Violence Interrupters, Credible Experts?

Violence Interrupters, Credible Experts? Joel Nguyen York University

Violence Interrupters, Credible Experts?
The Violence Interrupters are cited to have a goal in mind and that is they’re trying to save lives (The Interrupters, 2011). Violence Interrupters take the initiative in interceding before, while, or after an event of violence in order to stem violent behaviour. However, the question lies if these interrupters can be considered credible sources and experts. The documentary “The Interrupters” shows how they constantly impede upon their own purpose by engaging in uncritical arguments and reasoning. In particular, some of their offenses include arguing with the fallacy of hasty generalization, not fulfilling the criteria to be viewed as a credible expert, and becoming extremely biased in their decision-making. These are all important to take into

consideration as they are contrary to the process of a logical and rational inquiry. By critically evaluating the documentary “The Interrupters”, we can come to a reasoned judgment whether or not the people or the arguments proposed were logical, coherent, and within the spirit of inquiry. It is their so-called duty as Violence Interrupters to mediate and mentor and with such a high degree of trust and responsibility, they should be held to the utmost. This means being able to critically present sound arguments and to evaluate themselves to such a degree so as to eliminate all doubts and criticisms of their techniques and practices. Ameena is an activist and a Violence Interrupter shown within the documentary “The Interrupters”. While she is shown to be active within the streets of Chicago, she is constantly shown to be arguing either with various high risk individuals or giving her opinions on the reasons behind violent behaviour. She continually generalizes from her