot holes that might arise in the writing.

Best,

Scott

Well I did just that with a cop, and he was happy to answer all of the legal technicalities, but as soon as I started asking him how to get away with police shootings, after having no legal reason for being there, he then became very different and said there is no getting away with that, and that you don't.

Even though there probably is a way, and cops have gotten special attention before, that civilians won't, when to being in legal trouble for a crime. I asked some cops in a forum and they all answered the same way. So there not as helpful as soon as you start asking how police power can get away with crimes, and what not.

the reason most movies never show what happens legally after the fact is because it's asinine to the story... Nobody cares. That's not what the story is about...

but if it IS what your story is about then your off, structurally, if its in the third act. You're either doing a story about a detective looking for these criminals or your doing a story about him being held responsible for his actions.... Structurally speaking of course, not conceptually.

Well I'm doing both, so the after the fact matters too.

And yes he can keep the witness quiet, and will take that chance of depending on her. I guess it's not a plot hole for him to take such a risk, since he is stressed and not in the best state of mind of course. Since we're on the third act, I will ask this question here too.

After this whole cover up, the hero needs to find the remaining villains. He gets a guy he knows to illegally hack into the privacy records, of everyone the main villain has had dealings with. He hopes this will lead to something, to find the main villain, as well as the other villains who are unknown. He hacks and goes through a chain of people, but can't find anything dirty. One thing he does come across though tells that the main villain is keeping an important macguffin, in the safe, in his office, likely. How he gets to this conclusion, from hacking into everyone he knows I'm still working on.

However it seems like a convenience to the plot, that the one thing he does find, and goes on as a desperate hunch, turns out to be the macguffin that all is needed for the climax to work. Is this too much of a convenient contrivance? I just need him to come to the conclusion some how, that there is something in that safe, that's work checking out.

 

[ScottO]

After this whole cover up, the hero needs to find the remaining villains. He gets a guy he knows to illegally hack into the privacy records, of everyone the main villain has had dealings with. He hopes this will lead to something, to find the main villain, as well as the other villains who are unknown. He hacks and goes through a chain of people, but can't find anything dirty. One thing he does come across though tells that the main villain is keeping an important macguffin, in the safe, in his office, likely. How he gets to this conclusion, from hacking into everyone he knows I'm still working on.

Bolding mine. Your hero is now operating outside the law, correct? Why, then, can't he plant/fabricate any evidence he may need? Does the hero already know the villain has an office? Then why not put up surveillance at the office, to catch the villain coming and going? If the Macguffin is that important, wouldn't the villain be likely to keep an eye on it? And, if he trusts a henchman to watch his Macguffin, then what's to stop the hero from putting the screws to the henchman to get the villain's location?

Best,

Scott