Crossing the line between justified force and brutality
A beta reader of sorts (cousin) mentioned he thought my MC2 rather brutal in her capture of MC1 - though justified.
I have her dupe him into surrendering (believing himself outnumbered and outgunned). Once he does surrender, she does the following:
- searches him
- disarms him
- handcuffs him
- binds his elbows to prevent escape
- rigs a chokehold out of a dog leash
- threatens him with a hunting knife
- holds him at gun point
- threatens to geld him (psychological tactic only)
She is successful in convincing him that any unsanctioned movement is a bad idea. She uses these tactics because she is smaller than he is and she would lose in a fight. She cannot allow him, at that moment, to consider resisting.
Has she crossed the line between using justified force to bring in a dangerous prisoner and brutality?
It occurs in Bolivia shortly after an assassination.
To clarify somewhat, she does not go directly to the choke-hold or threat of castration. MC1 asks her something that makes her choose to go further as he is not in the mindset she wants yet.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/44118. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
Assuming the detainer is a police officer, in many jurisdictions this would be considered unnecessary force, i.e. illegal, and would likely result in the detainee having to be released.
Police forces in many nations are bound by principles of criminal justice ethics, and in fact, there are laws that police officers must adhere to in order to avoid misconduct.
Your officer is likely fully aware that misconduct will badly affect the case she is working on, so unless her behaviour is driven by personal factors rather than professional ones (e.g. fear, hatred, revenge, prejudice), this is likely too brutal.
0 comment threads
The tone of your writing will make the difference
Written out in a cold hard list like that is certainly sounds brutal. MC2 has MC1 at their mercy and yet continues to threaten and abuse them. If you want to portray the brutality of the scene then you don't have a problem. If you didn't intend for it to sound so harsh then you need to look at how you describe their actions.
Why are they doing it?
When a character is truly brutal and cares little for the life of their target then they will show little emotion or even take pleasure in the acts. Writing their behaviour in this way will increase the brutality of the scene.
She uses these tactics because she is smaller than he is and she would lose in a fight. She cannot allow him, at that moment, to consider resisting.
This makes it sound like the motivation is fear. MC2 is afraid of what MC1 will do when they break out and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent that. You need to show your readers that fear, a voice-crack and shaking hand when pointing the gun something that displays that MC2 isn't as confident as their actions appear.
Her concern was she was without backup and if he resists, her chance to apprehend him is gone.
Desperation is a similar motivator to fear. Show how the character doesn't want to do this but feels like they have no choice. This works particularly well if you show us the reason for their desperation, why is this so important to them?
Characters acting out of fear or desperation is something we can emphasize with and will reduce the feeling of brutality in your scene. Potentially you still make one too many threats but if you make it clear that these are hollow threats and MC2 is unlikely to follow through it won't seem so brutal.
A side note, if MC2 is performing an arrest in any kind of official capacity; law-enforcement, military or covert operation, they have certainly crossed the line. The most concerning is the choke-hold leash and the threat of gelding. Everything else is within the bounds of normal arrest behaviour.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads