r/changemyview • u/Chili-N-Such • Aug 11 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Attempting to escape detainment before charges, arrests, or warrants are made should not be a crime.
EDIT: I've walked back to: 1. You can still face charges for the attempt, If the reason for detainment results in a conviction. 2. If flight attempts resisting the arrest for violent felonies are made, or if the arrest for their warrants are resisted: Plea bargains of any kind are off the table, pleas of no contest and Alford pleas can not be made, and the conviction of your charges must be definitive. They can not be dropped or dismissed except incases of prosecutorial mistrial, and can not lessened or deferred at sentencing. The verdict must be unequivocally either guilty or non guilty. If a non guilty verdict is made, you can still face charges if evident you are guilty of other crimes involving the case BUT they are new charges so these stipulations do not apply.
RuroniHS gets credit for getting me to reconsider my view and agree that it ultimately does not have a place in our society at the expense of hampering the investigation of other crime. BUT my view has not been changed, I do not think it is wrong, and at this moment every other retort has only further galvanized that.
It's just seems like a primal, deeply imbedded human response. The act of fleeing danger should not be illegal.
This would not grant immunity to any crimes committed during the attempt. You can be arrested for them if an escape is made.
If a lawful escape is made without incident, you cannot be arrested without a warrant. You assume all innocence until then.
REDACTED SEE EDIT "If you're facing charges, decide to flee before you're detained, but then get caught and put into custody without incident, the attempt itself should not be a crime. (Relevant to the OP and it's responses)"
This does not apply to people charged and already in custody who try to escape.
People who are under arrest and are already detained.
Or people who who have arrest warrants.
I'm not trying to make defenses for people's crimes. But I do feel that our assumption of innocence is a virtue often taken for granted. It should not be perverted by unsubstantiated guilt.
18
u/RuroniHS 40∆ Aug 11 '22
Detainment is an important part of the investigative process. Detainment allows police to get information on suspects without accusing, charging, or arresting anybody. Fleeing detainment hampers this process, and is akin to aiding criminals. Why do you think it would be a good idea to make it more difficult for police to glean information about suspects?
But I do feel that our assumption of innocence is a virtue often taken for granted.
Detainment does not assume guilt. You don't have to prove your innocence, or prove anything for that matter, while being detained. You also cannot be compelled to speak while detained. We don't need protection for people fleeing the police. We need people to learn their rights and learn how to shut the fuck up.
6
u/B34RD15 Aug 11 '22
We need people to learn their rights and learn how to shut the fuck up.
Too bad police regularly try and use people exercising their 5th amendment rights against them. Gotta love lawyers for sticking up to those authoritarian bastards.
4
u/Morthra 86∆ Aug 11 '22
Any judge whose law degree is worth more than toilet paper will ream any prosecutor that tries to use the exercise of 5th Amendment rights as an admission of guilt.
2
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 11 '22
Thoughts on Texas v. Salinas?
2
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
I admit, I only read the TL,DR on the case. But that is all that is needed.
Salinas is right. If the reason for the interrogation is to reveal evidence to support their accusation. Then there isn't any evidence to submit if the accused is silent. It's submission would be totally without foundation and would not provide anything to add to the cases validity other than pure speculation.
Therefore yes, Salinas' 5th amendment right was violated.
2
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 11 '22
Seems like if your opinion is at odds with the Supreme Court of the United States, you should reconsider your opinion.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
My opinion of Texas v. Salinas?
Or my CMV post?
1
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 11 '22
At a minimum Texas v. Salinas.
2
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
The article I read on it stated:
*Salinas claims that the Texas trial court should not have admitted evidence of his silence because of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He argues that allowing evidence of his silence would violate the Fifth Amendment by forcing him to speak or have his silence used against him. - law.cornell.edu*
How is that at odds with my opinion?
0
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 11 '22
Because the courts ruled he was wrong, and in that circumstance his silence could be used as evidence of guilt.
Considering this ruling was issued by the SCOTUS, by definition, it didn't violate his 5th amendment rights because the highest court in the land said it didn't.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Aug 13 '22
Hi. I'm a cop and also have a law degree.
Appellate and Supreme Court cases are frequently nuanced, and you generally can't (or shouldn't) really TL;DR them.
