I promise I'm not one of the cop hating redditors that reddit built out of straw and bound with troll hair, but I think it's kind of important to point out something about the wording in your comment. Even when we have an OP with content that validates the superlative performance of some police officers, it's still important to have a conversation about it in a larger context, one that includes many of the recent injustices committed by their peers. This is a good time and place to talk about how we talk about police officers and their duty.

Your comment indicates, or rather, plainly states, that young kids from poor neighborhoods need to be taught to trust the police. In my opinion, this is an important thread that helps bind the rhetoric protecting police from the consequences of their actions. It's sewn in line with the chorus of, "not all cops," and, "service men and women deserve respect." Those statements are true, and in the context of this thread, that is the focus of conversation. That makes criticism the intruder. As such, as an intruder, there is a decorum to be followed. I must pay my respect to the context of this thread. That's done by addressing the appropriate topic.

One of the divisions that undermines most conversations people have about sensitive topics is the dismissal of context in favor of one's personal interpretations. When you have a post like this, it's wildly inappropriate to come in with statements that amount to little more than, "fuck cops anyways." I may believe that, but I respect that we're here to enjoy the humanity being expressed in the OP's photo. We are joyfully taking part in the facade (any one instance or image of any event effectively is a facade due to its relative lack of context, so I'm not being derisive, it applies both ways) that police officers not only protect and serve, but go beyond their call of duty to affect a climate of positivity in the community they serve. These are good things, and people should feel good about them. So, in line with /u/GoonCommaThe, as a note to reddit at large, that's why you ought to be shit-sticked for shit-posting about cop's sucking in this thread. Likewise, when we have a thread about police brutality, you ought to be shat be on for joining the discussion just to say #notallcops. It's fucking selfish behavior, falsely attributing an importance and individuality that doesn't exist to your overstated contradictory opinion. My thought always ends up being, "We get it. You exist. Now fuck off." But our self-importance shields us from getting the message, or we get it and take it personally.

Of course, if we reduced eliminated dissent within each thread, then we'd be left with a circle-jerk. A circle-jerk can yield a positive emission, and leave us with something - more faith, more community, or a line of action - but it doesn't yield anything new. No one forms a new opinion, and no one crosses the aisle to shake hands, be vulnerable, and introduce someone to their perspective. There's a middle-ground to be reached, and it's not done by forcing someone to reconcile on your definition center. It's done by meeting someone else on their center. To do that, you need to appreciate where you fit in with deference to the context. Don't walk into this thread to say fuck cops, and don't walk into a thread on police brutality to say #notallcops. That's the decorum of civilized discourse. It's not always so simple, but neither is playing Rachmaninoff. Practice.

Now that I've made that lengthy prelude, I'd like to go back to addressing your word choice, "teaching younger kids to trust police," and how that comment behaves as a subtle reinforcement of the normative opinion that cops are good, ghetto kids are ignorant, and ignorant ghetto kids grow up to be the problem. Language offers an incisive understanding our thoughts.

In the interest of avoiding another tangent, I'll suffice it to say that it's popular opinion in psychology that words are actually how we learn to "think" the way that we think of thinking. Starting with a parent or teacher to the their child, walking them through the steps of fitting different shaped pegs in different shaped holes. "No, the purple one didn't fit. Have you tried the blue one?" is repeated until the child repeats it to themselves, developing a system for problem solving, "I couldn't fit the purple one. I'm going to try the blue one." With age, that voice becomes internalized. It becomes our voice.

I'm guessing you don't like the phrasing I used earlier to summarize your statement. That would be fair. If questioned further, I'm sure you would add context and a richer, fuller perspective on the success of the program. Because we both know that the program isn't just teaching younger kids to trust the police, it's putting police officers in a position where they are inspired to bond with kids they don't normally interact with. That creates stories and experiences that spread. Other officers on the force hear about the work, are enticed by the humanity being shared, and look to the community they serve with fresh eyes. Maybe they passively imagine, "What would happen if I spent a little more time with the kids around here?" or, "Who is the old man I see sitting out on 35th every day?" or, "How would people perceive me if I worked a little harder to connect?" And maybe one time that imagination spills over into their actions, and suddenly they've created a new bond with their neighborhood. In time, one gregarious officer begins enjoying his work in a new way. That spreads. Positivity spreads. Less kids get treated less and less like criminals, and maybe not as many grow up thinking of themselves that way.

I'm not saying I know this to be the case, any more than you know those kids needed to have cops they could trust. I'm asking why isn't it your first thought? Why doesn't it get included in the first draft? It may be the way you think, I don't know if it is, that having cops bond with the community is as important as the community bonding with cops. But if we share that conclusion then why don't we think of it first. Sure, it might be a simple instance of misspeaking, but from my experience I don't believe so. I think it's a result of how we think, how society taught us to think. Even when we know better, our instinctual response will fail to fully humanize a minority individual. I think that might be the primary failing of our law enforcement. When they are put in a position where they fail to think for as long as they should - they're tired, they're scared, their anniversary is today and they're fucking working - they fail to fully humanize the individual. And because of the unique place of degradation that blacks and other minorities have historically been forced to occupy, our social conscience isn't up to speed. Many of us need a second longer to think. That's why I advocate for a system that takes those situations seriously. Yes, I want cops who remember to take a second to think, to let their conscience fill out before making a decision that could ruin the lives of the people they serve. I want them to be put in a situation where they bond with the people on their beat, and across the city. We need programs like that, and we need to affect them in the places they get distracted. If it's self-importance and self-preservation that pulls the finger to the trigger then we challenge their importance and add life-changing consequences appropriate to the severity of action.

Most importantly, however, as a society we must continuously question each others words. We must divide out the thinking that breeds irreversible harm, and decide as individuals what we ought to do with those thoughts. This is about raising awareness of the ways we think and the context of our thoughts, so that we can grow to shape the culture around us in a way that treats people fairly. Right now, I made an honest effort to find the middle-ground this thread laid out. I hope that everyone makes the same effort when they enter a discussion on police brutality or any number of other sensitive topics.