# Is their reasons why an undercover cop would work alone in this case?



## ironpony (Jan 25, 2016)

So I finished writing out my story, at least in another draft, and read it through. I think I might have discovered a plot hole, and was wonderng if it was fixable.

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?

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 was told that a lot of times it's pretty standard, especially in fiction for undercover officers to work on their own, with no outside surveillance or monitoring.

But I mean what 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, since he was meeting a bunch of strangers, he never met before who were murder suspects?"

The superiors would then have to say that it's standard protocol, that all undercovers must work alone with often 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".

How can I write the scenario without the police not coming off as stupid and incompetent to the reader?


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Jan 25, 2016)

I wouldn't have thought it would be a problem; planting one police officer in a criminal organisation would be difficult, placing a second one in the same organisation as backup doubly so.

However, with regards to your second point, I don't think that officers go off and infiltrate gangs on their own initiative. They would be acting on the orders of their superiors.

I've never been in the police, though, so I may be talking nonsense!


----------



## ironpony (Jan 25, 2016)

Yes, that is true, he is being ordered by his superiors.  But since his superiors are not monitoring him, they have no idea of the progress he is making.  Basically the undercover would just tell his superiors that he is planning on meeting the gang for the first time outside the city, in the middle of nowhere, pretty much.  But since the police department does not know who any of the gang members are, wouldn't they want to tail him or keep monitoring him to see what happens?

I understand how he has to infiltrate the gang alone.  But why isn't any back up watching him from far away?  Wouldn't the superiors be interested in watching him to see what happens?  I mean in all the documentary crime shows I have watched, there is a SWAT team in a van standing by, when the undercover goes to meet the dangerous people, just in case, he would be in danger.  I just don't buy that the superiors would tell him to go, and not give him any back up, to watch from far away, just in case.  So he is still acting on orders, but the superiors are not giving him any secondary officers to monitor the situation from far away.  I mean the cops have been after the gang for months, and do not know who any of them are.  So you think they would be interested in having a other officers observe from far away, to follow them or something, but they don't.   Because I still want the undercover to work alone.

How can I make the reader buy it, if I don't buy it?


----------



## lvcabbie (Jan 25, 2016)

I don't want to be a wet blanket but I only read this to see if you continued improper use of words like you did in your title.

I suggest you check out the usage of their and there.  :angel:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 26, 2016)

Oh look. Another thread wanting us to write his story.

I'll bite. An undercover cop infiltration g a gang would definitely be working alone. He would, of course, have to occasionally report to his superiors, but that could be up to a couple of months between reports unless otherwise ordered. His superiors would know that they more they initiate contact, or make him contact them, the more the risk of his cover being blown would rise.

And, by the way, if YOU aren't buying your own premise, then you have to do some research (we do not count as research) and KEEP researching until you can write a premise you DO believe in.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Oh look. Another thread wanting us to write his story.
> 
> I'll bite. An undercover cop infiltration g a gang would definitely be working alone. He would, of course, have to occasionally report to his superiors, but that could be up to a couple of months between reports unless otherwise ordered. His superiors would know that they more they initiate contact, or make him contact them, the more the risk of his cover being blown would rise.
> 
> And, by the way, if YOU aren't buying your own premise, then you have to do some research (we do not count as research) and KEEP researching until you can write a premise you DO believe in.



But wouldn't the cops still want to monitor the undercover officer on the first meeting to see if everything goes okay?  I understand how later on, it would be tough to keep monitoring him but what about the first meeting, as in my scenario?  Basically the gang makes contact with the cop, and tells him to be at a certain place, at a certain time.  Wouldn't the cops want to monitor him to where he goes, to make sure nothing sinister happens?

I guess I just need to understand why?  Why do the cops want the undercover to work alone?  If the undercover disappears, the cops will not know what happened to him because they were not monitoring him.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

I would like to do research but all the cops I asked said they cannot talk about how they go about undercover operations at all.  Where could I find the answers to such scenarios as that?


----------



## Gofa (Jan 26, 2016)

Find a few book on an undercover cop. Autobiography. Lots been written. Serpico comes to mind 

I had an ex undercover as a friend. Scary vocation. It is not a job. Months pass. Stuff written up sent.  Big problem is going native. Big problem is not being able to prosecute as evidence is tarnished.  I should read up about evidence admissibility as an exclusion point. Rather than credibility. Credibility to too cheap a twist and unreal.  Cant use this for legal reasons much easier to swallow. Or corruption is a component which stays your hand till you know its safe. 

I find it strange that you are writing with a view to keeping the cost down. Odd premise


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Serpico is very different though cause in today's age of technology, it is much easier to monitor criminal activity then it was back then.   I think I would need one more recent.  I have tried looking up for real instances.  However in every instance, the cop knows the person he is going undercover to infiltrate.  If something happens to him, the cops at least no who the suspects are, they he was infiltrating.  In my story, he is infiltrating a mystery group, and has no idea who any of them are.  So I thought that the police would want to pay more attention and monitor his meetings with them more, compared to a suspect that they already have the name of.

Is it really odd that I am writing to keep costs down?

I guess I feel I just need a WHY.  I mean I am so use to seeing undercovers have back up in movies and TV, that it's hard to believe really that they wouldn't have it.  Like a lot of times in movies and TV shows, there will be other cops waiting in a van, and if they suspect that the cop is in danger, they will move in.  So for the cops not to bother to take this precaution in mine, I just feel I need a why.  That way I know why the characters are choosing to go about it that way, and I can write it better, cause I understand the characters's reasons behind it, since the superiors are characters who play a role as well.


----------



## Gofa (Jan 26, 2016)

In real life there is no back up
honest.  You screw up your gone. 

Come and save me.  Not an option. 

Odd you cant see the isolation   

Technology can work against you hear. 

Everything carries risk of discover 
de caprio movie. 
The departed
With the irish in Boston
good realism there as undercover


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

Okay thanks.  I guess I still need a WHY though.  Why are the superiors not interested in monitoring any of the mystery suspects that the undercover is making contact with?  It will just help me write the characters better, if I understood why.

