Similarly, the crime boss is even more afraid of the police!

Just through the clue that criminal member No. 1 secretly sold stolen goods, criminal member No. 1 was firmly locked. This kind of ability to hit with one blow shows that there must be a master in the police, and it is very likely that it is the elite of the provincial department!

But when you think about it, it is obviously unrealistic that a disappearance case spanning six cities alone can attract the attention of the provincial authorities.

It is a bit ridiculous to think about any city that does not have a few headless disappearances, and forcibly putting together several disappearances can alarm the provincial department.

It is not that the provincial department will definitely take over the cross-city case, and the severity of the matter is generally presided over by the municipal bureau that is discovered first before the seriousness of the matter is reached.

What's more, they acted neatly and neatly, and did not leave any clues about kidnapping and murder at all, and before the evidence was insufficient, it was impossible for them to be reported to the provincial department, and they would only be beaten back at the level of the city bureau.

According to common sense, there is a high probability that such a situation will appear, but the current situation is even more severe than expected, and the criminal leader should not think about it.

Or, to continue to rationalize the result, that is, there are talents in the municipal bureau of L City, and the remaining few disappearance cases in L City that have not posted a notice to find relatives have also been known to the police in advance.

As for why the missing persons were not posted on the Internet in the remaining missing cases, it is likely that the genius of the city bureau chose to keep it secret out of the purpose of not wanting to startle the snake, or for some other purpose.

Whatever the reason, the police want to use such a information gap to induce him to make some miscalculations, and such a purpose must exist.

Based on this possibility, as well as the discordant plan previously carried out by the police, the possibility that the police used Criminal Member No. 1 to trap other members of the group has once again greatly increased.

But no matter how likely this is, on the premise of cutting off offline contact with criminal member No. 1 in time, these possibilities are extremely harmful to him and the other members of the organization.

After sorting out the current chaos, the crime leader who breathed a sigh of relief leaned back in his seat, his mind planning the next important plan like electricity.

Regardless of whether the criminal member No. 1 is the bait of the police or not, he is already surrounded by the police at the moment, how can the criminal member No. 1 move as much as possible under the supervision of the police?

How can we ensure that criminal member No. 1 can choose to die more resolutely in this desperate environment?

In particular, it is indeed too difficult to allow criminal member No. 1 to successfully die during the evacuation process without the participation of outsiders.

Is it expected that through the constraints and beliefs within the organization, criminal member 1 will choose to sacrifice himself?

Considering that Crime Member 1 has a strong desire to survive, the feasibility of such a scenario is estimated to be very low.

Then, the only way to induce criminal member 1 to be in an environment where desperate and hopeful coexistence is the only key that can induce him to die automatically.

The desperate environment makes him have to take risks, and the environment of hope gives him motivation and minimizes the possibility of defection.

Since it is a desperate situation, it must be a desperate situation to be surrounded by the police. If you want to make it hopeful, the possibility that Crime Member 1 is a police bait cannot be known to Crime Member 1.

In the information channel of criminal member No. 1, his current situation is only searched by the police, but the police do not know his personal information, this kind of situation of ignorance, leaving L City in time will be the best choice to solve this situation.

Such a logical basis is exactly in line with the overall idea of criminal member No. 1 wanting to leave L City as soon as possible, and he will inevitably agree to it.

However, since the criminal member No. 1 may have been targeted by the police, his departure will inevitably be secretly pursued by the police.

At this time, the contradiction between the two is stimulated, and then the criminal member No. 1 is successfully killed in the process of violently resisting the law, which will be the best ending.

Even if he was not targeted by the police, let him have a little accident in the process of leaving L City, and let him have a certain conflict with the plainclothes squatting in the west of the city, it can be benignly planned.

Although this kind of strategy to make criminal member No. 1 take risks through the information barrier is very good, there is still a huge hidden danger, that is, the possibility of criminal member No. 1 defecting halfway.

Although in the previous prediction, the crime leader considered secretly blackmailing him with the evidence that criminal member No. 1 committed the crime alone, but this kind of behavior is not only very reckless, but may also have a certain impact on other members of the organization, so it is still very difficult to implement it.

