# Will this climax be plausible in modern times?



## ironpony (Sep 7, 2015)

I was thinking of having the third act of my story (a battle between the police and villains), happen like in a western, accept it's not a western a lot has changed in modern times. Basically in my story the cops are angry at the gang because the gang got away with murdering an officer, and the cops do not have enough proof, but at the same time, they want to put the gang out of commission.

Now the kind of ending I want would go like this, like in this clip from Open Range at 1:55 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfNCH2_oA8

Now if you have that in modern times with the cops one side, approaching the gang from the other at a place they arranged to find the gang, would that work? Or do people have modern times have such a different mentality, that you cannot use a western influenced ending like that?

The reason why the cops go after the gang in this type of aggressive manor is because the gang is too smart for the police to catch by legal means.  They keep covering their tracks and outsmarting them so after a couple murders of officers they get away with, a few cops band together and go kill them since that is the only way to put them out of commission.  But what do I have to do, to get a few officers to loose that much hope and feel they have to throw their lives away, and go to jail in order for the preservation of justice?  It's trickier to write in modern times.

What do you think?


----------



## Bishop (Sep 8, 2015)

ironpony said:


> The reason why the cops go after the gang in this type of aggressive manor is because the gang is too smart for the police to catch by legal means.  They keep covering their tracks and outsmarting them so after a couple murders of officers they get away with, a few cops band together and go kill them since that is the only way to put them out of commission.  But what do I have to do, to get a few officers to loose that much hope and feel they have to throw their lives away, and go to jail in order for the preservation of justice?  It's trickier to write in modern times.
> What do you think?



I think I'd have trouble buying that a bunch of cops go to commit first degree murder because of the loss of one officer. It's sad and impacts them deeply, no doubt, but there's a shared understanding that goes with being an officer that these things can happen. In real life, rarely do cops get to go on a Man On Fire rampage to get revenge. In fact, I'd much more believe that they'd fabricate evidence to frame the gang.

Also, these days, when cops go in for a shootout KNOWING they're going in for a shootout, they bring in SWAT teams and backup, close off civilian access to the areas if they can, and instead of squaring off in the middle of the road, they'd try to tactically lock them into a building and hit them with the element of surprise.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 8, 2015)

Okay thanks.  The difference in mine though is that since the cops are going their without authorization, they cannot bring a SWAT team.  However, if the ending does not work, what else can I use?  I do not want the whole fabricating evidence thing, because I want the climax to end in a hostage situation for certain things to happen to the key characters.  If the cops plant evidence, then the villain goes to jail and all those key characters cannot end up in the same place, at the same time, for certain things to happen which is what I want.

Is their a plausible ending I can go for that does not involve framing the villains, but instead logically wanting to flush them out to be somewhere?  What if the cops who want justice get the villains to be somewhere at a certain place and time so I have all the key characters meet up where I want them to be, but the cop's motivation is not to kill the villains, but to take video and photos of them, and then put them all over the internet, telling the world that "these are the killers".  They say that they failed to get proof on them, but now you know who they are and to watch out for them.  The cop's could of course loose their jobs for slander without enough evidence for a prosecution, but they can they take comfort in loosing their jobs, knowing they have done a good deed?  Will that ending work better?


----------



## Bishop (Sep 8, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Will that ending work better?



I honestly don't know. Mostly because it's not written yet, and most anything can "work" if it's written in a believable and enjoyable manner.

That being said, I have researched police procedure a little for my own detective novel, and I feel like your proposed story deviates too much from what I know to be real police work. One thing I'll say is that most cops aren't quite so righteous. They're not there for "justice" at the end of the day. That might be why they became cops, but the reality is that being a police officer becomes a JOB at some point, and these men and women often find themselves stuck in routines, treating the public in much the same manner as a retail associate treats customers. It's human nature; we experience a mundane repetition in our daily lives, even cops. So when a TV show or movie (which I think you said this was a script) tells me that a cop is just "out for justice" or "revenge" I have to really be sold on his quest and motivations there.

Which is why it's hard for me to believe cops would risk their careers, lives, pensions, family safety... EVERYTHING they are just to catch the guy who they have no evidence of doing anything. At what point does a cop say "there's no evidence, and if I push I'll lose everything" and not also say "if there's NO evidence... maybe they didn't do it"? Most people aren't willing to gamble that much. And most cops will just shrug and count it as another victim. Or another fish that got away, so to speak.