There is also a difference between Dicaprio in The Departed and my scenario.  In The Departed, the police knew the identities of the people they were infiltrating.  So they felt more comfortable leaving Decaprio alone, cause they knew where to find those gangsters, if they needed to.

However, in my story, the undercover is going to bust people that he doesn't even know the identities of.  So wouldn't the cops think this is a more important priority to monitor him so they can find out who these people are, that he is actually infiltrating?


----------



## Aquilo (Jan 26, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I guess I still need a WHY though.  Why are the superiors not interested in monitoring any of the mystery suspects that the undercover is making contact with?  It will just help me write the characters better, if I understood why.



This is where you come as the author and what you hear from your environment. E.g., I can pick up on the radio that cost is major issue for any department, like with the UK cutting police funding, merging departments, or replacing more experienced staff with younger officers -- it's where frustrations come in and corners are cut with most things, including resources to finance undercover protection for officers, evidence being lost, ignored, sidestepped. Sometimes risks are taken, mostly by those on the front line. It's up to you what level of protection an undercover cop gets and how believable you make it. I would have thought basic random call-in points over the duration of the undercover work, and if he doesn't meet them, it's the only way to let anyone know there's an issue. But to be honest, if it's undercover work, a lot of the ties back to being a cop should be severed. And there's no reason why he still couldn't have a partner, but the partner is the check-in point for the undercover cop. 

But a better reason for his superiors not to listen to the cop would need to be found, E.g., like manpower thinned out too much because of the workload on the police force since the cuts etc.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

Okay thanks. I have already used the manpower cuts twice in the story already though, in two other scenarios, to justify having no back up.

If I use it for a third time, does it become obvious that I recycling the same dilemma at all?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 26, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks. I have already used the manpower cuts twice in the story already though, in two other scenarios, to justify having no back up.
> 
> If I use it for a third time, does it become obvious that I recycling the same dilemma at all?



Seriously? You have pointed out manpower/budget cuts TWICE and you still think you have to have a WHY as far as a lack of backup? For crying out loud you GAVE yourself the why.

As far as his superiors...maybe they trust him to not put himself in a situation he couldn't control. 

Or...maybe the cop is such an asshole/rulebreaker that his superiors just don't much give a shit.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2016)

Yeah I guess that's true, as long as reader's believe that the budget cuts are that serious.

I thought that undercover work was all about putting yourself in situations you could not control, since you have no idea, if the gang is going to blow your head off at any time soon.

If I make the cop an asshole/rule breaker, I don't think that the superiors would give him such an important assignment.  I could use one of the other two options though, perhaps.


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 26, 2016)

I don't understand your confusion over the why of it all.

His superiors probably do want to monitor him, but if the meeting place is somewhere remote then sending in a team with the skills and equipment to monitor the situation is expensive and time consuming, AND they would be putting their man in huge danger. If the gang spots the surveillance team then the first one to die is the new recruit who just so happened to turn up at the same time as the cops.

Undercover work is conducted on as loose a leash as possible to protect the agent doing the infiltrating. Any evidence they supply must be taken at face value as truthful, and leave it up to the lawyers to determine whether or not there is a solid case to be tried.

Remember that in a court of law the word of a cop is likely to win out against the word of suspected criminal unless there is evidence to suggest that the cop is crooked.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 26, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yeah I guess that's true, as long as reader's believe that the budget cuts are that serious.



Convincing the audience would be YOUR job.



> If I make the cop an asshole/rule breaker, I don't think that the superiors would give him such an important assignment.  I could use one of the other two options though, perhaps.



Well...if he is an EFFECTIVE asshole and gets cases closed, then they very well would want him running a case like the one you propose.


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 27, 2016)

Ironpony. I start thinking that the people that read and propose feedback to your story are maybe not necessarily qualified to do so. 
In addition, paying attention to feedback is good, but allowing it to rule your story and your book will not do any good for the integrity of the story. 

I have the impression that as soon as someone asks you a "why?", you start doubting your story and need a shit load of research to change it and it makes you insecure.
It also seems that you do not necessarily know why these people think like this. Ask more and constructive feedback, grow a spine and dare to make your own decisions before you throw it in our faces. At this rate, the credits will mostly go to the forum cause we are writing your plot by now.

To answer. An undercover cop is in serious danger. He cannot simply go out and report and surveillance will only compromise the mission. The more people who know, the bigger the chances on discovery. I think it would be fine to have a cop alone, with minimal reporting tools. Don't want a good guy compromised


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 27, 2016)

ironpony said:


> But wouldn't the cops still want to monitor the undercover officer on the first meeting to see if everything goes okay?  I understand how later on, it would be tough to keep monitoring him but what about the first meeting, as in my scenario?  Basically the gang makes contact with the cop, and tells him to be at a certain place, at a certain time.  Wouldn't the cops want to monitor him to where he goes, to make sure nothing sinister happens?
> 
> I guess I just need to understand why?  Why do the cops want the undercover to work alone?  If the undercover disappears, the cops will not know what happened to him because they were not monitoring him.



Sometimes, having surveillance equipment on you when you're trying to infiltrate a gang is a surefire way to get you killed. It's very common in crime fiction to have an undercover cop go in without surveillance or any sort of monitoring, especially if the gang is considered dangerous.

Getting caught with a wire or a transmitter of some sort is pretty much a one-way ticket into a meat grinder.

Plus, going without surveillance is part of what makes these things so thrilling—the audiences knows that the undercover cop is all on his own, sink or swim. :encouragement:


----------



## DaBlaRR (Jan 27, 2016)

Dude use your fricken imagination! Not ours. That's how you pull it off.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 27, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> Sometimes, having surveillance equipment on you when you're trying to infiltrate a gang is a surefire way to get you killed. It's very common in crime fiction to have an undercover cop go in without surveillance or any sort of monitoring, especially if the gang is considered dangerous.
> 
> Getting caught with a wire or a transmitter of some sort is pretty much a one-way ticket into a meat grinder.
> 
> Plus, going without surveillance is part of what makes these things so thrilling—the audiences knows that the undercover cop is all on his own, sink or swim. :encouragement:



Oh yeah, I am not saying that he would wear a wire.  Of course he wouldn't, especially since the first thing they do is search him, for such a thing.  He doesn't wear anything like that.

