"(with each carefully placed in different places across the city) our free-will will be influenced. Our running path would be different than the one we would have originally planned. Even if after we would have escaped, we would end end up in a specific place that was not our intention."
Your whole narrative is false. You simply assume your argument, which is demonstrably false.
If I am fleeing a crime, I can choose to avoid a cop with a gun, and avoid being arrested, or I can choose to not avoid him and risk being arrested.
This is free will. That is what CHOOSE means. Your own example proved there was an option that had to be chosen. Your own silly example proved your argument to be ludicrous. You just assume that because it wouldn't be wise to run to the cop and get arrested, and that you wouldn't, that you have no free will. Except, people make choices like that every day.
Your logic is truly nonexistent. It requires that all humans make only game theory correct decisions at all times. It's patently false. It has no basis in reality.
It is an illustrative parallelism. It cannot be false.
The cop though would have influenced your later path in life either way. Your free will would have been altered.
Again, read what I said above. Your current choice to avoid the cop could have been influenced from your belief against authority.
never said that.