That being said, if you want that big ending, with the gunfight at the OK Corral and all the major players running into one another... well, it can be a tall order. My endings in my novels are almost always a MC facing their adversary, and most everyone else is dead or incapacitated. The middle action whittles the ranks, more often than not, and I like that character focus. One character, driven by personal motivation, facing his/her challenge. Getting that to happen for 10 characters can be rough; can be easy too, though.

With yours, the issue is the why. Why are the gang members at this place? How do the cops know they are there? Why are the cops going to straight-up confront them? You need those questions answered convincingly and realistically. At least enough that we drop our disbelief.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 9, 2015)

Okay thanks.  I was thinking about your idea of framing the villains instead.  If I go that route, how exactly would the cops frame him?  I mean the crime scene has already been investigated with all the evidence collected, so if they find something else planted there later, lawyers could argue that it could have been put there after, especially since the murder was committed in a public place at night, when no one was around, but still public place, and people go through there all the time.

And the cop's body has already been investigated and is probably either at the morgue or in the ground by now, so there is no luck at planting new evidence on the body, and expecting the investigators to find it without suspicion, since they didn't find it before.

And if you break into the suspect's house to plant evidence, you would have to do something to attract the police to it, such as stage a break in.  But then the suspect can just argue that whoever broke into his house planted the evidence.  I cannot think of a way for the cops to frame him successfully in this situation.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 9, 2015)

Ya know..I see an awful lot of "But if I do this, then how, EXACTLY, do I do it?" in your posts.

You keep asking us what would "work" and what wouldn't. Then, when  we tell you that your scenarios just wouldn't work, or that there are heavy realism issues, you ask for specific ideas.

Here's the thing. We can't write this story for you. When we tell you something is wrong, it's not our job to tell you how to fix it. You are the writer. It's your job to figure it out. None of us have any context whatsoever within the story to be able to give you specifics.

Keep in mind, also, that if we were to give you specific answers, and you were to use them, then it stops being your story.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 9, 2015)

ironpony said:


> I cannot think of a way for the cops to frame him successfully in this situation.



I cant really tell you what TO do in your story. I can offer ideas, tell you what I think won't work, but at the end of the day, I don't know enough about it to give a 'right' answer. That being said, the chain of evidence and how lawyers can utilize it in court is very complex. If it's an ongoing investigation, evidence can be revisited, crime scenes can be re-checked, and witnesses can be re-interviewed, all potentially producing new evidence. A lawyer cannot get evidence thrown out of court simply because of when it was found in the course of an investigation. They can question the circumstances of the evidence, but it can't be thrown out of court just because of the date. It might be suspect, but it's not invalid just because of that.

If it's a public place, it might be more tricky, but they could also fabricate evidence collection tags, claim it was found in the initial sweep, and as long as they do that BEFORE arraignment, then lawyers could say little without strong evidence to the contrary. It can be done, and the reason we KNOW it can be done is the unfortunate truth that it HAS been done.

All that said... I'm not a lawyer, or a cop, or a judge. I would strongly... STRONGLY recommend some serious research on procedure. Libraries are full of information about old cases, laws for police work, and court cases after court cases after court cases of history on EVERYTHING you're talking about. Not using those resources, even the ones at your fingertips on the web, is the metaphorical self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. Bad research makes for bad writing, and that's doubly so for something like cop dramas, that involves real-world situations and professions.


----------



## kilroy214 (Sep 9, 2015)

Listen to your ol' pal Jack Burton there.

In all seriousness, a lot of what you're asking can be found on several different info pages on the web, wikapedia especially. I would also suggest a number of books on writing criminal and police procedural fiction known as the Howdunit series.
I would read as much as possible, if I were you; true crime, mysteries, police fiction, etc, even watch some movies and series on the subject, ie- The Wire, Law&Order, The Shield, etc.

Also, if setting it in "modern times" is such a downer, does it have to be set in present day? I know period pieces aren't everyone's cup of tea, but if it's that much of an headache for you, setting it in a different era might help ease the burden.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 9, 2015)

Okay thanks.  It's just my story is a revenge thriller, which deals with themes of revenge and consequences.  So if I were to go for something you would see in a real life procedure, with the revenge element removed, I feel it would go against the themes.  As for setting it in the past, since it's a low budget screenplay, I am setting it in modern times, because of budget, to make filming cheaper.

