MovieChat Forums > L.A. Confidential (1997) Discussion > "Would you be willing to shoot a hardene...

"Would you be willing to shoot a hardened criminal in the back in order to offset the chance that some lawyer..."


That line makes no sense. I know the police were allowed to use brutal tactics back then, but Smith was talking about first degree murder, and Exley didn't even question it. Can someone please explain?

reply

I think it was mostly for foreshadowing given what happens at the end of the movie. But also keep in mind that Exley's father was a legendary detective and likely committed such acts and Exley was aware of it. That is why he said he didn't need to do it smith's way or his father's.

I think he understood what other detectives had done but he wanted to be different but without condemning the methods of the past but instead simply proving they were outdated and unnecessary.

At least that is the way I took it.

reply

SPOILERS



In the published screenplay by Curtis Hanson and Brian Helgeland, at the climax when Exley shoots Dudley in the back, a line of direction(not dialogue) on the page says this:

"The answer is yes."

reply

Cops were allowed to do that til the Miranda Act in the 1970s. The book series this is based on goes into it more. In Perfidia, which is the prequel to the series, Dudley Smith and some of the other cops actually shoot a rapist to death in the parking lot of a business. It takes place at the exact time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Rape was something they'd put you to death for back then.

reply

They still should.

reply

It may have been unofficially condoned in some circumstances, but cops were not legally allowed to shoot suspects, even prior to the Miranda Act.

reply

I guess it was common practice back then. Bud White did it right there in the movie, and he basically admitted to Ed, like what is the big deal, it is justice.

reply

You say this like cops can't basically do this now and get away with it.

reply

In 1995 police officers in LAPD were able to shoot a 'fleeing felon' in the back even if he/she did not have a gun. As long has you were in hot pursuit, and reasonably KNEW that the person committed a felony.

The logic behind this was that fleeing bankrobber/rapist/killer was a grave danger to the public at large and deadly force was authorized.

I haven't looked it up but I don't know if the rule still applies.

reply

This comment has aged very poorly

reply