I deleted that comment because I decided I didn't want to have this discussion but as you responded here I will retype it so people know what you are responding to:

think it's okay to back cop strikes in some circumstances

Why isn't it?

If you're going to use the Trotsky "...bourgeois cop, not a worker" quote but neglect to mention he was writing specifically about Germany in 1932 you are replacing dialectical thinking for edgy snappy soundbites.

Compare to Trotsky speaking on the situation in Germany in 1923 "Competent persons estimate that one third of these policemen will certainly fight against us (mainly in the rural areas), one third will stay neutral, and about a third will fight alongside us, or will help us. Thus, arithmetical calculation shows that the police force will be paralysed, and it will be eliminated as an independent force. Here, of course, everything depends on the policy, the tactics and strategy that we develop. What is most important is that we should not look on the Reichswehr and the police as something united and monolithic. Such a conception is radically wrong.

Consciousness changes and so should our orientation, perspectives and tactics. That includes towards police and prison guards.

I have to say your reasoning is disappointing. Of course police are at the core of the repressive bourgeois state apparatus, as are the military. Hell, even are civil servants. That is not reason enough to blanketly state that there is no role police can ever take in the movement anywhere ever.

The police union in the UK was made illegal after joining in the strike wave of 1918/19. The EndSARS movement in Nigeria is advocating FOR a police union. Just because it is the incorrect perspective or tactic for the USA today doesn't mean it is everywhere in perpetuity. That is unmarxist and undialectical thinking and I resent you making me defend the IMT when I think their position has been trash because yours is even worse.