Inner City Violence Video Lecture Critique - Coursework Example

Inner Violence Video Lecture Critique Inner Violence Video Lecture Critique Don’t Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City AmericaAuthor: David Kennedy1. What was the speaker’s main point and did they appear credible.In the presentation, the speaker talks of the chronicle of his long time crusade to seek for a solution to the most shameful and pressing social injustices. The presentation also centers around the history and the technique behind his coherent but revolutionary approach to do away with criminal activities.

The main point is to make his audience aware of the refined approach that people of the community; gang members, neighbors, cops, and drug dealers can use in a united huge community meeting that will serve as an intervention and an assertion of a shared craving for peace and safety. The speaker’s main point appears credible given that the evidence is in the miraculous outcomes that he gives. The theme is credible as it tries to combine social science, street reality, and moral urgency. However, the presentation seems exaggerated as the speaker either appeared too unreserved or got too far along the speech dismissing the beliefs of minorities that policing or drug policy is an economic scheme to reinstate slavery, prior to admitting that it is essentially justified (Kennedy, 2011).2. What are 2 things did you agree with the speaker and 2 things you disagreed with and why?

I agree with the speaker that there is a socially built illusion. This is justified by the way he mobilizes the traditions of the imposing escapade tale to illustrate what people should have already known. It is true that everyone who engaged in the city crime crisis shares a lot of character traits with each other than any other person involved shares with anyone else. I also agree that people in a community, such as cops, crime victims, shooters, and the families; all begin from one point in life.

In fact, they are the same people caught up in extreme circumstances, rather than a permanently and radically different kind o individual as some might think. Despite the fact that I agree with the above issues as presented, I disagree with the speaker’s point that the urban communities with high rates of criminal cases have a breakdown within the three parts namely; the victims, the police, and the residents. According to him, the three have fake perceptions about each other, making them unable to deal with crime appropriately.

This is not actually the case because every individual has a role to play as an element of society, and the failure to keep peace ought not to be a one-group’s role. Further, I disagree with his motive to show the reason as to why crime decreased during the 1990s because it fails to address some earlier theories that relate to his story (Harding, 2010).3. Why would someone in Criminal Justice need to know this?The presentation, and the book in general is a must read for a person in the criminal justice field as it confirms what exactly is done in the communities, not forgetting that only a few people commit these crimes in only a few places, yet of those few, only a handful of them are regarded as hardcore.

So much has been revealed here concerning crimes, noting that even the police sometimes are aware of the injustices by are cold on them. People in the criminal justice will definitely know the reality about legitimacy upon reading the book or simply watching or listening to the presentation.ReferencesHarding, D. J. (2010). Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. University of Chicago Press.Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Dont shoot: one man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America.

Bloomsbury Publishing.