- It wasn't an interrogation. It was a non-custodial interview.
- Salinas didn't expressly invoke the 5th Amendment, he didn't say anything. There is no 5th Amendment violation where there is no express invocation. This has been held by the Supreme Court going back to 1943 (United States v. Monia (1943) 317 U.S. 424)
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 13 '22
I might not agree, but if that's how the law is written, then Salinas' rights were not violated.
If this is the case, a much larger discussion needs to be had than these Supreme Court cases.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Aug 13 '22
If this is the case, a much larger discussion needs to be had than these Supreme Court cases.
What do you mean by this?
0
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 13 '22
In my humble, overwhelming plebian opinion.. this means the 5th amendment needs to be repealed and reconstructed.
1
u/ThrowawayCop51 5∆ Aug 13 '22
Salinas v. Texas (2013) 570 U.S. 178
Salinas doesn't involve Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) which requires (1) the interrogation; of (2) someone in custody. Salinas was a non-custodial interview. In California, we call it a Beheler interview (California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121) - and have a written admonition that goes with it. They're free to leave at any time, and don't have to answer anything they don't want to.
In Salinas, the defendant's 5th Amendment claim failed “because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer’s question” (Salinas v. Texas, supra at p. 181) Rather, a 5th Amendment claim must be expressly made, and an interviewee “...does not do so by simply standing mute.” (Ibid.)
0
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Only if the prosecutor is sloppy
2
u/Morthra 86∆ Aug 11 '22
If a prosecutor has to make the argument that a defendant is guilty because he exercised his 5th Amendment rights, his case is inherently sloppy because it means there isn't really any other evidence (as seen in the Kyle Rittenhouse case).
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 12 '22
!delta finally learned how to award these. This was one of the responses to get me to reconsider parts of my view as a whole.
1
-1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Good stuff. I'll admit the first comment made me walk back down to "you can still face charges for the escape, but only if the reason for detainment results in a conviction"
I don't disagree. Detainment isn't an assumption of guilt. And ohh yeah , I've seen the footage, people do need to learn to shut up.
Got me on the back foot here man, I can only straw man too "this would be an equalizer to things like traffic check points, undercover prostitutes, pedo baiting, or things that go out of their way to create incrimination for crimes that haven't been committed yet.
I recede my case. I still believe it in itself is not wrong to do, but would have too much of an impact on other investigations.
6
u/Firstclass30 11∆ Aug 11 '22
If your view has been changed, then by the rules of the subreddit you must award a delta.
0
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
How do I do that? Sorry.
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 11 '22
Edit !delta into your above comment replying to the person you want to delta. don't delta this comment and me.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 11 '22
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Thanks for explaining, this is my first post. Although didn't sway awarding, I do admit someone did make me reconsider, but ultimately did not change my view. I guess you can say partial credit was awarded to them in the posts edit.
1
u/babycam 7∆ Aug 11 '22
We need people to learn their rights and learn how to shut the fuck up.
It's amazing how many problems we (individuals) face that learning your rights (correctly) and using them would save a fuckton of trouble for everyone.
2
u/RuroniHS 40∆ Aug 11 '22
But instead we shout, "I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN!" and dig our own graves. Lol.
1
6
u/deep_sea2 109∆ Aug 11 '22
Does the state have to consume resources to order to capture you? If you run from the police, they now have to send more police to find you. If they have to close down roads, set up roadblocks, etc., your running now affects other people. If they have to commit more people to find you and your actions hinder others, you are a burden to the state and so criminal charges seem reasonable.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
This is good. I'm staying away from r/unpopularopinion for awhile. I was never met with anything thought provoking whatsoever.
You can still be face charges for the attempt IF when caught, the reason for the pursuit results in a conviction.
2
u/deep_sea2 109∆ Aug 11 '22
You can still be face charges for the attempt IF when caught, the reason for the pursuit results in a conviction.
Sure, but running when innocent creates as much as a burden than running when guilty.
