HomeWritersLiterary AgentsEditorsPublishersResourcesDiscussion
Forum Login | Join the discussion
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91

    How can my villain rat on someone, without ratting himself out in this case?

    Sorry I do not know why it says default in the title line. It happened after I posted the thread, and must be a glitch. In my story, the villains find out that the MC (a cop), is coming after them out of revenge, along with a few other cops, who want revenge on the villains since the villains killed a cop they work with.

    The villains got away with it, so a few cops form an angry lynch mob, and go after him.

    However, the cop that the villains killed was a mole, working for them, and the cops wanting to avenge their fallen officer, do not know that he was. The villains figure that they will tell the vengeful cops that their fallen friend was actually 'one of them', the whole time, and he was killed whilst working for them.

    The reason why the villains want to tell the cops this is because there is a good chance it will deter the cops from wanting to kill them out of revenge. If the cops find out that their fallen friend was a mole working for the gang, the whole time, they will feel dishonored by their fallen friend, and therefore not want to avenge him. They wouldn't feel that he was worth avenging if he was one of the gang.

    So the villains figure that the cops will not kill them, if they can prove to the cops that their fallen friend was one of them.

    However, how would the villains go about doing it, but at the same time, not leave enough of a trail of evidence that would lead back to them? They have to implicate the dead officer in being part of their crimes, without incriminating themselves, legally.

    Perhaps they can incriminate themselves but since they were giving the information to cops who they suspected where likely going to kill them, the evidence can be deemed inadmissible since it was given to the cops under threat, and the villains know this, so they are willing to risk incriminating themselves in order to not be killed by the vengeful cops?

    Or I can write it so that they simply are able to rat out their dead mole, without ratting themselves out in the process. But is their anyway they can do this?

    As far as the proof of the mole's collusion, I do not know what proof the gang would have to deliver to the vengeful cops. I need to figure out how they cannot rat themselves out in the process, before I figure out the type of proof, they would have to give, if that makes sense.

    Does anyone have ideas as to how they could prove the mole's collusion without ratting themselves out directly, evidence wise? The gang figures that even though proving to the officers that their friend was a mole, may not deter all of them wanting to kill the gang, it's still worth a shot to try, compared to having killer cops after you.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    93
    I've seen that sort of thing in action flicks, where the bad guys for one reason or another tell the good guys that their "friend" was really a villain, so I think it could work if you do it right. As for the incriminating evidence, if the other villains were never seen with the bad cop (without masks etc.), they could give the police incriminating evidence through the mail or online the way they do the videos and still keep their hands clean. If fact, they could put out a video showing the cop as one of them to show how powerful they are and to frighten the public and lessen the trust they have in the police and government systems. This would lead to internal investigations and a public outcry, which would, in turn, lead to the police being too distracted to give their full attention to the villains. The FBI would probably get involved then too, so I don't know if it'll do what you want.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Okay thanks. But this is where it feels like a plot hole to me, cause why would the gang keep incriminating evidence on him, after they had killed him? Why wouldn't they just get rid of anything they had, that would tie him to them?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    93
    Why does anyone keep records of anything? There's always that "just in case" factor that nags at the back of our minds. YOU, the writer, control the characters and the scenarios. Maybe the boss has an obsessive compulsive disorder about keeping records. Maybe he keeps proof of everyone's involvement as blackmail if they ever decide to change sides. Didn't you originally want the criminals to not know he was the one who died? They could decide to give the cops the evidence when they figure out why they're so angry at them. That way, they had kept the evidence because they didn't yet realize their buddy was dead.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Oh well I was thinking of changing so it that a lot more time has gone by maybe. I was told by other readers, that the cops choose to take revenge too soon, if I write it so that they take it right away, before it goes to the media that the officer was killed.

    When an officer was killed, it will go the media in just a few hours, after the investigators find out.

    But I was told that this is not enough time for the cops to form a revenge plan realistically. First the cops need to know if the crooks can be tied to the crime, which would take weeks of investigating at least.

    So I need to set it a few weeks later, to make it believable, cause revenge after a few hours, after death, is not enough to determine if the crooks will get away with it or not.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    93
    Ah, then of course the gang will know it was their buddy who died. Got it. At any rate, it shouldn't be too difficult or unbelievable that the crooks would keep such evidence around if it didn't tie him into their "secret identities." Like I said, you can always write in an obsessive compulsive disorder in the boss. These guys are very arrogant and think they can get away with anything, right? Why would they be afraid of keeping records? It sounds like you want the revenge-seeking cops to be getting close to their goal of revenge, and it scares the gang tremendously so they decide to take away the cops' reason to kill them. You could theoretically make the evidence as simple as sending the cops the dead guy's gang outfit with a letter informing them of his involvement. The clothing, of course, would have the traitor's DNA (especially the hat, where hair would've collected), which the cops could use to find out the gang's telling the truth.

    If they're scared enough, they might not realize that the clothing could have evidence of where their hideout is (especially if the cops are already on the right trail). You could then have the police figure out where the hideout is, and use that information to formulate a trap.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts