In the essay “I’m a Cop and I Support Black Lives Matter: How Can We Heal These Wounds?” written by retired cop, Diane Goldstein, the author describes the basis behind being a cop during the black lives matter protests. Her emphasis is on the community’s response to the protests, which includes both her colleagues at the police department and her friends and family. Contrary to the popular belief surrounding the black and blue lives matter protests, The author argues against society’s idea that there is a line that divides the law enforcement and the black population by explaining to the reader that both sides share similar beliefs. Throughout her essay, Goldstein uses tone, ethical and emotional appeals, and cultural content to prove to the reader that law enforcement officers are not against the African American community. 

Goldstein connects to the audience by using a hopeful and sympathetic tone throughout the essay. The tone she uses allows the reader to connect to the topic on a more emotional level. For example, Goldstein writes, “I’m emotionally drained from continually trying to explain to friends, allies, opponents, and interviewers how I can be both pro-law enforcement and pro-Black Lives Matter (Goldstein, 426). The author establishes that she is expressing her views on the protests to the public with the hope of reuniting the community. In the beginning of the paper, the author writes about the negative comments surrounding the protests that are posted on her Facebook timeline. As a retired cop, Goldstein understands the comments that are being made towards the police. However, she continues to provide hope and concern for the community throughout the paper because she believes that not one side is to blame for the outbreaks. By not placing the blame on one side, the author is able to prove to the reader that black community is not the enemy, nor is the police department, but instead proves that both sides are protesting for the same reasons. By doing this, the author is able to reach a larger audience range, by including both pro-law enforcement and pro-Black Lives Matter supporters. In order to successfully establish a connection between the two arguments, society must understand the need for police in their everyday lives, which is the main point that Goldstein is trying to project in her essay. 

As a former cop, Goldstein understands the constant exposure of hatred and distrust from the community during the Black Lives Matter protests. That being said, throughout her essay she establishes herself as a creditable and trustworthy source. By including her previous positions in the law enforcement department, as well as her current position on the Executive Board for the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition organization, she appeals to the reader’s sense of ethical behavior. For example, she writes “I’m also a criminal justice reform activist, a board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. So the diversity of my social media friends reflects my values-values which now appear to be at war with each other” (Goldstein, 426).  In this quote, the author not only establishes her credibility, but she also touches on her personal values. Goldstein uses her values to appeal to the reader’s emotional appeal. The author describes her values as appearing to be at war with each other, which proves to the reader that Goldstein is both pro-law enforcement, as well as pro-Black Lives Matter. By supporting both sides, the author is able to attract readers from both viewpoints, which also allows the author to include more evidence-based facts. Throughout the essay, Goldstein uses ethical, emotional, and logical appeal to explain to the reader that no group lives matter more than the other. 

In addition to using tone and ethical appeals to connect with the reader, Goldstein also uses cultural content to further her opinion on the protests. For example, present day society automatically depicts police officers as the enemy during the protests because that was what the media was projecting to the public. Instead of the officers explaining why the violence was occurring, the officers continued to turn a blind eye on the media’s interpretation of the riots. Therefore, the police officers were to blame for the outbreaks. In response to the media, Goldstein writes that “I largely blame our inability to admit to our policing failures, to accept that whether or not we intended to or damage the marginalize communities of color, that is what has occurred”(Goldstein, 426).  This quote explains that the police departments are unable to admit to their poor policing tactics but instead turn to violence and social riots in order to gain the communities support. Goldstein believes that the police are to blame for all the Black Lives Matter protests, which she believes only, occurred as a direct response to the actions of law enforcement. The author includes the cultural content because it expands her argument by providing more situational based information to the reader. Goldstein writes that in order to control the riots and the harsh protests, the community must come to an agreement that neither side is correct. The African Americans are not the enemy, nor is the police department, but instead both sides share the same opinions and feelings towards the protests (Goldstein). 

Throughout the essay, Goldstein uses pathos, ethos, and logos to appeal to the audience. By appealing to the audience’s emotional, logical, and ethical feelings, the author gains the support of the audience, as well as guiding the reader along the essay. The essay is very easy to read, which establishes a well-rounded author to reader connection through Goldstein’s use of tone. That being said, throughout the essay, the reader learns both sides of the argument and is left with the choice of pro-law enforcement or pro-Black Lives Matter, or in Goldstein’s case, both. The essay is not intended to separate pro-Black Lives Matter and pro-law enforcement supporters, but instead prove to them that they are missing the point of why they are in a disagreement. The riots are not a direct action of one side’s mistake, but instead reflect the fact that neither one of the sides will confess that they were wrong.  