As for researching police revenge stories, I have found a lot in other parts of the world, but hardly any in modern U.S., unfortunately.  There are several approaches I can use for an ending based on research I have done by asking cops, and what not, but those endings would break theme.  I would like to have an ending that works for the theme, but at the same time is believable of course.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 9, 2015)

ironpony said:


> So if I were to go for something you would see in a real life procedure, with the revenge element removed, I feel it would go against the themes.



Never said remove the revenge elements. Never even said your characters had to follow procedure... But you as a writer damn well need to know it. Because if you're writing characters that break the rules or deviate from the norm, you need to know both HOW they're deviating, and WHAT the consequences are for doing so. And the reasons need to be evident in the character and his actions.



ironpony said:


> As for researching police revenge stories, I have found a lot in other parts of the world, but hardly any in modern U.S., unfortunately.  There are several approaches I can use for an ending based on research I have done by asking cops, and what not, but those endings would break theme.  I would like to have an ending that works for the theme, but at the same time is believable of course.



I'm not saying research police revenge stories... I'm saying research the police. Learn how they investigate crimes, how they track leads and the process for gathering evidence, cataloging it, and presenting it at trial. Read about reality, DO NOT draw your information solely from NYPD Blue. Because you can only branch away from reality if you KNOW the reality. You can only take liberties with the truth when you know the truth.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 9, 2015)

Okay thanks, that helps a lot.  Well in my story the police who want justice for the dead cop, are more upset than usual because they made two previous attempts to get the villains, only to have them fail and the villains laughing their way out of a courtroom. They actually already tried to frame the villain before only to be in severe hot water because of it.  So they are more on edge than just a cop being killed only.

They know where the villains will be, in a public parking lot, at a certain place and time because they arranged it, posing as someone the villains wanted to meet up with.  So the villains will be there, but just because the villains show up, that is not enough to incriminate them.  They could just say there were out shopping and coincidentally happened to be there, where the police arranged to meet the gang they were after.  So this small group of cops needs a reason for going after the villains originally.  If it's not to kill them, they need an original reason to meet them there, and maybe it can turn to killing after, because something went wrong.  Or they could intend to kill them when they arrive, because they feel that them showing up is guilty enough.  Not in the court's minds, but in their minds to seek revenge.

But this is the part that I am having a hard time selling.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 9, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, that helps a lot.  Well in my story the police who want justice for the dead cop, are more upset than usual because they made two previous attempts to get the villains, only to have them fail and the villains laughing their way out of a courtroom. They actually already tried to frame the villain before only to be in severe hot water because of it.  So they are more on edge than just a cop being killed only.
> 
> They know where the villains will be, in a public parking lot, at a certain place and time because they arranged it, posing as someone the villains wanted to meet up with.  So the villains will be there, but just because the villains show up, that is not enough to incriminate them.  They could just say there were out shopping and coincidentally happened to be there, where the police arranged to meet the gang they were after.  So this small group of cops needs a reason for going after the villains originally.  If it's not to kill them, they need an original reason to meet them there, and maybe it can turn to killing after, because something went wrong.  Or they could intend to kill them when they arrive, because they feel that them showing up is guilty enough.  Not in the court's minds, but in their minds to seek revenge.
> 
> But this is the part that I am having a hard time selling.



If they got the villains there with false pretenses, then let them continue to believe it. Say, it's a drug deal. Have someone the villains wouldn't know pose as a buyer/dealer, wearing a wire. Then, they get the whole thing on recording, maybe even them confessing something else, and when it's revealed, the villains draw guns and then you've got your shootout. Sting operation gone wrong is much more believable than revenge cop death squad.


----------



## bazz cargo (Sep 9, 2015)

In some genres there are certain steps that have to be followed. Getting all the suspects together for the reveal is a classic.

There is no reason why you can't reference the Western Genre in your police drama. The trick is to present it successfully. That I'm afraid is the writer's job. 

Good luck.


----------



## kilroy214 (Sep 9, 2015)

Why can't the cop that wants the revenge be a lieutenant who is over a tac team who feel the same way as he and he's willing to let them run the mission off the books and keep their activity secret from the higher ups.
Or they're doing it on the behalf of a major. Or a judge. Or maybe their superior officers turn a blind eye because they secretly want them to take out the drug dealers.
I think there are plenty of ways the cops could run dirty without getting suspected or at least caught.

