"Chat with Lansky" - a possible scene for my novel Breaking Point

Being in the re-write/editing stage for my novel Breaking Point, I have had some flashes of inspiration. However, the following I'm not sure whether to add, whether it adds to the story but felt it worth writing down and speculating on no less (and Meyer Lansky I chose because he was a big mucker in the New York Underworld in the 1940s):

Frank and Al walked into the club and saw him sitting at the table, a small man with a long nose, too much lip and not enough chin but one impressive head of thick black hair. They recognised him in an instant.
“Meyer Lansky,” Frank said as he and Al approached his table, producing their badges as they did. “Detectives Roebling and O’Malley, NYPD.”
“How can I help you, officers?” was the affable response.
“We’d like a word with you, Mr. Lansky,” Al added.
“Sure,” he smiled, and asked his companions to give them some space. “What is it you want to discuss?” Lansky asked when the detectives sat.
“You’ve no doubt heard about the shootings in Harlem recently,” Al said, “and we were wondering how much you know about it.”
“I know that Leo Killeen and his sons have one or two friends in Harlem, and four white guys and one schvartz catchin’ some lead in Harlem does seem fishy, but what’s it got to do with me?”
“Is Nathan Zimmerman a friend of yours?” Frank asked.
Lanksy’s face soured. “That skin-poppin’ schmuck? He’s nothin’ to do with me.”
“Wasn’t he associated with your good friend Charlie Luciano for a time?”
“He approached us both lookin’ for work, and we told him we had nothin’ for him. I sensed somethin’ about him was a little off, and Charlie said to me he was a hophead, so we want nothin’ to do with him. You can’t trust a guy like that.”
“So you wouldn’t have sent him after Leo Killeen or any of his family or associates?” Al asked.
“I regularly do business with Mr. Killeen, he’s a friend of mine, he’s a mensch, and so was Martin.”
“‘Mensch’ means he’s a stand-up guy, a good man, a man of honour and integrity and strength,” Al explained to Frank. “I have Jewish friends,” he then said to Lanksy.
“I was gonna say, I’m impressed by an Irishman who speaks at least some Yiddish.”
“Well, where my people come from, ‘mensch’ just means ‘man’,” Frank said.
“I thought you might be German, Detective Roebling.”
“Yeah, but don’t worry Meyer, I think Hitler is a complete arsehole too, and so does my son who’s fighting him.”
“And I hope your son comes home in one piece Detective Roebling.”
“Thanks Meyer.”
 “And Detective O’Malley, I wish your brother a speedy recovery.”
“Thanks.”
“And just so you know, Martin Killeen was a friend of mine, as is his father, and your brother, and if it was in me to have someone killed young Vincent would have gone unharmed, he was just a kid, and as you’ll attest, Detective O’Malley, you never give an Irishman just cause for revenge.”

What do you all think?

Thoughts on Characters

Characters - vital elements of pretty much any story.  Their thoughts, words and actions drive the plot along.  

For some writers - and indeed some readers (or viewers, in the context of a movie, play or television show) - a character can seem very real; a character may endear himself/herself to the audience to such a degree that there'll be an outpouring of grief at their demise, just as though they actually existed in real life, and I've heard a few writers say "I no longer have control over what he does - he has a mind of his own".  (Indeed some characters may be real-life people - all of them (at least theoretically) real, in the context of non-fiction).  For some other writers of fiction the protagonist tends to be the writer projected into a certain situation, plus whatever changes to the physical constitution, personal background, etc the writer considers appropriate.

How does one come up with characters?  What is the genesis of the characters in a given narrative?  In a conversation on this very topic I had with a friend a while ago, we were more or less of the accord that the protagonist tends to be based on the writer in some way (though naturally there are exceptions to the rule), and indeed all significant characters contain at least a piece of the writer in one way or another.  I can honestly say that, at least in the novels I'm working on, at least a couple of the heroes have been modeled on me (albeit with some changes) and in Breaking Point a few of the heroes and anti-heroes contain elements of me.  In my other project (tentatively titled "Memphis") the heroine Lucy was modeled on a friend of mine who had the overall look reminiscent of a flapper, but at the same time looking like the girl next door; however, Lucy no doubt contains at least one or two pieces of me, or at least my ideal woman.  I'll admit it, my villains tend to embody that which I despise or detest, which is why my chief antagonists are narcissists with a cruel streak, and also tend to be cowardly and treacherous, and know how to turn on the "poor me, nobody understands me" act.  I think I can safely assume that it's the case with a lot of writers (but I welcome intelligent, constructive feedback on the subject).  

Needless to say, the characters have to be believable, and the more engaging the better.  Indeed, to write a character that arouses strong feelings in the audience - a hero or heroine or even anti-hero that inspires love or a villain that inspires loathing - that would be something.  Even having the reader understand the protagonist and thus sympathising is a sign you've done something right.  As long as there's depth to the key characters, and believability, this is achievable - what world they're living in, where they came from, how would they act or react in this situation (and in comparison to how you or I might behave) and so forth, plus that something which the reader can identify with.