Police tactics at protests

Police have a great deal of discretion in the way they deal with protests. Police do not mechanically enforce the law and will often ignore minor breaches of the law.

Enforcing the law actually makes up a small proportion of police action at protests. Police are also aware of civil disobedience and its use as a political tactic and will sometimes not arrest to undermine the political meaning generated by arrest and subsequent court and legal processes.

There are four very common police approaches to controlling protest actions:

See also:

• What do police choose certain approaches?
• The role of police in society
• Police powers and your rights

Accommodation

This approach involves the police standing back, maintaining a watchful presence but allowing the protest to continue without intervention.

Often police will even assist or facilitate a march or rally by managing traffic like they would for a parade or other public event. Police may negotiate with third parties affected to simply let the protest happen. The policing of the Melbourne mass anti-war rallies in 2003 is a good example of this type of policing.

At small actions, even ones that involve potentially unlawful actions, police may decide it is easier to stand by and watch than to intervene. This depends on the length of the protest, the level of disruption to others, police resources and the political climate surrounding the action.

It is often the case that this is easier than heavier policing and will avoid escalating conflict. Accommodation recognises that police intervention can have a destabilising effect and lead to disorder at an otherwise peaceful protest.

Sometimes police will maintain a low-key visible presence but have a larger contingent of police or police horses out of sight nearby. It is useful to take note of the level of visible and hidden police presence as the situation and the police approach could change rapidly.

Negotiation and directives

This approach involves a range of friendly and notsofriendly meetings before and during a protest action aimed at controlling, changing, or affecting the nature of the event and outcome of the action. The policing of the 1998 maritime dispute is a very good example of this type of policing ( Baker 1999 ).

Police may politely request that activists stick to the footpath, move from an area or move a stall, for instance. Sometimes these requests or directives might be made with the implied threat of arrest if the request/directive is not obeyed. The threat to arrest, in the event that the request/directive is not obeyed, might be followed through or might simply be a bluff. It is often difficult to know in advance and ultimately police tactics will be influenced by a variety of factors ( see Why police choose certain approaches). Directives are often aimed at police maintaining control over a protest action.

Police can approach individual activists and make requests or give directives. This often proves an effective way to control a protest. Understanding police techniques is valuable and learning to assert your rights when requested to do something by police is an important activist skill.

It can be valuable and useful to engage in liaison with or negotiate with police if you are aware of the potential pitfalls. However police liaison can be very difficult and intimidating. See the Police Liaison section for further information.

Containment

Containment includes a range of common police tactics such as creating barricades or walls of police to prevent activists getting to an area, separating activists or keeping them contained in one small area.

At the September 2000 protest against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, Crown Casino was surrounded by a long concrete and wire fence to prevent activists getting close to the Forum venue. At recent large marches and rallies in Europe and the USA police have used well fortified containment areas to fence or blockade activists into areas well away from the target of protest action.

At the 'Stop Star Wars' national protests at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory in 2002, police used intensive containment lines to control activist movements. Police used three highly disciplined lines of police to prevent activists approaching the main gates to the Pine Gap base.

Lines of police horses can also be used to contain or separate activists. Long lines of police officers can deter and prevent activists from getting inside an area, or building, and can effectively limit the protest. It also means that in order for activists to protest or intervene in a particular building or event, conflict can become centred on the police lines.

No-protest zones

No protest zones are a relatively new police tactic. In 2001, in light of large global justice protests taking place around the world, the United States government proposed enclosing more than 40 city blocks of Washington, D.C. with 2 miles of 3-metre high fencing and concrete, and banning all peaceful protest and assembly near the White House or the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings.

This proposal was later abandoned, however many large global justice protests have met no-protests zones' (see, Ericson & Doyle 1999; Gillham & Marx 2000 for description and analysis of policing of two global justice protests).

Protest 'Pens'

The use of police pens, (using baricades to pen protestors into particular zones to prevent dispersal and breakaway marches) during the protests against the Republican Convention in the USA in August 2004 highlights the misuse of these sorts of tactics by police.

These barriers have been an ongoing source of tension between demonstrators and police in the US and deny people of their basic right to freely assemble. The New York Civil Liberties Union report Arresting Protest highlighted the misuse of pens at the Febuary 15, 2003 anti-war rally, and it is clear that this practice has continued despite a US court order to the contrary. Whether police in Australia will adopt this tactic on such a scale remains to be seen. See http://www.nyc-justice.org

Use of force and the law

Application of law

Police tend to enforce the law if and when it suits their aims of maintaining or restoring control over a protest. As mentioned in the introduction to this section, police do not mechanically enforce the law and will often ignore minor breaches.

However, police can sometimes utilise minor offences to control or harass activists. For instance, detailed roadworthy checks by Police have effectively isolated some forest blockades.

Police may use particular offences to target particular activists.

