A close friend of yours, whom the news reported is being tracked by the police, visits your home. He explains the whole situation, saying that you are the only person he can trust. What he says is certainly convincing. He then asks for your help to evade the police pursuit and promises to reveal the truth someday. Will you help him?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I vote for "No". Even if my friend sounds convincing, helping someone evade police pursuit means actively obstructing law enforcement without knowing all the facts. Personal trust is not enough to justify that risk. If he is innocent, there are safer ways to help: encourage him to get a lawyer, document his account, contact authorities through legal counsel, or support him emotionally without hiding him. The key issue is responsibility. Loyalty to a friend matters, but it does not override the duty not to interfere with justice based only on one-sided testimony.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I vote **No** because helping a friend evade police pursuit when they are being tracked for a reported crime would make me an accessory to potential criminal activity, exposing me to legal risks and moral dilemmas. The friend's explanation is convincing, but loyalty does not override the rule of law. News reports indicate police involvement, suggesting serious wrongdoing, and my duty as a citizen is to prioritize public safety over personal trust. Search results highlight real-world examples where assisting authorities ends chases safely [1], reinforcing that aiding evasion endangers innocents, as noted in pursuit liability guidelines balancing arrest needs against public danger [2]. True friendship involves advising surrender or seeking legal help, not obstruction of justice. Promises of future truth are unreliable under pressure.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

While loyalty to a close friend is powerful, helping someone evade police pursuit makes me an accomplice to obstruction of justice, exposing me to serious legal consequences and potentially endangering others. Trust and a promise to 'reveal the truth someday' are not verifiable, and even a convincing story told one-on-one lacks the scrutiny of evidence and due process. The better way to genuinely help a friend I believe is innocent is to connect him with a competent lawyer, help him turn himself in safely, and support him through the legal process. That path preserves his rights, protects me, and gives the truth a real chance to come out — rather than deepening his jeopardy by adding new crimes.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

While loyalty to friends matters deeply, helping someone evade police pursuit creates unacceptable risks and ethical conflicts. First, knowingly aiding a fugitive is itself a criminal offense in most jurisdictions, meaning I would be sacrificing my own legal safety based solely on unverified claims rather than evidence. Second, if my friend were truly innocent, the appropriate path would be to secure legal counsel and surrender to authorities safely—not flee, which implies guilt and often escalates situations dangerously. Third, the vague promise to "reveal the truth someday" is insufficient justification for obstructing justice; without knowing the allegations or seeing proof of innocence, I cannot ethically impede a police investigation. The truly supportive action is to help my friend navigate the legal system properly—offering to contact a lawyer or accompany them to the station—rather than becoming an accomplice to flight, which could harm others and compound legal consequences.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While loyalty to a close friend is a strong human instinct, actively helping someone evade the police crosses the line into criminal behavior. By hiding him or aiding his escape, you become an accessory after the fact, jeopardizing your own freedom, future, and family. A true friend would not ask you to assume such devastating legal and physical risks. Furthermore, although his story seems convincing, your judgment is inherently clouded by your personal relationship. You do not have the objective facts of the case. The police, however, have gathered enough evidence to warrant an active pursuit. Taking his word at face value ignores the severe reality of the situation. The most ethical and practical way to support him is not by helping him run—which only makes him look guiltier and escalates the danger—but by offering to help him surrender safely and secure competent legal counsel. If he is truly innocent and intends to 'reveal the truth someday,' the proper venue for that is a court of law, not a life on the run.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Friendship and trust are important, but helping evade police crosses into illegal territory regardless of how convincing the story sounds. I would urge my friend to contact a lawyer and face the authorities directly. If innocent as claimed, the truth will emerge through legal channels, not by hiding. Prioritizing the rule of law protects everyone involved long-term, including my friend, rather than risking complicity in a potential crime.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a stern, unanimous refusal to play getaway driver for a friend in trouble, finishing with a 6-0 sweep for Option B. Every model, from Claude Opus 4.7 to Grok 4.20, prioritized the rule of law over personal loyalty, concluding that becoming an accessory to a crime is neither ethical nor helpful to the friend's eventual case.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: A true friend would not ask you to assume devastating legal and physical risks on their behalf; the most ethical support is facilitating a safe surrender and securing legal counsel rather than compounding the crime by fleeing.