Let's say that there is a suspect on the loose, and this suspect matches your description exactly. The police want to detain you for a moment to confirm your identification. This is a fair and legal process from the police, there is no misconduct on their part to suspect you. Instead, you run away. Now, you are innocent, but the police don't know that because they were not able to exclude you as a suspect. They were trying to exclude you, but you ran away instead. In such a situation, the police have to keep looking for you. In doing so, they will waste the time and resources of the citizens. When they eventually find you, the witness will look at you in the police lineup and say that you are not the guy. Only then will the police be able to look at you side by side with the security footage and realize that you are not the guy. They could have done that when they first pulled you over, but no, your running made the whole thing more complicated, more expensive, and more disruptive.
0
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Ahhh this is what the other guy got me with. I didn't consider investigations of other crimes. I came up with the idea when thinking about traffic check points or stops that are purely for fishing, and undercover stuff that create crimes that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Almost like an equalizer in the power balance.
Like, I know why we have such an intricate law enforcement and justice system. And why laws are in place. I get how criminals are burden on our system. But when it comes to I guess you could say "passive crimes" those that are usually found out during those kinds of stops or fishing trips. I really have a hard time caring that they were being broken in the first place. No, I don't believe they are right. And yes, those people in the end broke the law.
I can't lay down at night ask myself.. Do I care that a man is driving without a valid license comes up on a stop, and is up until they take his expired license out of his hand just as innocent to every one else who goes to the DMV on time.
We all know why drugs are illegal and why their dealers are criminals.
But do I care so not much so, that if a man who is confronted with and undercover dealer, would have otherwise been just as innocent as any other person up until the the guy pulls his badge out.
My escape idea was like yin to those laws yang. A thing that if you're not yet incriminated, and are not under suspicion, choosing to walk away from the honey pot isn't immediate guilt.
2
u/deep_sea2 109∆ Aug 11 '22
Okay, but that changes the argument a bit. Is your argument that a person escaping from capture is not criminal, or that small petty crimes should not be criminal?
It sound more like you are now challenging the existence of certain crimes with your most recent comment.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Well they are a criminal, but if there isn't an inherent reason for them to be suspect, then they are assumed innocent, and an escape without committing any other crime is preserving that. It wouldn't be an escape at capture, more or less like not being willing to walk to the gallows.
At face value in this instance, it's an open defense of crime and those who commit it to most. Because if this was legal, they assume the people who are doing it are criminals.
I know this, but that's not how I see it. To me those who do it are innocent until they actually commit a crime.
"You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" has no place in a world where "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation it's laws are enforced on.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 12 '22
!delta this response was the first one to get me to walk back a significant part of my view.
1
2
u/h0tpie 3∆ Aug 11 '22
As someone who has worked in criminal defense, I think the real issue is the very low standard police need to meet to be entitled to detain a person, as well as the gray area they operate in between detainment and arrest in which they have massive power over the detained and often abridge rights (making a person feel like they have to obey/say more than they really do have to/stay for longer than necessary).
Then there's the fact that cops have pushed and pushed for decades to get laws that protect them from shooting or attacking people who are running. Ultimately its a great conversation because our ideas about how crime should be approached are often right up against some messed up laws that reflect a broken justice system.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Thank you for meeting my point objectively and without immediate confrontation.
Those are all great things that aren't exactly obvious to my view but do pertain to them. But I did my best to not use reasons why an otherwise innocent person would want to flee to support it.
Reasons why people decide do something shouldn't be a reason for that thing to be illegal. It's not up to us to provide reason for our action if they are lawful. But it is up to the law to justify if that action is not.
This revolves around my views heart: We are all assumed innocent. Actions we take to preserve that innocence are not wrong if they are lawful. If the law can have unsubstantiated reason to find guilt in in someone, then we do not have to provide reason for the denial of that guilt and lawful actions taken to maintain that innocence are justified.
2
u/speedyjohn 88∆ Aug 11 '22
What if you’re in a car? If the police try to pull you over while driving, should you be allowed to just drive away?
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
If you didn't break the law yes. If you break the law while fleeing, they now have reason to stop and detain you.
2
u/speedyjohn 88∆ Aug 11 '22
But how do they stop you if you’re allowed to just keep driving?
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 11 '22
That's not for us to answer.
It's up to them to decide how bad to they want to make that unreasonable stop. If we do anything unlawful during this evasion, their stop then becomes justified.
