In the GQ thread, asking what to do if you find a gun, some posters dance around commenting on the race of a person who finds the gun, because it may be seen as a political jab, contrary to GQ?
Why?
If an African-American would have a different reaction to whether to call the police or just walk away, given issues of police-racial relations, why is that considered a political jab rather than a factual statement?
Note that I did not say “political jab,” I said “political commentary.” Political commentary is opinion and as such is not appropriate for General Questions, especially since it is apt to lead to a hijack.
The question is in General Questions, and the OP was about the legal aspects relating to your responsibilities when finding a gun. Those legal aspects are the same regardless of your race.
More specifically, commenting on the racial aspects of dealing with the police, as well as the trustworthiness of the police, is apt to lead to a hijack of the thread, and such discussion is better served in other forums. That’s why I mod noted those comments.
I generally agree with this decision, but I just wanted to point out that there are ways that race might matter to the legal obligations of someone who finds a gun.
One legal obligation you have to consider when reporting contraband is whether your failure to report it might make you responsible if someone, maybe a child, gets hurt. One argument you would have against such a negligence claim is that you didn’t want to put yourself at risk by calling the cops. Your race might well be relevant to whether a reasonable person in your circumstances would have done the same.
Just this week the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that if you’re black and you run from the cops, that might have different legal implications than if you’re white and you do so. Same kind of deal here.
Boy oh boy, would that make a good thread in GD! Do you have a link? Not that I want to discuss it here, it’s just that I might want to start a thread about it elsewhere.
Here’s an NPR piece. The ruling and other helpful links included. There was a brief discussion of the case in the “controversial encounters” mega-thread.
If you don’t want to start the thread, let me know and I will. You are correct, it would be interesting.
Regards,
Shodan (who isn’t black, but runs away from the thread just in case)
I tend to agree (even given Colibri’s correction on terminology and explanation). The fact of the matter is that there appear to be large differences in the ramifications of actions/inactions of people of different races (not to mention class, etc.) when dealing with LEOs. I think that these differences are very relevant, even to factual discussions of the issues.
I understand the desire to squash potential hijacks and run-away threads as quickly and efficiently as possible*, but I think that sometimes the board errs a little too much on the side of stifling discussions when it comes to these sorts of questions.
*That’s what I self-reported my own comment in the thread about using deadly force to aid law enforcement. I made my post shortly before reading the “what if you find a gun” thread and saw the moderation in that thread.
If you think these discussions are “stifled,” then you haven’t been checking Great Debates or the Pit.
There is ample room for discussion of such issues on the board. My intent is keeping threads in General Questions focused on the factual aspects in the OP. Anyone is welcome to start yet another thread on the issues (of which there are many already) in a more appropriate forum.