> I really got into this issue more deeply than will probably interest
> people on the list but let me just say that I think it's both wrong and
> dangerous in political terms to accept the argument that police need massive
> forces to insure order during demonstrations. Naturally, police love big
> demonstrations of military force but that is exactly the wrong way to deal
> with large crowds.
I wouldn't argue that police have to have massive forces to control a crowd, but a massive force of police can put a significant damper on crowd behavior, i.e. as the NYPD has shown in NYC.
But I would argue that even the NYPD is unprepared for a mass riot or civil insurrection. They've never face one, so they have no experience in this area.
The police can control a bigger crowd with a small number of cops, if the protest is of the variety that lends itself to this scenario. I can't remember what ration I've observed as effective, but I seem to recall that one officer can control about ten protesters. It all depends on the police tactics, the urban geography, and the nature of the protest crowds.
In Seattle the police were unprepared and overwhelmed because they din't take the protest threat seriously. This created a situation that was conducive to a police riot.
Chuck0