But I thought that other cops would still watch him from far away, with telescopic cameras or something.  I watched a lot of episodes of FBI Files, and every time an officer goes undercover, even if they do not wear wires, there is always someone watching from a far, pretending to be a homeless person, or whatever, but usually they are far enough away, that they cannot be seen and are hidden.  But there are always is someone else.

Plus if the cop goes in alone and no other cop sees what he sees, then what he says will not always be believed if it's his word against there's would it?  This is how I want my story to go, as  I want the prosecutor to feel that he does not have enough for the jury, since it's the cop's word against the villains.  So I want him to work alone, so it's only one man's word, with no one to back up what he says, and the case is thrown out as a result.

But I guess I have a hard time believing it, cause of all the FBI Files episodes I saw, which are based on real cases, of course.  Also, in my story, the police department does not know any of the gang members.  They are a mystery gang going around committing felonies, so the cop is recruiting himself into the gang, but does not know who any of them are.  So I thought the police would want to be nearby on the first meeting, cause if anything happens to the cop, they won't know who to go after, since no one knows who the they are, and they always wear disguises.

In most undercover situations, if something happens to the cop, and he dies, at least the police know who to look at, as suspects.  But since no one knows who mine are, I thought they would take a special exception especially, and want to be there more than usual in this case.

Plus even if the cop meets the gang in a remote location, would a cop disguised as a homeless person, or a bystander, really set off a red flag, since there are people everywhere, that the gang cannot control?  Are they going to assume any civilian is a cop, even since there are civilians in secluded areas realistically?

As long as the reader believes, that the police would send in a cop alone to meet a gang, in which not even they know any of the members.  I have received mixed opinions on it, so not sure.  Half the opinions say it would risk blowing the cover, the other half say that the police look stupid and incompetent, for not being interested in giving the character any sort of support, against people they do not know at all.  I guess I have trouble believing that not even a man with a telescopic camera would be watching, since I have seen it so much on FBI Files, I feel I would be going against the norm.


----------



## Monaque (Jan 27, 2016)

I do understand your wanting to ask because you have an issue with your work, or a doubt as to your story, but here is where the writer comes to the fore. This is where you trust your imagination and you do the work. I`ve written an entire novel based on an undercover cop and never for one minute did I feel I didn`t have the information I needed in order to continue, or solve a problem, or write my story. It`s all out there, on film, in books, on tv series, on online papers from academic institutions, on forums and websites. The research has already been done for you, it`s all out there.
I found that once I started writing I already knew most of it and the problems that arose, that made me pause and think, were easily solved with a quick scan online or a new book to read. I wanted to know about some tools and materials used by the forensic department, I find an academic paper and a website based on that subject.
I think the message here is, do your research and the problems will solve themselves.
Lastly, I`m not going to give you examples of how to do it, it`s a short cut and a crutch, you must find your own way through this, it`s part of the creative journey.
You can do it, best of luck.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 28, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Oh yeah, I am not saying that he would wear a wire.  Of course he wouldn't, especially since the first thing they do is search him, for such a thing.  He doesn't wear anything like that.
> 
> But I thought that other cops would still watch him from far away, with telescopic cameras or something.  I watched a lot of episodes of FBI Files, and every time an officer goes undercover, even if they do not wear wires, there is always someone watching from a far, pretending to be a homeless person, or whatever, but usually they are far enough away, that they cannot be seen and are hidden.  But there are always is someone else.
> 
> ...



Ugh. The last I read you are writing a screenplay. When was the last time a movie stuck with reality? Seriously...how many cop movies are there that real cops just shake their heads at because stuff doesn't go the way the movie is written?


----------



## LeeC (Jan 28, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Ugh. The last I read you are writing a screenplay. When was the last time a movie stuck with reality? Seriously...how many cop movies are there that real cops just shake their heads at because stuff doesn't go the way the movie is written?


A better question might be, "How many air fresheners does it take to get the smell of a dead body out of the basement?"


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 28, 2016)

LeeC said:


> A better question might be, "How many air fresheners does it take to get the smell of a dead body out of the basement?"



Or the smell of a mostly dead one out of an apartment. Lol


----------



## Monaque (Jan 28, 2016)

LeeC said:


> A better question might be, "How many air fresheners does it take to get the smell of a dead body out of the basement?"



A lot, buy in bulk.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Jan 28, 2016)

What's your projected time to finish this screenplay? Just curious.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 28, 2016)

I already past my personal set deadline last year, but I wasn't satisfied with it and people told me there were some plot holes as well.  Basically the original ending, was not believable to people so I have been trying to reformat the story and build into a new ending ever since, but haven't been sure what new ending to use that I am satisfied with, or others for that matter.

I just got writers block when it comes to building into a  new ending of some sort, while exploring several options.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 29, 2016)

Hi Ironpony,
here in the UK there is a court case in which undercover Special Branch police are being prosecuted by members of various legal organisations. Apparently these 'policemen' married some of the women they were there to spy on. Even had kids. Despite most of the undercover officers  being married already. 

The rub is their 'superior officers' had no idea what was going on. 

Now, the rules of Hollywood state, if you can get away with it, do so. Most people have no idea how the police force works, so as long as you don't throw aliens into the mix you should be fine.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 30, 2016)

bazz cargo said:


> Hi Ironpony,
> here in the UK there is a court case in which undercover Special Branch police are being prosecuted by members of various legal organisations. Apparently these 'policemen' married some of the women they were there to spy on. Even had kids. Despite most of the undercover officers  being married already.
> 
> The rub is their 'superior officers' had no idea what was going on.
> ...



