![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
migmitJust getting my opinion out there.
I'm not a cop, not an investigator, and it's quite possible I don't know how it works in real life. But in fiction, it's a pretty standard procedure — when somebody arranges for someone else to be murdered, pretend briefly that the victim is actually dead — usually with that victim cooperation, — so that the villain makes his next move, and thus provides evidence against himself. And it's always — ALWAYS — treated as a smart move. Despite the fact that somebody actually grieved, when s/he had no real reason.
For example, in "Peril at End House", Poirot orchestrates such a thing, with the help of Nick, the victim (although there is a nice twist that I'm not going to reveal). Or, in the first season of "24", it's presidential candidate who pulls this off; this time it's not to collect more evidence against the bad guy, but to prevent him from repeating his attempt. And each time it did hurt some feelings — in the second example, probably half the country was really upset. But it's still a smart move.
So, I don't understand why absolutely same stunt pulled in real life by Arkady Babchenko and Security Service of Ukraine is treated differently. Yes, they fooled the media into thinking Babchenko was dead. For ONE DAY! The next day, Babchenko, very much alive, was presented at the press conference. Case closed. Operation was, apparently, a success. The deception was not maintained any longer than it was absolutely necessary. So, why are there accusations of dishonesty flying around? Where is the anger — against both the victim and the law enforcement — coming from? What's wrong with setting a trap and catching the bad guys?
I don't understand.
I'm not a cop, not an investigator, and it's quite possible I don't know how it works in real life. But in fiction, it's a pretty standard procedure — when somebody arranges for someone else to be murdered, pretend briefly that the victim is actually dead — usually with that victim cooperation, — so that the villain makes his next move, and thus provides evidence against himself. And it's always — ALWAYS — treated as a smart move. Despite the fact that somebody actually grieved, when s/he had no real reason.
For example, in "Peril at End House", Poirot orchestrates such a thing, with the help of Nick, the victim (although there is a nice twist that I'm not going to reveal). Or, in the first season of "24", it's presidential candidate who pulls this off; this time it's not to collect more evidence against the bad guy, but to prevent him from repeating his attempt. And each time it did hurt some feelings — in the second example, probably half the country was really upset. But it's still a smart move.
So, I don't understand why absolutely same stunt pulled in real life by Arkady Babchenko and Security Service of Ukraine is treated differently. Yes, they fooled the media into thinking Babchenko was dead. For ONE DAY! The next day, Babchenko, very much alive, was presented at the press conference. Case closed. Operation was, apparently, a success. The deception was not maintained any longer than it was absolutely necessary. So, why are there accusations of dishonesty flying around? Where is the anger — against both the victim and the law enforcement — coming from? What's wrong with setting a trap and catching the bad guys?
I don't understand.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-01 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-06-03 01:21 am (UTC)