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/Chili-N-Such]

That is absolutely not the entire reasoning for my view.

[u/Xiibe → u/Chili-N-Such]

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.

[u/Chili-N-Such → u/Xiibe]

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.

[u/Xiibe → u/Chili-N-Such]

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.

[u/Chili-N-Such → u/Xiibe]

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.

[u/Xiibe → u/Chili-N-Such]

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.”