Okay thanks, that is a very interesting court case on it's own.  Did the police force have to pay for child support, and it comes out of the undercover's pocket, or is that still being decided in court, I was wondering?


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 30, 2016)

https://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/

Fascinating stuff.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 30, 2016)

ironpony said:


> I would like to do research but all the cops I asked said they cannot talk about how they go about undercover operations at all.  Where could I find the answers to such scenarios as that?


If this is the case it is the case for your readers as well, they won't know you made it all up and it is bullshit, let your imagination go.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 30, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, that is a very interesting court case on it's own.  Did the police force have to pay for child support, and it comes out of the undercover's pocket, or is that still being decided in court, I was wondering?



What is it with you and your seeming allergy to doing research? If you want to find out more about the court case look it up.


----------



## dale (Jan 30, 2016)

i've always wondered just how much wood could a woodchuck REALLY chuck? that is, if a woodchuck could actually even chuck wood?


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 30, 2016)

ironpony said:


> But I thought that other cops would still watch him from far away, with telescopic cameras or something.  I watched a lot of episodes of FBI Files, and every time an officer goes undercover, even if they do not wear wires, there is always someone watching from a far, pretending to be a homeless person, or whatever, but usually they are far enough away, that they cannot be seen and are hidden.



FBI Files is a reenactment of actual cases. The details are abridged and the large amounts of legwork get cut out. Don't take it as gospel.

Also, the FBI don't necessarily work the same way as the police do. They have different resources and different priorities.



ironpony said:


> Plus if the cop goes in alone and no other cop sees what he sees, then what he says will not always be believed if it's his word against there's would it?



What do you think? In a court of law, do you believe the word of a police officer, or the word of people who are accused of being murderers?

Besides, the cop's testimony won't be the only piece of evidence submitted. That's not how court cases work.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 31, 2016)

popsprocket said:


> FBI Files is a reenactment of actual cases. The details are abridged and the large amounts of legwork get cut out. Don't take it as gospel.
> 
> Also, the FBI don't necessarily work the same way as the police do. They have different resources and different priorities.
> 
> ...



Okay thanks.  But this is how I want my story to go.  I want it so that the cop's word is the only evidence they have since he was working alone, and that the villains have an explanation for everything and get off.  This is how I want it to go, but I need the cop to working alone convincingly to the point where the reader asks, why weren't the police be able to shadow him and get anything else, other than just his word only, with no other confirmation, so that the villain's could not raise reasonable doubt.

Even if people tend to believe the cops, the courts still listen to reasonable doubt a lot, hence why some crooks are set free.


----------



## Monaque (Jan 31, 2016)

No-one works alone, that`s the problem, even undercover officers have handlers they report to. The movies are especially true of that since they have supporting characters to help carry the story along. There are movies that utilize the single protagonist but they tend to be solo movies, using only one character predominantly throughout the entire film. 
You are proposing to use the one officer as the main protagonist? No supporting characters at all? 
Obviously you have the antagonists, the "baddies" so to speak, but if you don`t have enough to balance on the protagonist side it might affect the movie. Look at all the movies that have come out, or are out, how many have supporting characters?
That`s your main resource I think.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 31, 2016)

He has officers he reports to of course.  He can have a handler, that's fine.  But I want him to walk around with the villains with no surveillance observing what he does, if possible.  But this doesn't seem possible because logically they would want to keep him safe.  The reason why I do not want surveillance to observe him, is because later in court, when it's his word against the villains, I do not want him to be able to make the case, and the villain gets off, for the time being.

Or, if I need to have surveillance people to make it realistic, then I need to have it so that they will not be able to back him and cannot confirm what he says he saw.  He doesn't wear a wire or anything like that, since he does not want the wire to be found by them, but I need to figure out if it will be believable if no one is tailing him from a distance just in case something happens to him.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 31, 2016)

ironpony said:
			
		

> But I want him to walk around with the villains with no surveillance observing what he does, if possible. But this doesn't seem possible because logically they would want to keep him safe.



I've seen this beat *many* times in Hollywood movies:

— The undercover agent meets with the suspects, while being monitored (visually, and/or audibly) by cover agents, who are huddled in an unmarked van somewhere close, or in the basement of some nearby building, or off on some rooftop . . .

— The suspects *change plans*, which is a surprise to the undercover agent.

— The undercover agent goes with it, while the camera notices a split-second flash of concern (or frustration) on the undercover agent's face.

— The cover agent(s) scramble to react to the change in plans. This often involves an agent yelling at a tech agent to get info on this new development, "I need that name run, and I need it now!"

— The suspects and the undercover agent move locations, possibly in an unmarked vehicle, while other decoy vehicles move in other directions. Or they go into a tunnel and don't come out the other side, coming out a secret exit instead. Et cetera . . .

— Cut to the cover agents, who are usually yelling, "Where did they go? Did anyone see? Fuck! Don't lose him!"

— They swoop in and follow what they think is the vehicle—which turns out to be just a hired decoy. They've lost the undercover agent. Someone throws down his headset, or his binoculars, or his scope, and yells, "God _damn_ it! Why wasn't that garage checked?!"

— Cut to the undercover agent, in a vehicle moving away from the city, who now realizes he's on his own . . . 

If getting the agent alone, without surveillance, is what you're after, you can simply use this beat and come up with your own original twist on it. :encouragement:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 31, 2016)

Real life situation,

The cop watching the terrorist flat was desperate for a pee, when he came back he saw someone 'leaving', actually it was a neighbour, followed him, called in re-enforcements who shot him seven times in the head, meanwhile actual suspect was unobserved. That happened to a Brazilian on the underground in London a few years ago. 
All you need is for them  to lose contact briefly, pick up the wrong car/people and follow them for a while, then realise they have lost your man.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 31, 2016)

I think his biggest problem is going to be that there isn't a prosecutor alive who would EVER bring charges (much less go to court) based on nothing more than the cop's word. Prosecutors are politicians. They know there would be almost no chance of getting a conviction on that basis so they wouldn't even start the process.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 31, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I think his biggest problem is going to be that there isn't a prosecutor alive who would EVER bring charges (much less go to court) based on nothing more than the cop's word. Prosecutors are politicians. They know there would be almost no chance of getting a conviction on that basis so they wouldn't even start the process.