While protest actions may involve breaches of the law, police response to protesters should be strictly within the law. When police claim to enforce the law by breaking it their moral authority is undermined. Protesters who break the law are still entitled to the protection of the law. Where police break the law by, for example, using excessive force to arrest or disperse protesters legal remedies, such as civil actions or formal complaints that might lead to disciplinary action should be pursued. See Complaints against the police.

Theoretically individual police could also be subject to charges for assault if they use excessive force against protesters. In reality this is unlikely to happen because the police organisation itself is the gatekeeper' of the criminal justice system and it is unlikely that the organisation will lay charges.

In order to make the police accountable to the law for their actions at protests it is important that the identity of individual officers involved in incidents be recorded. This is sometimes difficult where police remove their badges and when riot helmets with visors obscure their faces.

Use of arrest "snatch squads"

Police may use their power of arrest strategically. Arrests at demonstrations may be targeted towards people whom police have identified as leaders'. In this way, police aim to remove certain people from the action to undermine the action by a strategic application of the law.

The police sometimes use arrest teams' or 'snatch squads' to pick out and arrest identified people from a crowd of activists. Police may use horses or batons to force the crowd away and literally snatch' a person suddenly and take them physicality behind police lines.

Dispersal

Police may choose to disperse a crowd rather than arrest individual members. Dispersal may be achieved by way of batons, horses or weapons. Police may opt for dispersal when they don't have the facilities or the resources to engage in mass arrests. Dispersal tactics sometimes appear to be designed to punish protesters, which is, at least in theory, outside the role of the police.

Dispersals are less targeted than arrests and may impact on people who are only marginally involved in protest activity. Dispersals generally involve higher levels of overall force than arrests.

In addition to taking action to prevent a breach of the peace', police may have the situation declared as a riot by having a Magistrate read aloud the riot proclamation. This is an extremely rare occurrence.

Use of reasonable force'

In many circumstances, police are empowered to use "reasonable force" in executing their powers. This includes the power of arrest, the power to take finger prints and forensic samples and the power to detain. Police also now have the power to use capsicum spray and in some instances stun guns to restrain people who are violent or threatening violence.

What is "reasonable force"? This depends upon the circumstances. A good guide is that the police are entitled to use whatever force the average person would accept as necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. The greater the physical threat to the police, the greater force it may be acceptable to use to detain a person.

"Reasonable force" does not include assaulting people on arrest, arbitrary use of hand-cuffs or verbal intimidation.

Ultimately the courts decide what constitutes reasonable force when police action is challenged. In circumstances where there are a large number of protesters engaged in resolute civil disobedience police may choose not to arrest, or only arrest selected protesters. They could also engage in mass arrests or use dispersal tactics.

If mass arrests are beyond the capacity of police, such as where police are outnumbered by civilly disobedient activists, police can either tolerate the breach of the law or disperse using force. Whether police choose to tolerate or disperse is likely to depend on the type of factors outlined below.

See Why do police choose certain approaches? .

Pressure point holds

Use of non-lethal weapons

Batons

Capsicum spray

Capsicum spray uses capsaicin, the active chemical ingredient in chillies or capsicums, to incapacitate people exposed to it. Although police guidelines restrict its use to protecting life and controlling violent people, police in NSW and South Australia have used it at peaceful demonstrations.

Horses

Police have used horses against activists throughout history. The Police Mounted Branch often is seen at protests, marches or rallies in Melbourne. They are commonly used to push groups of activists away to clear an area or as containment lines to prevent access. As a form of crowd-control they can be an extremely dangerous and unwieldy tool.

When you are conducting police liaison meetings, always stress that horses should not be used at the protest for this reason.

Public opinion is very hostile to suggestions that protesters have caused injury or harm to police horses. Police sometimes maintain that protesters have used pins or marbles against horses. Whether these claims are true or not they undermine the legitimacy of protests and are seen to justify a harsh police response.

Why do police choose certain approaches?

The tactics that police use at a protest action will depend on a wide range of factors.

These include, in no particular order, the:

