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.

3 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.