In cases where one approach may not work, substitution preparation must be carried out in other ways.

Is there a threat of death? Would he, who had died in his own right, care about the threat of a lack of actual control?

Or is it a threat from a loved one? This does not seem to be true, and the emotions of other members of the organization need to be taken into account.

If the death of oneself is completely deterrent, and the death of a loved one is contrary to the purpose of the organization, the two most traditional threat chains are not established, and the criminal member No. 1 seems to have no more weaknesses.

If the criminal member No. 1 does not care about the evidence of his murder being exposed, and even wants to avoid death by being a tainted witness, he will inevitably lose the courage to fight to the death when there is no hope of breaking through, and then surrender to the police like a coward.

At that time, the criminal member No. 1 was put under house arrest by the police, and eventually turned into a tainted witness, even if he did not have any substantial evidence in his hands, but the members of the organization would begin to be subjected to endless police investigation under his identification, and were included in the police terminal surveillance.

At this point, even if no member of the organization is confirmed to be arrested, the fate of the entire organization has come to an end.

If you can't control the death of criminal member No. 1 on your own, then this risky move is equivalent to gambling with the fate of the organization!

Could it be that now we can only watch the criminal member No. 1 being monitored by the police until he dies, until he is finally arrested by the police?

If the criminal member No. 1 had been strict in his words, he might have only been convicted of one theft. If the tone is not strict and is completely defeated by the psychological offensive of the police, then the entire organization will also disappear.

No matter how unlikely the latter is, as long as it actually threatens the security of the organization, the criminal leader will not allow him to exist.

After thinking about it for a long time, the criminal leader can only change his thinking, since the path of making the criminal member No. 1 commit suicide is not working, will it be possible to start from the police level?

For example, after the police see the criminal member No. 1, they will not have any idea of arresting him, but will only have a strong sense of vigilance against the criminal member No. 1, and as long as they see the criminal member No. 1, then they must shoot him to avoid further casualties.

Only when the relationship between the two parties becomes incompatible, it is impossible for criminal member No. 1 to have the possibility of defection in the middle of the way.

There are two ways to achieve this:

First, by releasing smoke bombs, the police mistakenly believe that criminal member No. 1 is an extremely dangerous madman who will attack anyone who wants to arrest him.

Or, at the very least, let a police officer with decision-making skills think so.

Second, let the criminal member No. 1 make a move that extremely threatens the lives of the surrounding people, and use the rules of the police to deal with social crises, so that the police can quickly shoot him to death.

The first possibility is not available, because it requires taking the risk of reaching out to the top of the police, which is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive to cultivate contacts, but also exposes one's own interpersonal chains, which are not valid in terms of time and risk constraints.

The second possibility, the simplest, is for criminal member 1 to take the initiative to kidnap nearby people as hostages during the escape.

Once this happens, and the police determine that the criminal member No. 1 may have a history of murder, then after the initial negotiations fail, the sniper will be used to snipe him accurately.

Of course, the act of taking hostages at a critical moment is a trick in itself, and it is easy to arouse the suspicion of criminal member No. 1, so it is necessary to make it not suspicious.

For example, tell him that the kidnapped hostage is their own, and as long as they cooperate with the performance of a double reed, they will naturally be able to successfully escape.

But can this kind of behavior really achieve the desired effect?

After a little thought, the criminal leader quickly dismissed it.

First of all, let's not talk about whether the criminal member No. 1 will believe it, but just talk about the choice of hostages.

In order to make the act of taking hostages logical, the hostages must not be men, preferably women and children.

Such people are common in life, but they are not available in their organizations, and it is very unrealistic to trick a group of people into coming in temporarily.

According to various arguments, the idea of being killed because of the kidnapping of hostages is no longer feasible.

If the kidnapping fails, it can only be designed to make the very existence of criminal member No. 1 become a huge threat to society.

For example, Crime Member No. 1 carries a large amount of explosives and dangerous goods, which can pose a great threat to public safety at any time.

As a result, the police could only shoot him immediately.

As for the source of the explosives of the criminal member No. 1, the crime leader did not feel that there was any problem. Although it is not in the rental house of criminal member No. 1, there is one in the safe house of the organization.