https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publica... suggests that the DC police have had a stable budget since at least 2018.
https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/RevenueSpending/nypd.html suggests that NYPD have had an increasing budget since 1980.
https://www.injusticewatch.org/data/2020/chicago-has-nearly-... suggests that Chicago PD have had an increasing budget since 1964.
Do you have some sources for the "underfunded in the past decade"?
NY metro area has added the population of Los Angeles (4m) since 1980 https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23083/new-york-city/popul...
Chicago Metro has grown from 6.5 million in '64 to 8.8 million https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population
Do you think it may have something to do with a culture where a police officer can put his knee on an unarmed man's throat, hold it there until he dies, write it up as a 'Police responded to a medical emergency, man died on the way to the hospital', and then have their peers close rank around them when the truth gets out?
Given that and the vitriol around the situation, it is quite reasonable for the police to close ranks around him and look to the most charitable interpretation of what happened. The courts exist to sort out such situations, the police don't need to become vigilantes as well.
> look to the most charitable interpretation of what happened
This is not a courtesy the police extend to anyone else.
> There is an expectation that the police are the sort of people who could kill someone if the need arises
This is a very serious problem and not an excuse.
> the police don't need to become vigilantes as well.
We're asking the police to investigate, report and submit for prosecution, a crime. If they refuse to do that simply because they're protecting someone they've ceased to be police.
That is an uncertain counterfactual. There was widespread horror at the video. Since he was in fact prosecuted and convicted quite convincingly it obviously wan't impossible.
> [police being mentally prepared to kill] is a very serious problem...
It is expected. That is part of their role in society. Otherwise it'll be necessary to get the army involved in policing crimes.
> It is expected. That is part of their role in society.
Trivially falsified by the majority of UK police not even having access to firearms.
While (fire)armed police do exist in the UK, they are the exception not the rule, and indeed surveys repeatedly show a majority of UK police officers do not even want to be routinely armed.
No matter what differences exist between nations, it is clearly possible to make a society that functions without giving the power of life and death to day-to-day policing.
It happens [0]. This is a thing the police are expected to do from time to time. it does not necessarily mean they have made a criminal mistake.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
and note
After police stopped his vehicle, Charles fled the vehicle and was pursued by police into a shop, where he placed an object into his mouth and resisted arrest. The officer, who wore a body camera, threw Charles to the ground, held him down by the neck, and tried to reach inside his mouth. A member of the public helped him restrain Charles. Charles "became ill", was given emergency treatment at the scene, and was taken by ambulance to Royal London Hospital, where he died later that morning. The object Charles tried to swallow was reportedly recovered at the scene.
Given the context, I don’t even understand why you’re bringing up the death of Rashan Charles — There’s no reason for me to believe those officers were in any sense “ready” to end his life, and some evidence to suggest they were actively trying to prevent it.
You're mistaken, but this is a complicated subject and it's entirely reasonable to not know this. I had to look it up at the time to learn it as well.
Chauvin was found guilty and sentenced to 22 years for second-degree unintentional murder, which would be the crime you're aware of, third-degree murder, which is a catch-all for special circumstances that does not ascribe intent, and second-degree manslaughter, which is when you act negligently in a way that you know will cause death.
Ed: oh, it occurs to me that reconciling one charge of unintentional murder and a another of intentional murder when there is only one victim is probably confusing, so just to clarify the way I understand it is that it's two different intentions that both result in death. In the former case, it's like if you were to find out your wife was cheating and you shot her in a crime of passion. In the latter it's like if you set a spring gun.
And 'unintentional' murder is still murder.
The courts can't work when the police are actively covering for murder. That's not doing their jobs.
If they don't want to be demonized, they should stop acting like demons.