Okay thanks.  But what if the villains were able to counter the cops words with reasonable doubt?

I was thinking that in my scenario, the gang could get the cop to commit a blood in, to prove he is reliable to be in the gang.  A blood in being that he has to spill the blood of another person.  So they bring him to a situation where a woman is being held hostage (this woman character is a supporting character in the story as well), and they give the cop a gun, but it's a fake prop gun, and want him to shoot the woman, to test him.

This is where the cop has to break cover, and save the woman from harm.  After doing this, the rest of the gang members get away, accept for one, which the cop manages to arrest, while saving her.

Later, when they want the female hostage to cooperate, she denies that type of kidnapping situation happened.  She tells the prosecutor some excuse to get the defendant off... like she could say that she invited a bunch of guys over to hold her hostage as part of her fantasy, but since she was blindfolded and they were all wearing masks, she did not know who any of the other guys were accept for the defendant.  The defendant of course does not have to talk at all, and let's his lawyer do the talking, and the lawyer confirms what she said.

The prosecutor knows he does not have enough evidence, if the hostage, is going to counter that a kidnapping never happened at all, going against what the cop says happened.  

This could be the gang's plan when they get new recruits to do blood ins, in the event that something goes wrong, and they need to create plausible deniability, since testing new recruits is risky, but also rewarding to them, if they are willing to pull the trigger.

The cop does not know any of the other suspects who got away since they all wore masks as well.  Would this be enough to get the defendant off, by creating enough reasonable doubt?


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 31, 2016)

I am no lawyer, but I can't see any decent legal system finding enough evidence for a court case.


----------



## MockingJD (Jan 31, 2016)

You're right, typically undercovers have cops with them or very nearby. I'm thinking of your typical buy & bust situation where a UC purchases narcotics, signals to the field team that the buy has happened, they move in and arrest the seller. Usually there's another undercover, a "ghost," nearby watching the primary UC do his thing.

But it sometimes happens where undercover buys happen in an apartment and for obvious reasons the ghost and field team can't follow him in. I don't have any personal experience with long-term gang-infiltration type operations, but what you're talking about reminds me of that book Under and Alone where the ATF agent infiltrated a gang and convinced them he was one of them. So I think it does happen.


----------



## MockingJD (Jan 31, 2016)

I think for something like that, the undercover would have to record calls and wear a wire. It's not like the movies where it's strapped to your chest. They can put tiny cameras in hats and stuff now. So it wouldn't be just the UC's word, he would back it up with hard evidence.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 1, 2016)

Yeah and that is the thing. I want the cop to have not enough proof in court later.  However, here is the situation.  Basically the cop infiltrates the gang but then right when they want him to commit a blood in, he saves the hostage, arrests one of them and breaks cover.  So his cover is broken right away.  Does this make a difference, since he hardly had anytime to get to know them and had to arrest one of them right away, to save a hostage?

But I don't want to him wear a wire or anything.

If the undercover plot doesn't gel well, I could have it so that the cop is on street patrol, and spots the gang getting another recruit to do the blood in, and save the hostage that way.  But if I do that if feels like the cop got on the gang's case, by coincidence.  It feels like that a coincidence, is just too easy, compared to actually using undercover tactics to infiltrate them.  So I can go with the undercover plot, and tweak it, or I can use the coincidence, of spotting it.


----------



## Monaque (Feb 1, 2016)

I was going to say, why bother involving the court at all. Why end the film involving the legal system, it would be more exciting have the UC deal with the situation himself. On his own, he takes the initiative and takes on the big baddie. It`s a familiar take but it always works in the movies.


----------



## LeeC (Feb 1, 2016)

^ Yeah, go with Steven Seagal (or Bishop) and have the good guy wade in with a gatling gun


----------



## Monaque (Feb 2, 2016)

LeeC said:


> ^ Yeah, go with Steven Seagal (or Bishop) and have the good guy wade in with a gatling gun



It`s not subtle but it works. :ChainGunSmiley:



I always wanted to use that smilie, yay!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 2, 2016)

Sounds good to me, all that court stuff was getting boring, and you haven't even written it yet.


----------



## dale (Feb 2, 2016)

Olly Buckle said:


> Sounds good to me, all that court stuff was getting boring, and you haven't even written it yet.



i think he's saving the actual project of writing it for his next life when he reincarnates as dr. suess's pet iguana.


----------



## patskywriter (Feb 3, 2016)

You have more than one thread going at the same time, where you seem to agonize over every single detail of a story that might possibly never get written. Do you think maybe you should warm up by writing a simple story for children?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 4, 2016)

patskywriter said:


> You have more than one thread going at the same time, where you seem to agonize over every single detail of a story that might possibly never get written. Do you think maybe you should warm up by writing a simple story for children?



Although that may be a good suggestion, I believe we would then start to see a whole crapload of threads asking whether the blue iguana or the purple one would be more plausible. Or if running down the hill and breaking your crown is believable. Or whether it's realistic for a cow to actually jump over the Moon.


----------



## patskywriter (Feb 4, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Although that may be a good suggestion, I believe we would then start to see a whole crapload of threads asking whether the blue iguana or the purple one would be more plausible. Or if running down the hill and breaking your crown is believable. Or whether it's realistic for a cow to actually jump over the Moon.



Oh for crying out loud … cancel my suggestion, LOL. I honestly thought my suggestion would make things *easier*!

I still think that sitting back and reading over a story that has reached a satisfying conclusion would provide the confidence to write another.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 4, 2016)

patskywriter said:


> Oh for crying out loud … cancel my suggestion, LOL. I honestly thought my suggestion would make things *easier*!
> 
> I still think that sitting back and reading over a story that has reached a satisfying conclusion would provide the confidence to write another.



