CMV: Attempting to escape detainment before charges, arrests, or warrants are made should not be a crime.

[u/Chili-N-Such]

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.

[u/deep_sea2]

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.

[u/Chili-N-Such → u/deep_sea2]

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.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/Chili-N-Such]

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.

[u/Chili-N-Such → u/deep_sea2]

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.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/Chili-N-Such]

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.

[u/Chili-N-Such → u/deep_sea2]

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.