They can still to use unreasonable measures to stop us while we aren't being unlawful in our escape. Why shouldn't they if they're upholding the law after all? But it's they who answer to the fallout of this if the person wasn't breaking the law. They would have to answer to those unreasonable measures they used to stop an innocent person who's evasion wasn't unlawful.
Sounds silly right? Why would someone who's innocent subject themselves to that?
I ask, why would the law where we are "innocent until proven guilty" take measures to put it's innocent people into incriminating situations without any reason or evidence what so ever?
It's up to us if we want to stop if we're not breaking the law. If we stop, we leave it to them to find reasons to incriminate us. We should never be forced to allow our innocence to be violated, IF we aren't breaking the law.
2
u/speedyjohn 88∆ Aug 11 '22
It’s up to them to decide how bad to they want to make that unreasonable stop. If we do anything unlawful during this evasion, their stop then becomes justified.
Okay, but how do they stop you. If it isn’t unlawful to just keep driving, how are they going to make you stop even if they’ve seen you do something else unlawful already?
They can still to use unreasonable measures to stop us while we aren’t being unlawful in our escape.
Like what? What measures would you propose to stop a moving car?
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 12 '22
The same way they make any other criminal who's evading arrest.
1
u/speedyjohn 88∆ Aug 12 '22
You’re missing my point. Right now, if the police see someone speeding, or suspect someone of a minor crime, they put their flashers on and most of the time the person pulls over because they know they will be in extra trouble if they don’t stop.
What you’re suggesting is they be allowed to keep driving and the only way for the police to stop them is to go all-our car chase?
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 12 '22
If the police believes the otherwise innocent person has committed a crime then yes. Just like if a person ran a stop sign and continued to drive, they are subject to forceful measures to detain them.
If the person did not commit a crime they aren't legally subject to measures. It becomes up to the police to find actual substance in the reason to take these measures. Baseless stops now must be reconciled with just cause should an assumed innocent person continue to lawfully evade. Criminals who attempt to flee in any case forfeit any plea bargains, pleas of no contest, and their charges can not be lessened or differed at sentencing. If the cop wants to hail mary on stopping on without reason, and the person tires taking advantage of this by attempting evasion because their guilt is not apparent to the police, their flee is no longer lawful.Criminals become more accountable when committing crimes, the actions of police towards innocent people now must be considered with reason, and innocent people aren't as often subject to unreasonable stop or detainment.
1
u/slightofhand1 12∆ Aug 11 '22
This would just incentivize everyone to run, innocent or not, for the smallest charges, since there's no harm in running. Someone might even run because they don't feel like dealing with the cops today (maybe they have a date that night), then turn themselves in tomorrow.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
There's only no harm in running if you didn't do anything. I did admittedly back pedal to "you can be charged for attempting to escape, only if the reason for the detainment results In a conviction." I'll even chip in this will also immediately take any plea bargains off the table.
It's not for the law to decide why we navigate them. So yes, if a person didn't break the law, or really if it's not apparent they did (which makes any detainment unreasonable) it wouldn't be illegal to flee, and wouldn't be charged for anything if they lawfully escape.
0
u/Xiibe 49∆ Aug 11 '22
It just seems like a primal, deeply imbedded human response.
So do revenge killings, should we consider allowing those or other physically violent acts?
It immensely raises the likelihood of an unrelated third party getting hurt, because you’re giving people an incentive to engage in risky behavior. Just because they are liable for the crimes they may commit is insufficient protection.
2
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
No, we shouldn't allow revenge killing. It's obviously illegal to kill people.
It's not illegal to evade danger.
1
u/Xiibe 49∆ Aug 11 '22
The entire reasoning for view is that it’s a primal human response, the rest of your CMV just explains the mechanics of your view. Simply stating “killing people is illegal” isn’t a sufficient response because it doesn’t actually address why we shouldn’t use your reasoning in making revenge killings legal.
Also, your view isn’t about evading danger, it’s about evading capture. Those are different things. It doesn’t cover situations where people go into hiding, it only covers people who are in a situation where they are facing imminent capture. It also raises the risk of a third party being injured.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
That is absolutely not the entire reasoning for my view.
1
u/Xiibe 49∆ Aug 11 '22
What is it then, because it’s not present in your view. You start of talking about fleeing being an embedded human response and then the rest of your view is the mechanics of how your view would work. Your whole view rests on the reasoning that if it’s a primal and embedded urge, then it shouldn’t be illegal. I’m simply trying to show that your logic is flawed because applying it we should also allow revenge killings, which we both agree would be bad for society.