I wholeheartedly agree. The bad thing is...I don't think he would EVER be satisfied. The endless questions about trivial stuff tends to lead me to that conclusion.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 4, 2016)

Well I wrote and wrote and wrote today.  I still have the latest draft from before.  I am satisfied up until the third act.  I try to let the characters take over and make the decisions to drive the story, but they keep painting themselves into corners.   It's like a game of tic-tac-toe, and they keep doing no matter what different methods I think of them to use.

As far as not involving the courts, I could have it so that the good guy just goes and kills the bad guy, because he is vengeful, since he cannot get any proof on him the legal way.  However, the courts will still get involved because if you kill someone, they always want someone to answer for the dead body.

Even with the current scenario though, the story was not going to end in court.  What I wanted to happen was the for good guy, to tail the villain while he gathers all the evidence, on everyone, and then attempt to take it from him but the villain and all his associates try to ambush them and the good guy ends up killing them for the evidence.  So it doesn't end in court but the evidence is just used as as stepping stone to get to the real drama and violence.

But I think it will overcomplicate things since the plan has too many things that could go wrong, such as the kidnapped family talking after, and what not.  I still feel unsatisfied with the third act, but will run with the first two, and consider them finished.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 4, 2016)

> However, the courts will still get involved because if you kill someone, they always want someone to answer for the dead body.


If it is ever found (evil laugh)


----------



## ironpony (Feb 4, 2016)

That's true.  When it comes to these types of cat and mouse thrillers, the MC will have a plan on how to get the villain, then the plan will backfire, but then the MC will find a way through and fix the backfire, and the plan will still work after all.

I have a plan, and it can work, but I feel it works too easily and there should be a backfire, before things go his way at the end.  Plus I leave the backfire out, I will have a gap on material, and be too short in screenplay length.

I would like to have a backfire, but every backfire I have come up with so far, is not fixable for the MC.  Is their anything I should keep in mind, structure wise, when coming up with a fixable backfire, so it doesn't seem forced?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 4, 2016)

ironpony said:


> That's true.  When it comes to these types of cat and mouse thrillers, the MC will have a plan on how to get the villain, then the plan will backfire, but then the MC will find a way through and fix the backfire, and the plan will still work after all.
> 
> I have a plan, and it can work, but I feel it works too easily and there should be a backfire, before things go his way at the end.  Plus I leave the backfire out, I will have a gap on material, and be too short in screenplay length.
> 
> I would like to have a backfire, but every backfire I have come up with so far, is not fixable for the MC.  Is their anything I should keep in mind, structure wise, when coming up with a fixable backfire, so it doesn't seem forced?



Ummm...yes. There is. Don't force it. I know it sounds like I'm just being harsh.

Think about it, though. You keep running into the same problem when you try to write that "backfire", right? So maybe your story is telling you it doesn't want one.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 4, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Ummm...yes. There is. Don't force it. I know it sounds like I'm just being harsh.
> 
> Think about it, though. You keep running into the same problem when you try to write that "backfire", right? So maybe your story is telling you it doesn't want one.



But at the same time, I don't want the MC's plan to be too easy with no obstacles that get in the way that he has to tackle before the climax.  I feel I could use more things going wrong, to add to the suspense, rather than have everything go right for the MC, in which case there is less suspense.  Is their a way I can add more suspense, without a backfire then?

Plus if anything doesn't go wrong in the plan, resulting in any type of tragedy, then the MC doesn't go through the change and develop how I want him to through.  Should I leave any his character development out then as a result of a backfire being forced?


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 4, 2016)

Read stories. Watch movies. Study books. Take notes. Jot down ideas. Write stories. Write more. Keep writing.

How many stories have you written? One? Ten? A hundred? No matter what the number is, you can always write more. More, more, more! Learn by doing. Trial by fire. Bite the bullet. Slay the dragon. Dethrone the champ. Steal the pudding!

. . . Okay, well, maybe not that last one—nobody likes a pudding thief. 

But keep writing, is my point. Strain that brain! Find the answers, instead of asking for them. That's how you'll get to where you want to be. :encouragement:


----------



## ironpony (Feb 4, 2016)

I have written four stories now.

Yep, I would like to find the answer and I keep writing, reading and watching movies.  In thrillers, they always seem to come up with a fixable backfire, I have noticed.  I am not sure how they do it, but they do.

What I could do is just let the story be without a backfire.  However, by doing so, the last half is much slower paced as a result.  The first half is very suspense and action driven, then the last half slows down, is very dialogue driven, and there is not near as much action and suspense, as in the first half.  Does that mean there is something wrong with it, or is that perfectly fine, even though I intended the last half to be more suspense packed than the first half originally?

As for keeping on writing, I have a lot of writers block.  I don't think I will find the answers on my own, without some sort of idea of where to look in the first place.  If I cannot find them after looking for a long while, then what?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 4, 2016)

Different folks different strokes, Kyle. Personally I find it is when I stop writing and trying the ideas develop, it's like there really is a subconscious working away there. But like I say, each to their own and we all have our minor variations. 

Ironpony, There are always more ways to kill a cat than drowning it in cream; even if it is an action movie there is more than action you can use. Exploiting some other aspect can often make a movie stand out in its genre. You could write in a personal relationship, for example, without changing the basic story.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Well mostly it's the legal system that gets in the way.  Not just when it comes to how police carrying guns but there is all this other legal stuff such as when it comes to what evidence counts as admissible vs, inadmissible, how fourth ammendment rights are violated in all the various different forms vs, finding loopholes... things like that.

I would like to be able to write, write, write, the story I want without the legal system getting in the way.  However, how am I suppose to know what is plausible in the system vs, implausible?  Even when I read law books that are geared towards writers, there are still a lot of exceptions to the rule that they do not go into, when it comes to my particular scenarios, and that's what makes it difficult.  There is not a low written for every scenario, so how does one know what is plausible and implausible?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 5, 2016)

Well, you could ignore it on the premise that if you don't know most of your readers wont  either, you could set it in a different time where the law suits you, past or present, you could relocate it geographically to somewhere the law suits you, you could set it in a fantasy country, you could have corrupt legal  officials who mis-apply the law, or stupid ones who act in ignorance, you could make the whole thing extra- legal, like 'Bullet' or 'Die hard' where the characters make no pretence of complying with legal requirements like reading people their rights, like I said 'There are more ways of killing a cat ...'

