At 3:09 PM -0500 14/8/09, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Under some conditons of high social tension members of the armed
>forces can be expected to come over to our side. In fact one could
>define "isnurrection" as the refusal of the army to fire on
>demonstrations. But that can not be expected of cops & guards.
This is utter nonsense. You might want to study the relationship between police and demonstrators during the big waterfront dispute in Australia. Read this (from the Flinders Journal of Law Reform)
http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2328/1826/4/Baker%20jaa.pdf
Here's an excerpt:
Having failed to defeat the MUA at the dock gates, the Federal Government reproached some state police forces for 'limp responses' in implementing Supreme Court orders against the picketers (Age 4 April 1998, p.13). Prime Minister Howard insisted that state police enforce court injunctions against picketers delaying cargo on Sydney and Melbourne wharves and branded open defiance of the law as 'very unsatisfactory' (Millett et al. 1998). Victorian Premier Kennett, in private talks with Police Command, insisted that the blockade be broken (Age: News Extra 9 December 2000). Della Porta (1996, p. 29) conjectures that in Europe, 'police forces will fulfil demands by the government', overriding democratic rights of protest. But this certainly did not occur during the 1998 Australian dispute.
Criticism from employer and conservative politicians focused on the police's inaction against the MUA assemblies. Victoria Police Command, exhibiting independence from political pressure, ensured that police members were not manipulated in the dispute. Chief Commissioner Comrie, boasting of a record of managing disputes with 'minimal violence', refused to enter 'battle mode' and be 'pushed into using excessive force' (Courier Mail 20 April 1998). Patrick's Chairperson, Chris Corrigan, castigated the very lack of action by Victoria Police for allowing the continuance of the MUA pickets, being 'neither peaceful nor legal', and thereby creating an allegedly unlawful impasse obstructing commerce (Corrigan speech 13 May 1998). Although Patrick Stevedoring made no official complaint about the policing of the dispute, company criticism of the police vehemently challenged the belief that the protests and pickets were peaceful and non-violent. Corrigan labelled the picketers as the 'couple of thousand rent-a-crowd at East Swanson dock' (Corrigan speech 13 May 1998), a description very much at odds with that provided by the police. Corrigan's most ardent attack was directed against the Victoria Police, especially for its ineptitude against the MUA 'assembly':
'The unpleasant reality is that the police in Melbourne did not do their job'.(Corrigan speech, 16 March 1999) He scorned Victoria Police's time delaying 'while the police sniff the wind to see who's winning the public relations war before deciding whether to enforce the law' (Kermond 1998). Corrigan and other critics appear to have acted upon the traditional assumption that, if the employer demands police intervention to clear passage, police will automatically and immediately concur without consideration of the consequences.