Psychology weighs in, disappoints

So, today, along comes the American Psychological Association to weigh in on the "dialogue" we all need to have about race.  How about I start that "dialogue" by saying what I have been saying; the Martin/Zimmerman case has not been found to have been a issue of race - it was two people who sadly clashes - race was an afterthought of those who looked for it.  No one involved in the debate wants a "dialogue".  Hence, by using it as a springboard for their own purposes, their own perception of the world, the APA joins the long list of those using this event for some purpose. Might I say that, for the APA, this is another in a long line of sad attempts to gain relevance, attempts at social engineering.

They start with terms like "Zimmerman's culpability" which seemingly have less to do with some form of reasonable "dialogue" than with an assumption - similar to the assumption that this is a race issue.  I would think that psychology could serve a more useful function by highlighting the possibility that Martin's behavior also contributed to this event (well, of course they can't and won't - the APA can't risk being called "racist" even when it is inaccurate).  But given the long history of learning theory, social learning theory, developmental psychology, the massive database on the effects of media portrayal of violence, the literature on the effects of drug abuse during development, psychology could do more than simply jump on the bandwagon of "good guy/bad guy"; could be two good guys or even two bad guys.  APA joins the chorus of those who apparently think it would have been better if Zimmerman had died to satisfy this "dialogue"  Psychology is in a unique place to be relevant if they can be impartial, look at both sides and not pander to one of the other.

Next on their agenda is "Stand Your Ground" laws.  It has been said so many times that it is ridiculous that it need be said again, but such laws were not an issue in the Martin/Zimmerman case.  They only entered the fray because people are either a) too ignorant to know the law and the court case b), confused about SYG law and self-defense law in general (APA you are at least here), or c) have an agenda to create guilt by association in any way they can.  Just as some people stood on the graves of children in CT to forward a given agenda instead of seeking other solutions (another place the APA could have been useful), so are those here who will never let a good tragedy go to waste.  In any case, it is again a shame that the APA cannot serve an educational function here rather than joining in on the march of misinformation.  It is clear that the APA cannot do so on SYG because they do not understand it.  It does make them look foolish.

For instance, it is noted that "Florida’s “stand your ground” law relies on a person’s reasonable belief that he or she is in imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.  The statute’s ambiguity in its use of "reasonable" is problematic. This places the onus on the jury to try to ascertain the reasonableness of a defendant’s beliefs based on subjective standards"

That is not what SYG does at all - what they have stated here is basic self-defense law that has existed for centuries and in every state in the union.  That is, the reasonableness criterion for whether self-defense is justified existed well before SYG in Florida.  Under SD law, prior to SYG, a person was required to retreat if they could do so without suffering lethal harm (this is why it was not part of the recent case - Zimmerman had no chance of escape).  Now - let's talk about ambiguity and uncertainty - how does one who is being assaulted make such a decision, much less a jury member in the safe courtroom hearing that story, judge whether one could have retreated without being killed?  Anyway, clearly APA does not know or does not want to know the law it is criticizing.

There then ensures a long discussion of perception and bias - to which I would only say that all of the bias in this tragic case was not on Mr. Zimmerman's side of the equation, but again, no one can say that out loud.  Mr. Martin was also biased; the crowds who only see one possible interpretation of the event are also biased, and the APA, who thinks they know the truth and are thus unwilling to take a larger educational role in this situation are biased.

Perhaps, if psychology wants to talk about bias, perception and so on form all sides of this affair, they could learn a lesson from this pastor.  It is sad that it takes a black pastor to be able to explain both sides of this story.

As a member of APA, I think you missed the mark here in your job of educating people.  "Dialogue" implies some give and take, some rational and impartial perspective, a role psychology should provide.

APA has taken a side which makes it a "diatribe".