Try focusing on the possibilities rather than the problems, let your imagination go rather than contradicting it.

Any chance you could also edit the title if you are going to continue in the same vein? (leopards and spots...) It grates every time I see it, that is the form of their which means 'belonging to', and 'reasons' is plural so it should be 'Are there reasons ...', also cops work 'on' cases, not 'in' them.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Sorry for the misspellings, sometimes I make posts in a hurry.  My fault.

As for changing the setting, since it's a low budget screenplay, I have to shoot it locally in modern times.  I am restricted in that area unfortunately.  As far as having corrupt officials or ignorant ones, I feel it may come off as a Deux ex machina.  Like the main character says to himself "my plan will only work as long as I get a corrupt or ignorant prosecutor and judge on the case."  And then he gets it?

As for going the Die Hard/Bullitt route, well it's just the first act revolves a lot around a court case, where one of the gang members, gets off on specific technicalities, and things get real technical, with subpoenas and admissible, vs. inadmissible evidence, etc.  The first half holds together a lot better, but if I were to make the second half like Die Hard, and extra legal, do you think that the switch in tone will be noticeable?  Like it starts out with all these legal court technicalities, an then throws a lot of that out the window later?

What do you think?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 5, 2016)

Isn't the dude getting off on legal technicalities the reason your cop is pissed off in the first place?

You have every answer you need right in front of you. You have already written the answers. You are just so blinded by the self doubt that you can't see them.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 5, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Oh look. Another thread wanting us to write his story.
> 
> I'll bite. An undercover cop infiltration g a gang would definitely be working alone. He would, of course, have to occasionally report to his superiors, but that could be up to a couple of months between reports unless otherwise ordered. His superiors would know that they more they initiate contact, or make him contact them, the more the risk of his cover being blown would rise..




I am not going to read all 66 posts.

I will say this:

Screenplay you said, right? So it's for a film?

Didn't you watch the Fast and the Furious? Brian O'Connor [Paul Walker] didn't walk around with a wire strapped to his chest, a camera for a button and a tracker in the heel of his shoe.

When people are put under cover, they go under alone. It is dangerous and the use of wires and such are just movie gimmicks. The only time such things are used are during the actual operations. Like when the under cover operative finds out a shipment is coming in or a deal is going to be taking place. Only then do they 'set the trap' and use the identity compromising technology to gather evidence. 

Under cover operatives DO see things that other cops are not likely to see. Criminals don't exactly go show 'known officers' their dirty dealings, shady back alley transactions and gruesome torture methods. 

So yes. It is entirely possible for your screenplay to work.

The more doubtful part is the superiors not believing the operative. What reason does he have to lie? Do they think he has been flipped? An untrustworthy officer wouldn't be put under cover in the first place. Unless you are writing 22 Jump Street. 

... I wont digress and just end my 2 cents there. 


At the end of the day, the writer is like God. Regardless of sense or reason, what happens is the will of the writer. As long as it is plausible, even if unlikely, the reader enjoying the story will 'tolerate' the unlikely coincidences that let your hero come out victorious. 

Just try not to go over the top.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 5, 2016)

ironpony said:
			
		

> Well mostly it's *the legal system that gets in the way*. ... but *there is all this other legal stuff* . . .
> 
> I would like to be able to write, write, write, *the story I want without the legal system* getting in the way.



Sounds to me like you might be better off writing the story in such a way that it doesn't involve (or doesn't rely so heavily on) the legal system and all its technicalities. :grief:


----------



## Plasticweld (Feb 5, 2016)

I am pretty sure it is a made up phrase, but once while I was in the bathroom I overheard two writers talking. They said something to the effect that a good writer, writes what he knows...sounds like pure bs to me


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Greimour said:


> I am not going to read all 66 posts.
> 
> I will say this:
> 
> ...



Yes I know, he does not wear recording devices.  When I say why don't undercover cops have back up, by back up, I do not mean recording devices.  I mean back up as in people, like waiting in hiding in case something dangerous happens?

It seems to me that even if the cop is not going to be wired, you would still want hidden officers observing with long range binoculars and possibly a parabolic microphone?


----------



## Bishop (Feb 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yes I know, he does not wear recording devices.  When I say why don't undercover cops have back up, by back up, I do not mean recording devices.  I mean back up as in people, like waiting in hiding in case something dangerous happens?
> 
> It seems to me that even if the cop is not going to be wired, you would still want hidden officers observing with long range binoculars and possibly a parabolic microphone?



Likely not. Undercover cops are on their own, and if they need backup they have to find a way to get it otherwise.

Their cover is so deep that once they're accepted by the gang, it's unlikely suddenly they'll go, "He's a cop!" and backup be needed. Undercover cops become the criminal they're pretending to be. They do some pretty screwed up things to maintain their cover, and do it well. They cut ties with the force entirely, and because of these circumstances many of them are deeply scarred by the experience. Essentially, they become criminals, and when the time is right betray their fellow criminals.

That all being said, if they need to call for help, they can contact their handlers, usually their superiors who they send candid reports to from time to time, as well as simply call a department and give their badge number (I think--don't quote me on this) and request assistance.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Well in my story, an undercover cop infiltrates a gang and has to kill another person to be accepted by the gang.  Or at least harm another person brutally, as part of his test for getting in with them.  But he does not want to do this and breaks cover to save the person from being killed by the gang, since he couldn't do it.

So when a cop infiltrates a gang, how long before they give him that test?  Would they do it on the first day, like in the movie Training Day, when the corrupt cops wanted to get a cop to kill someone as part of the recruitment?  Or would they want till a further meeting?


