• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Would audiences by this as realistic or plausible?

In my script a cop wants to arrest some people on suspicion of a crime. This leads to the person resisting arrest, and by shooting it with the cops, as well as a chase. One of them gets caught, and the others get away. However, I want him to get off for the crime, thereby leading the police to have to come up with other means of catching him. He gets off cause the attempted arrest was unlawful. I did some research and their are some laws that says a citizen can kill to prevent an unlawful arrest. Like in this article here:

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

But the question is, how far can you take this to the point where an audience would believe it? Obviously I can fill in the holes, such as, all the guns the perps own were legal and permitted, but then they speed off a drive away, and endanger civilians, and what not. So how far can I take it where a judge would still let them off, because the cops did not have probable cause, and therefore, the arrest would be unlawful? Also, they would have get off, even though they created public danger, and would have to argue, it was just self defense, from being illegally arrested.

Basically I want to write it in a way, in which there is a shoot out/chase, cause that's what audiences like. If every villain went quietly without a fight in movies, then audiences would agree that that would have ruined the movie for them. They want villains who fight back. If in Dirty Harry for example, of the villain, surrendered to Harry immediately and told him everything, and Harry didn't feel compelled to shoot him in the leg, most audiences would agree that the movie wouldn't be near as good.

So I need to write it so that he gets off, but you still have that shootout and chase scenario, that audiences are looking for in a thriller.
 
Last edited:
It's not about what is. It's about what people think it is. In other words, people won't believe it because even though they may have been unlawfully arrested, they ran from the cops and endangered the public. In the police state that we live in where you can be arrested for filming a cop, this is a pretty far stretch and I don't think a lot of people would buy it.

On the other hand, if you wanted to make this into a dark comedy, you could have the judge be an idealist social republican who enrages the police with his decision to let them go because it, "went against their constitutional rights.

But yeah, the rule of thumb is, if you have to stretch the truth to make it work, then you should probably come up with something different.
 
Okay thanks. However, you would be able to plea necessity? Like if the suspect is driving away from the cops, and he almost hit a civilian but swerved and missed, could you plea necessity, in which case say that it would not have happened, if it had not been a result of the cop's illegality in the first place?

If not, then what if I wrote it so that it was not in a public place, but a shootout on the suspect's own property. The police walk in the door of his place, which was open at the time, cause they saw something inside, but did not have probable cause, just reasonable suspicion, which is not enough for an arrest. But they say they are the police and try to make an arrest anyway, which leads to the shootout. But then the suspect can just claim that it was 'home defense', since the arrest was illegal.

Would that work better if I had a shootout occur all on the suspect's property instead, so no public was endangered?
 
What if I wrote it, so that in the script, after the judge let's the guy off, one main cop character in the back of the courtroom says to another, "That's what you get with an idealist social republican for a judge". Would that help the audience believe it better, if they knew that about the judge?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top