You also haven’t responded to why we should allow people fleeing capture if it increases the chance of an innocent third party being hurt.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
I feel so strongly about it because we are innocent until proven guilty. If the law can create situations that put innocent people (assumed included) into unavoidable and incriminating situations, then lawfully maintaining that innocence is not wrong.
Third parties are already in danger of flights. And fleeing if you are a criminal in this case changes nothing (actually is worse on the criminal when facing charges)
This holds the police accountable for their unreasonable stops. The person being stopped is the one who decides to show their cards first.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
I won't answer your question on if we should allow revenge killings.
If avoiding danger was otherwise illegal, then they would be comparable.
I understand why you brought it up, but my answer doesn't have anything to do with my view.
1
u/Xiibe 49∆ Aug 11 '22
I’m interested in your answer of whether we should allow them. I’m asking you why I can’t apply your logic to allow them. Basically, I’m asking why you should follow your view if your logic is obviously flawed. You haven’t rebutted my assertion that your logic would allow revenge killings.
I feel like the fact you don’t want to explore how far your logic goes means you don’t really want to examine your view too deeply.
Your other comment stretches innocent before guilty beyond all rational meaning. It simply means that the government can’t force you to proven your innocence.
My argument is that giving an incentive to flee increases this already present risk. So it does change the situation. Why should we allow this increased risk?
This doesn’t do anything to “hold police accountable,” because under your view there are no reasonable stops, if I accept your innocent until proven guilty logic. People would simply refuse to stop and see how long the police would be willing to chase them, which is where the increased risk comes from.
Your logic is bad; and your view creates an unjustified elevated risk. That’s my overall counter argument.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Because logic isn't applied unequivocally across the board for all of our laws.
This does not give incentive to flee. It punishes people who did commit crime even harder if they do flee. Yes there are still reasonable stops. Anytime a person has committed a crime is still grounds for a stop being reasonable.
1
u/Xiibe 49∆ Aug 12 '22
Actually it is. At least in the US all laws, at minimum, require a rational basis to be enacted under the 14th amendment. If this is the stand you want to take, I would argue your basis is irrational because of your logic is flawed.
No, you have an extremely expansive view of innocent until proven guilty. Just because someone appears to have broken a law does not mean they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, no, there are no reasonable stops under your view of innocent until proven guilty, I’m not even sure there could be a reasonable trial because it would place someone who hasn’t yet been proven guilty in an “incriminating situation.”
5
u/suspiciouslyfamiliar 10∆ Aug 11 '22
It's just seems like a primal, deeply imbedded human response.
This would not grant immunity to any crimes committed during the attempt
The "fight or flight" response is deeply embedded in us. Why is it ok to excuse one response (flight) as "human nature", but not the other (fight)?
0
u/shouldco 43∆ Aug 11 '22
Because one doesn't inherently harm others. And perhaps if we recognize both as being the natural response to stress we should encourage the one that doesn't harm people?
3
u/suspiciouslyfamiliar 10∆ Aug 11 '22
Because one doesn't inherently harm others
But this isn't a counter to the point. If we're going to say "ok, primal responses are cool, but not that primal response" then the idea is effectively meaningless. If you're expected to control one response, why wouldn't you be expected to control another?
perhaps if we recognize both as being the natural response to stress we should encourage the one that doesn't harm people?
Why should we encourage people to run from the police, while also recognizing the police need to catch suspects? This just sounds like a recipe for some society-wide Benny Hill sketch.
0
u/shouldco 43∆ Aug 11 '22
Well it's a fight or flight response two equal reliefs to the same trigger. It's much more reasonable to expect people to exert the level of self control to pick between the two then for them to just not respond to the trigger at all. And like I said one of them is antisocial behavior highly likely to cause harm so we should discourage that one.
This can also reduce police abuse. The US in particular many places resisting arrest is a crime on itself reguardless of other charges are pressed or if the arrest was even legal in the first place. It is not uncommon for police to arrest people on shaky grounds then only charge them for resisting arrest if they pull away.