• The political climate in which the protest is taking place. If the government and other political elites are hostile to the protesters and their cause police are more likely to take a harsh and uncompromising attitude towards the protesters.
• Any subtle or overt political pressures on the police command. Although police in theory are operationally independent from government the attitude of the government to protesters is likely to influence police.
• Police training . Police training in relation to protests will influence the approach taken to protesters. If police training emphasises human rights, the paramount duty of police to keep the peace and the importance of communication and negotiation, the attitude to protesters is likely to be relatively tolerant. If, on the other hand, police training implies that protesters are akin to insurgents or terrorists and that crowds are inherently dangerous, and concentrates or tactical issues related to riot control, then the attitude to protesters is likely to be harsh.
• The type of police involved . Some groups of police are more inclined to use higher levels of force than others. Some specialist crowd control' police are trained to view protesters as enemies and to see their task as defeating that enemy by using overwhelming force.
• The type of equipment and weapons available to police. Some believe that riot gear like riot shields, helmets and batons makes it more likely that police will use high levels of force, because it prepares them for violence ( Jefferson 1990 ). The availability of weapons like capsicum spray may also influence the level of force that police use.
• Relative numbers of police and protesters . If police are outnumbered this may disincline them from using high levels of force. On the other hand, determined and outnumbered police may decide to resort to weapons such as capsicum spray to disperse a crowd.
• The legal context . Fear of civil litigation may restrain police from using high levels of force. Legal uncertainty about the right to use force to arrest or disperse a crowd may also act as a restraint.
• Media portrayal of activists . In the court of public opinion, negative media portrayal of protesters permits harsh policing. Police sometimes deliberately contribute to negative stereotypes about protesters in order to create a context where violent confrontations or police brutality are seen as the responsibility of protesters.
• Presence of media . Although the media will generally give great credence to police perspectives, media images of police violence inevitably prove problematic for police because they provide an objective record of events. Police will therefore be reluctant to use violence in the presence of the media, particularly media cameras. On the other hand, the fear of negative publicity sometimes means that police will attempt to disable camera operators as part of their overall strategy.
• Attitude of senior police . Messages from the top are important in influencing the behaviour of rank and file police. The attitude of senior police to protesters generally and in relation to particular protests or protest movements will set the tone of the police response. The attitude of the Chief Commissioner of Police is particularly important in shaping the attitude of police to protesters.
• The nature of the protest movement . Police are a quasi-military organisation with rigid lines of command and control. Police feel uncomfortable dealing with protest movements that have no clear leadership. Also police have a fairly strong occupation culture which encompasses conservative values. Protest movements that embrace and embody diversity and that look and feel' different from the mainstream are likely to be viewed with great suspicion and hostility. For example, police may feel more comfortable with and therefore less hostile towards picketing members of the Maritime Union of Australia than, say, towards global justice protesters. Police may also be more likely to feel comfortable with concerns they can directly relate to, like pay and conditions, than global justice.
• Protester tactics . A commitment to nonviolence does not guarantee a tolerant police response. On the other hand, experience shows that any violence or verbal provocation from protesters does dramatically increase the likelihood that police will use harsher tactics. Once provoked, police may not differentiate between activists using different tactics or engaged in provocative or non-provocative acts.
• Prior knowledge of protesters . Police intelligence units keep careful tabs on those who attend protests. Police are likely to take a harsh approach to those they consider agitators', leaders' or organisers.

It is valuable for activist groups to study these factors. Strategically altering any of these factors can influence the way in which police act toward a protest or campaign in subtle ways, as well as helping to predict possible police tactics (see Gillham & Marx 2000 for an excellent discussion of the factors influencing police tactics at the battle of Seattle').

However, the discretion whether or not to use their powers, and how they use them, rests with the police and not with the activists.

It needs to be remembered that despite the nonviolence of activists, the presence of media, legal observers and other constraints, police can still apply extremely violent tactics and methods whenever they choose or are ordered to do so. It is always worth anticipating and planning for this.

For more information about organising in the face of increased repression see http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/organising.html

References

Alderson, J (1998) Principled Policing: Protecting the Public with Integrity , Winchester: Waterside Press

Baker, D (1998) Trade unionism and the policing accord: control and self-regulation of picketing during the 1998 maritime dispute' Labour and Industry no 9 vol 3 pp. 123-144

Barry, B (1987) Baiting the Tiger: Police and protest during the Vietnam War' in (ed) Finnane, M Policing in Australian Historical Perspectives , Kensington, New South Wales: New South Wales University Press

Della Porta, D & Reiter, H (1998) Policing Protest: The control of mass demonstrations in Western democracies , Minnesota: Minnesota University Press

Ericson & Doyle (1999) Globalization and the policing of protest: the case of APEC' British Journal of Sociology vol 50 no 4 pp. 589-608

Gillham, P & Marx, G (2000) Complexity and irony in policing and protesting: the World Trade Organisation in Seattle Social Justice vol . 27 no. 2 pp. 212-236

Goldsmith, A & Lewis, C (eds) (2000) Civilian Oversight of Policing: Governance, democracy and human rights Oxford: Hart

Lawson, D (2000) Copping it at S11 Overland no 161 pp.14-16

Jefferson, T (2000) The Case Against Paramilitary Policing , Open University Press: Milton Keyes

McCulloch, J (2001) Blue Army: Paramilitary policing in Australia Carlton: Melbourne University Press

McCulloch, J (2000) Capsicum spray: safe alternative or dangerous chemical weapon? Journal of Law and Medicine Feb 2000 vol 7 pp. 311-24

McCulloch, J & Clayton, M (1996) Victoria on the Move! Move! Move! Alternative Law Journal pp. 103-108

Scraton, P (1985) The State of the Police , London and Sydney: Pluto Press