And police forces are a lot different than they were in the days of the old west, and sense it's written as present day, the cops will have to act more or less like they belong to a modern police force. That does not, by any means, mean there can be no overtones of the western genre (watch a few episodes of Justified or better yet read some Elmore Leonard works to see how the western genre can influence modern day police work).


----------



## ironpony (Sep 10, 2015)

Okay thanks.  As for the sting operation idea, that was my original climax but I was told by other writers and readers that they didn't buy it, because the crooks are so smart to cover their asses for the most of the story, then in the end, they don't bother to check to see if people are wearing wires, nor do they bother to check the area for cops and back up, when they did things like this for the whole story previously.  Other readers just didn't buy it, so that's why I asked about this new idea, the western ending.  Even though it may be a tough sell, these villains are too smart to fall undercover tactics I was told because of how they outsmarted the police throughout the rest of it.

As for the revenge plot, I suppose the highest rank could be sergeant leading the others, but I don't know if I can go higher, because of the already established characters.  Lieutenant maybe, depending on rank duties.


----------



## aj47 (Sep 10, 2015)

My thought is that it's not as much what you specifically have happen as how you write it.  Stuff that theoretically sounds stupid or lame could be turned into gold at the right keyboard.

Or, as someone said, there is no such thing as a bad idea, only bad execution of the idea.  So, Nike.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Sep 10, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Ya know..I see an awful lot of "But if I do this, then how, EXACTLY, do I do it?" in your posts.
> 
> You keep asking us what would "work" and what wouldn't. Then, when  we tell you that your scenarios just wouldn't work, or that there are heavy realism issues, you ask for specific ideas.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly. 

Ironpony... It seems like you are MARRIED to your original idea's and there is no room to change things up. Every time someone suggests something. You counter it with why "this and that" can't happen. 

Anything can happen, if you make the appropriate changes to make it happen.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 10, 2015)

Sorry about that.  It's just whenever make a change other writers tell me there are plot holes, so as long as the change has no plot holes then it's good.  Basically the biggest weakness I have in writing is that I keep being told that in order for the police to catch the villain, the villain keeps having to do something stupid to get caught, and it doesn't add up cause the villain was too smart before. That is why I opted for this ending, because if the cops were pushed into murdering the villains, then the villain wouldn't do something out of character in order for their downfall to happen.

I would like to write it so that the villains end up incriminating himself by the police attacking their weakness.  But what's the trick to that?  How does the hero bring down the villain by using the villain's weakness to fool him, without the villain having to become stupid in order to fall for it as a result?


----------



## DaBlaRR (Sep 10, 2015)

The villain doesn't have to be stupid. He can be smart and still be tricked. 

Makes me think of the movie "Fracture" with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling - Anthony Hopkins, who was the villain was BRILLIANT... But everyone has their weaknesses, and everyone makes a mistake. Your hero just needs to be smart enough to capitalize on it.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 10, 2015)

Hmm... Perhaps this could be the problem, is that the villain has not made a mistake at this point, and the hero has to start from scratch?  The hero doesn't even know the villain is though.  All he knows is that it's just some gang going around committing violence.   He knows three of the members, but I would like him to expose the whole gang, if that's possible.  But so far, I haven't thought of a way for him to flush the gang out.  Is this possible?

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are some movies that come to mind such as in Red Dragon for example, they don't know who the killer is, so they place a personal add.  But so far I haven't been able to think of a solution for the police without making the villains look stupid.  I will keep plugging at it.  Does the villain have to make a prior mistake for this to work, or can the police start from scratch and set a trap to flush them out, without having a prior mistake made?[/FONT]


----------



## Bishop (Sep 10, 2015)

ironpony said:


> How does the hero bring down the villain by using the villain's weakness to fool him, without the villain having to become stupid in order to fall for it as a result?



I believe it was James Randi who said... no matter how smart you are, you can be fooled. He also tells the story of a group of Cal Tech physicists who genuinely tested and believed a man in California could lift a matchbox without touching it while it rested on the back of his hand. Randi, being a magician informed them of how that trick works (it's exceedingly simple to do, just involves the tightening of the skin) and these men, some of the smartest men in the country, were dumbfounded at how they had been fooled.