----------



## Greimour (Feb 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yes I know, he does not wear recording devices.  When I say why don't undercover cops have back up, by back up, I do not mean recording devices.  I mean back up as in people, like waiting in hiding in case something dangerous happens?
> 
> It seems to me that even if the cop is not going to be wired, you would still want hidden officers observing with long range binoculars and possibly a parabolic microphone?




Nope. That's movie gimmicks. That kind of thing will only be used in a sting operation.

If they have an under cover operative working in an organized crime syndicate of any kind, then they are already monitoring those people. The fact they are monitoring in the first place is already a form of protection for the under cover officer. 

At the end of the day, the undercover operative is there to find out what surveillance can't uncover. If they are watching the Operatives every move, what is his purpose? 

The time and resources used to monitor the undercover officer removes his purpose and poses potential dangers to that officers life. 

If an undercover officer is being followed, tracked, monitored and protected by Police Officers, the [bad guys] *will* find out. At that point in time, do you think he will get out of there alive?

What Bishop said is right. I just basically went the annoying way to say the same but from a different perspective.


~~~

Watch the 2006 film 'The Departed' starring Mark Wahlberg. You will definitely get insight from that if you pay enough attention.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  I have seen The Departed but that movie is different from my story.  In my story, the cop is infiltrating a gang that is like a secret cult, where none of the members are known.  In The Departed, the cops new who the bad guys were, so I thought my situation was different and the cops would want to see more of what's happening, since they do not know who any of them are.  They wear masks all the time, and the undercover doesn't even know who they are until he passes their tests.

So I thought the cops in mine would want to give it extra attention, cause unlike The Departed, again, they do not know who any of them are.


----------



## Greimour (Feb 5, 2016)

Nah, its still pretty much the same deal. Might have more than one person sneaking under cover though. 

You said he was 'sent' under cover, right? Not off his own back. If that's the case, they might try multiple people. Your guy might be sent in alone, but another pair is sent in as a pair.

Depends on the group. Every situation is different. The people in charge have to run the risk assessment and make a call. Is it safer to send them in alone, with no back up of any kind? Is the group serious enough to send an under cover officer inside? 

Too many factors to be considered. Aren't you glad you're the writer though? You make the rules. 

Even if it is unlikely or unrealistic in the real world... it's a film. Just watch 90% of the films out there and you will see all the B.S you want. 

Anyway, instead of listing films that people enjoyed even though they had totally unrealistic and god-awful plots (demolition man, cough), or terrible plot twists, (cough, Signs) I will ask this instead:
*
You think people haven't infiltrated the KKK before?*




Seriously, don't stress the small stuff.




Plasticweld said:


> They  said something to the effect that a good writer, writes what he  knows...sounds like pure bs to me



'Write what you know' is actually a pretty famous author saying. The point being that you can't write about that which you know nothing about. Which I guess is true. You can't write about a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly if you have never heard of the caterpillar or the butterfly. 

The amount of people attributed for saying 'Write what you know' are numerous too. Most people give it to Hemingway, but I wasn't able to find proof of that at all when I researched. 

What Hemingway did say is this:

"From all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make  something through your invention that is not a representation but a  whole new thing truer than anything true and alive."

The profundity of that comment is amazing.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  Well in my story, an undercover cop infiltrates a gang and has to kill another person to be accepted by the gang.  Or at least harm another person brutally, as part of his test for getting in with them.  But he does not want to do this and breaks cover to save the person from being killed by the gang, since he couldn't do it.
> 
> So when a cop infiltrates a gang, how long before they give him that test?  Would they do it on the first day, like in the movie Training Day, when the corrupt cops wanted to get a cop to kill someone as part of the recruitment?  Or would they want till a further meeting?



Personally, I doubt they'd have someone kill on their first meeting. Professional criminals (real ones) build recruits to more dangerous things. Starts with a card cheat, or a shoplifting. Maybe a little help in an honest brawl. Then, when they're somewhat trusted, they get to prove themselves with darker tasks.

See, a smart criminal wouldn't involve someone new to the organization in a major crime like that because they could be a cop, or could rat them out right after. Coercing someone to kill someone else is conspiracy to commit murder. That's a major, major felony. So no one with half a brain would go "we just met, you want to join the gang... let's go murder this guy and you're proven." That guy can go to the cops ten minutes later and testify to murder, even if he did it.

It's not just the trust of doing the deed that criminals need, its the trust of not talking. That's why they start small and build into sinister acts.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 5, 2016)

Yep that makes sense.  However one thing I forgot to mention is that in my case, the murder is fake and staged.  They give the cop a fake prop gun that is made to look real, and he has to point it at a tied up hostage and pull the trigger.  The gun will not fire and it's just a test to see if he is willing.

The hostage is also a fake hostage, and is a fellow gang member posing as one.  So the gang could not be be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, if the gun is not real, and the hostage is one of them, agreeing to be part of the act.  With that in mind, could they put the undercover cop to that test sooner, since it's not a real murder but more of a role play act, which is not really a crime, if there is no real gun?


----------



## Greimour (Feb 5, 2016)

Again, you're the writer, you decide.


If I were leader of a cult with some major plan or scheme, depending on the type of cult it was, I'd have no problem giving brutal mission on day one.

Scenario:

Guy is trying to get in with us.

By use of Proxy, I tell him to blow up 'place-x' while it is full of people. If he does, he's in. If he is one of us, he would do it. If he doesn't or he gets caught, no skin off my nose.


~~~ But maybe I am not in that kind of 'organization'. The word 'cult' is very vague and often misused.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Feb 5, 2016)

Although it's FRUSTRATING reading Ironpony's threads sometimes... I keep getting drawn back in...

Hope your script turns out the same way.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 5, 2016)

They can do whatever you want--it's your story; that's the issue here. You're asking what we think you should do. I try to answer when it's something I know about police procedure from the research I'd done for my own novel, but when it comes to making a decision about what would work for your story, I can't say.


----------

