Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

There will always be conflict between the two sides. And yes, it is typical that part of politics is not showing what you'll do right, but what your opponent will do wrong. Or in the case of an incumbent, HAS done wrong.

When it comes to his opponent creating ads showing he's been divisive, that he's associated with racially painful events, etc... Well, POTUS walked right into that one with SO many of his statements and actions. As 320 pointed out the the protesters are doing a good job of ruining their own reputation by rioting and looting, if POTUS didn't want to be called racially divisive maybe he shouldn't have been racially divisive.

I can think of most of the other potential Team Red candidates from 2016, but I can't imagine that very many of them would be easy targets for these sorts of ads.
I'm a generally reasonable and even-keel guy; I think >10 years here may support that my own impression of myself is accurate to the rest of you guys...

...and yet this POTUS in particular scares the hell out of me.

Fair.  Yes, you are very balanced. I would like to think I am too.   This POTUS scares the hell out of me too.  So does the other choice.

FYI I was thinking more about it... And when someone was asked for a concrete policy change to help improve this situation...

It's simple--fix the qualified immunity problem. 

Today it's possible to sue the police department in civil court for excessive force / brutality / wrongful death. But due to qualified immunity--and in particular the way qualified immunity is adjudicated--it is NEARLY impossible to sue the individual offending officer in civil court and have any chance of success. 

So while cities may occasionally feel the pain in their pocketbooks due to losing a lawsuit (and it's just taxpayer dollars anyway), the individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability.

End that shield.

Here's how I see it playing out:

• If you end that shield, and individual officers are subject to civil liability, it will only take a few examples of officers losing their financial worlds before an insurance system--similar to medical malpractice insurance--pops up to shield them.
• The police malpractice insurance industry, obviously, will need to have ways to accurately risk-price individual officers. Much like getting auto insurance, your risk is mainly tied to your own actions, and there are clear red flags that suggest you're a higher risk (in auto insurance, regularly getting speeding tickets or causing accidents, for one). 
• Those red flags might be things like citizen complaints against cops, IA investigations, etc. Some cops [maybe one Derek Chauvin] may find themselves eventually priced out of policing due to their risk profile being so bad that they can't afford the insurance. Want to weed out the bad apples? They'll price themselves out.
• Officers could possibly qualify for premium reductions by doing things like regularly taking alternative escalation training, community sensitivity courses, etc. You can find ways to reinforce positive behavior and make it in officers' financial interests to do so. 

This uses market forces to incentivize the behavior to end. I've solved it for you.

You're welcome.

BTW, what's up with the locked thread that Dr. Doom started? It only has one post, which says nothing.

Send this to your local US Representative, and to your 2 US Senators. NOW.

Sure... Send it to yours too ;-) 

FYI I was thinking more about it... And when someone was asked for a concrete policy change to help improve this situation...

It's simple--fix the qualified immunity problem.

Today it's possible to sue the police department in civil court for excessive force / brutality / wrongful death. But due to qualified immunity--and in particular the way qualified immunity is adjudicated--it is NEARLY impossible to sue the individual offending officer in civil court and have any chance of success.

So while cities may occasionally feel the pain in their pocketbooks due to losing a lawsuit (and it's just taxpayer dollars anyway), the individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability.

End that shield.

Here's how I see it playing out:

• If you end that shield, and individual officers are subject to civil liability, it will only take a few examples of officers losing their financial worlds before an insurance system--similar to medical malpractice insurance--pops up to shield them.
• The police malpractice insurance industry, obviously, will need to have ways to accurately risk-price individual officers. Much like getting auto insurance, your risk is mainly tied to your own actions, and there are clear red flags that suggest you're a higher risk (in auto insurance, regularly getting speeding tickets or causing accidents, for one).
• Those red flags might be things like citizen complaints against cops, IA investigations, etc. Some cops [maybe one Derek Chauvin] may find themselves eventually priced out of policing due to their risk profile being so bad that they can't afford the insurance. Want to weed out the bad apples? They'll price themselves out.
• Officers could possibly qualify for premium reductions by doing things like regularly taking alternative escalation training, community sensitivity courses, etc. You can find ways to reinforce positive behavior and make it in officers' financial interests to do so.

This uses market forces to incentivize the behavior to end. I've solved it for you.

You're welcome.

that great but it puts all pressure for the police to change and not the black community

There should be certain things the black community should also do
like drugs and gangs being reduced 
I also think it would be good to have scheduled ride alongs where community reps actually ride along with police officers to see what a patrol actually is like

FYI I was thinking more about it... And when someone was asked for a concrete policy change to help improve this situation...

It's simple--fix the qualified immunity problem.

Today it's possible to sue the police department in civil court for excessive force / brutality / wrongful death. But due to qualified immunity--and in particular the way qualified immunity is adjudicated--it is NEARLY impossible to sue the individual offending officer in civil court and have any chance of success.

So while cities may occasionally feel the pain in their pocketbooks due to losing a lawsuit (and it's just taxpayer dollars anyway), the individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability.

End that shield.

Here's how I see it playing out:

• If you end that shield, and individual officers are subject to civil liability, it will only take a few examples of officers losing their financial worlds before an insurance system--similar to medical malpractice insurance--pops up to shield them.
• The police malpractice insurance industry, obviously, will need to have ways to accurately risk-price individual officers. Much like getting auto insurance, your risk is mainly tied to your own actions, and there are clear red flags that suggest you're a higher risk (in auto insurance, regularly getting speeding tickets or causing accidents, for one).
• Those red flags might be things like citizen complaints against cops, IA investigations, etc. Some cops [maybe one Derek Chauvin] may find themselves eventually priced out of policing due to their risk profile being so bad that they can't afford the insurance. Want to weed out the bad apples? They'll price themselves out.
• Officers could possibly qualify for premium reductions by doing things like regularly taking alternative escalation training, community sensitivity courses, etc. You can find ways to reinforce positive behavior and make it in officers' financial interests to do so.

This uses market forces to incentivize the behavior to end. I've solved it for you.

You're welcome.

SCOTUS has several cases bearing on this issue before it for this term.

But Congress could act independently of the Courts.

It's a needed reform, IMO, without regard to the particulars of this protest movement.

And without regard to the "black community" (I don't like that term, but can't think of a good replacement) dealing with some of its own internal issues that have little to do with police brutality.