It is, in fact, often the people most assured of their own intellect that are the easiest to fool.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 14, 2015)

Okay thanks.  Well it seems to me that in order for the police to get the whole gang to show up all in the same place and same time, they will have to get them to meet for a deal of some sort.  However, the gang will be meeting with someone they do not know, so how can I write it, that they are willing to do that without coming off as stupid to the reader?


----------



## Bishop (Sep 14, 2015)

ironpony said:


> However, the gang will be meeting with someone they do not know, so how can I write it, that they are willing to do that without coming off as stupid to the reader?



By... not writing them as stupid? Just because you don't know someone doesn't mean you're stupid for meeting them, even in a criminal context. How do you think criminal connections form? eHarmony? Someone gets introduced to someone, who meets someone, who takes a chance on someone...


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 14, 2015)

](*,) Ugh.


----------



## Mike C (Sep 15, 2015)

Suspension of disbelief:

Almost any idea, no matter how far-fetched, can work if it's well written and you carry your readers with you and don't cheat them.

Almost any idea, no matter how good, will crash and burn if the above is ignored.

If you want to know if an idea works, don't ask. Ideas are meaningless. Write it. make it work. Show us. Bask in the feedback.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 18, 2015)

Okay thanks.  Well let's take the idea of the western style ending where the cops go out to meet the gang and they have a shoot out intentionally because they feel the city is not big enough for both of them.  How can I write it so that the reader believes that a gang would actually go out and meet cops.  If cops called the gang and said "meet us at so and so, and we'll deal settle this for good", how can I write it so that the reader will believe that the gang would actually accept the proposal, as oppose to... not accepting it, and avoiding the police altogether?


----------



## Bishop (Sep 18, 2015)

ironpony said:


> ... If cops called the gang and said "meet us at so and so, and we'll deal settle this for good", how can I write it so that the reader will believe that the gang would actually accept the proposal, as oppose to... not accepting it, and avoiding the police altogether?



If you were involved in highly illegal activity, would you EVER accept that invitation?


----------



## ironpony (Sep 18, 2015)

No, but they have done it in Westerns before, such as Tombstone and Open Range for example.  What's the criminals reasons for doing it in those stories?


----------



## Bishop (Sep 18, 2015)

ironpony said:


> No, but they have done it in Westerns before, such as Tombstone and Open Range for example.  What's the criminals reasons for doing it in those stories?



In the old west, living by the gun was a way of life, but I don't honestly know how realistic that type of moment was--and I doubt it was realistic at all. But in modern times? If the cops invite you somewhere, they're bringing a SWAT team, a recon helicopter, cordoning off five city blocks, putting it all on camera and taking precisely zero chances. And if they're corrupt cops, and planning on NOT doing any of that, the criminal would assume that they are anyway.

Back in the west, with no grid, you could kill someone and leave town and no one outside of that town might be the wiser. Wanted posters, telegraphed messages of who killed who, all of it existed, but there was little in the way of evidence collecting or investigation as we know it today. Today, if you kill someone, the entire country knows within minutes, and there's often a trail of evidence leading to you. Going head to head against the police back then was VERY different, and even then, I feel like it's a strain for them to do the old, "us or them" cliche. There's a reason "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" has been made into a joke time and time again--it's a tired cliche.

If you want that ending, make a western. It'll be much more 'at home' in that setting, even if still a bit cliched. If you want to make a modern crime story? It likely won't work.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 18, 2015)

Okay thanks.  Well I can't set it in the west because it's for a low budget screenplay, and to save money, it has to be shot in modern times.  However, I can change the climax.  

The gang knows that the cops who want to kill them are crooked.  Crooked in the sense that they want to avenge a murdered cop.  So I need the cops and the gang to arrive in the same place at the same time for the climax I want.  The cop who was killed, was not actually done by the gang, the cops just think they did it.  The cop who was killed was also working for the gang.  What if the gang wanted to get the cops off their back, and in order to do it, they prove to the cops, that the cop they are avenging was working for them, and they did not kill him.  They prove to the cops that they would be avenging a corrupt cop, who was a part of their gang, and therefore he is not worth killing the gang over.

Would the gang make contact with the cops who are after them, to try to prove that the cop, they are avenging, was one of the gang, and is therefore, not worth avenging, in an effort to get the vengeful cops to back down?  Is that a reason for the gang to make contact with them?


----------

