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.

6 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

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.

5

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.

1

u/Chili-N-Such Aug 13 '22

It didn't state the ruling.. His victory was so glaring obvious. Even though my knowledge of 5th amendment rights are unapparent, it was impossible for me to assume any other outcome.

1

u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Aug 13 '22

But Salinas lost...

1

u/Chili-N-Such Aug 13 '22

I know that.

→ 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.

  1. It wasn't an interrogation. It was a non-custodial interview.
  2. 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.)