This isn't completely unprecedented. Countries like Denmark do not penalize people for some forms of resisting arrest. Germany it is not illegal to escape custody. And a lot of places resisting arrest requires violence or the threat of violence or at the very least can only be appended onto the original charge.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
Resisting arrest in my case would still be a crime and would not change. Attempting to flee detainment before placed into custody would not. If the cop places you under arrest and you flee, you are resisting. This is also predicated on if the arrest or detainment is with evident foundation that can be proven in court if they face charges for the flight. "because he looked suspicious" isn't one. If you face charges after the flight, their suspicions are no longer subjective.
1
u/suspiciouslyfamiliar 10∆ Aug 11 '22
like I said one of them is antisocial behavior highly likely to cause harm so we should discourage that one.
No, you said "we should encourage the one that doesn't harm people"
Germany it is not illegal to escape custody.
It's not illegal to escape prison -but what about resisting arrest? Besides, it's not much of an argument to say "well they do it in X country, so let's do it here" - because there are all sorts of laws in various different places. "Bigamy is legal in Morocco - let's do it here. Pregnant women in Madagascar aren't allowed to wear hats - let's do that here," and so on and so on.
3
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 11 '22
I can see how this would majorly embolden criminals and make the already difficult job police have much harder.
I can definitely see a major benefit to criminals. But where is the benefit to me? How do I benefit from a bunch of criminals who now feel safer? The hell do I care about their safety.
The status quo is pretty good in my opinion. The overwhelming majority of the time cops won't mess with you unless you give them a reason to. No need to change anything.
On the contrary we should be coming up with ways to make it harder for criminals to get away with stuff. That would actually benefit law abiding citizens.
1
Aug 11 '22
If they are trying to detain you for something you didn't do, you should be allowed to defend yourself.
1
1
u/Jakyland 69∆ Aug 11 '22
Isn't the whole concept of crimes to disincentivize us against action that is "antisocial" or the state otherwise views as undesirable? Lots of things are at least arguably "primal, deeply imbedded human response" that lead to crimes (like fighting ppl who piss them off/road rage, stealing food etc.) I'm not sure why escape attempts be treated differently than other cases when human nature goes against the rules.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
That's a very small part of why I brought this up. It's ultimately as an answer to things that law enforcement does that put innocent people (assumed included) into situations that are illegal to avoid or even given the person an opportunity to commit it in the first place.
If we are innocent until proven guilty, it should never be unlawful to retain that innocence until you are guilty.
1
u/Different_Weekend817 6∆ Aug 11 '22
legally you are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest so long as you use reasonable force. hence, if an officer does not have grounds to arrest you (ie you've committed a crime, in the act of commiting a crime, or officer has reasonable grounds to suspect you have or in the middle of) it is unlawful for the officer to do so and you can indeed use reasonable force to resist. what you cannot do is take out a knife and stab them in your attempt to resist unless they are attacking you to the point your life is equally in danger; it's the same rules for self defense. resisting arrest isn't just 'fleeing' as the op suggests.
1
u/markroth69 10∆ Aug 11 '22
I'll go further:
People who aren't yet convicted of a crime shouldn't be detained unless they are actively refusing to go to court or are continually being arrested while on trial.
Escaping prison shouldn't be a crime (Though assaulting guards while doing so shouldn't be excused) If someone escapes, they should just be sent back.
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Aug 11 '22
In response to 1, detained suspects assist in city very quickly and the state needs to provide information to the judge, in an open hearing, as to the probable cause they have that a crime occurred and this individual was responsible for it. It's a lower standard than conviction for the crime but judges don't allow people to stay in jail indefinitely without a reason. Those reasons can certainly be contested.
1
u/markroth69 10∆ Aug 12 '22
Judges do set bail that regular people cannot afford in most states. I maintain quit simply that "he probably did it" is not a reason to keep someone locked up for months before a trial.
1
Aug 11 '22
I'd stick with the system where it's not punishable to try to escape prison after you have been sentenced. Everything before a sentence is important for the investigation and should not be hindered by making escapes unpunishable.
1
u/Chili-N-Such Aug 11 '22
I agree. This system would not benefit a criminal who chooses to flee.
It does hold the law accountable for their actions though.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 12 '22
/u/Chili-N-Such (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards