Below is the official statement regarding the recent ANTIFA antics of blocking a street and attacking passing motorists.
It shows that the police administration is either incompetent or abject liars. An agency charged with enforcing the law is woefully ignorant of the law or ignores it for political ends. Neither course is acceptable.
If I was a Portland Police Officer, I wouldn’t admit it. In order to gain some self respect, I’d claim to be a piano player in a gay whorehouse.
… the reason police didn’t intervene is that they weigh “the ability for people to gather to practice their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly, as well as the impact it places on the rest of the Portland community.”
Sgt. Chris Burley, the Portland police spokesman
Scoundrels of any political bent commonly latch onto a single phrase or word in the Bill of Rights to rationalize their actions. The Bill of Rights sets limits to government power. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions or legislation further define the meaning inherent in the Amendments. Here is a summary of court decisions further describing the requirements for a “peaceable assembly.”
Library of Congress
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”
Such time, place, and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly. The Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to require that a permit for an assembly be obtained in advance. The government can also make special regulations that impose additional requirements for assemblies that take place near major public events.
In the United States, the organizer of a public assembly must typically apply for and obtain a permit in advance from the local police department or other local governmental body. Applications for permits usually require, at a minimum, information about the specific date, time, and location of the proposed assembly, and may require a great deal more information. Localities can, within the boundaries established by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably, impose additional requirements for permit applications, such as information about the organizer of the assembly and specific details about how the assembly is to be conducted.
The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order. Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.
Most people will claim to know what constitutes a Breach of the Peace. Here is the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary.
Black’s Law Dictionary
What is BREACH OF THE PEACE?
A violation of the public tranquillity and order. The offense of breaking or disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forcible, or unlawful proceeding. 4 Bl. Comm. 142. ct scq.; People v. Bartz, 53 Mich. 493, 19 X. W. 161; State v. White, 18 R. I. 473, 28 Atl. 968; People v. Wallace. 85 App. Div. 170, 83 N. Y. Supp. 130; Scougale v. Sweet, 124 Mich. 311, 82 N. W. 1061. A constructive breach of the peace is an unlawful act which, though wanting the elements of actual violence or injury to any person, is yet inconsistent with the peaceable and orderly conduct of society. Various kinds of misdemeanors are included in this general designation, such as sending challenges to fight, going armed in public without lawful reason and in a threatening manner, etc. An apprehended breach of the peace is caused by the conduct of a man who threatens another with violence or physical injury, or who goes about in public with dangerous and unusual weapons in a threatening or alarming manner, or who publishes an aggravated libel upon another, etc.
In reality, Breech of the Peace is a concept that covers a multitude of offenses and behaviors. Some behavior may be legal in private but constitute an offense when subjected to public view. Consensual sex, in private, may transport the participants to nirvana. Done in public, transport to jail is more likely.
When the behavior impacts others negatively it crosses the line. The quote below summarizes the point.
Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”
June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time”
Here are some applicable Oregon Statutes that Portland PD had to ignore to make such an idiotic statement.
2017 ORS 166.025
Disorderly conduct in the second degree
(1)A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a)Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b)Makes unreasonable noise;
(c)Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d)Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e)Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(f)Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2)(a) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
(1)A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.
(2)Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]
2017 ORS 166.015¹
Criminal conspiracy described
Current as of: 2015 | Check for updates | Other versions
(1) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if with the intent that conduct constituting a crime punishable as a felony or a Class A misdemeanor be performed, the person agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.
Terms Used In Oregon Statutes 161.450
felony: A crime carrying a penalty of more than a year in prison.
misdemeanor: Usually a petty offense, a less serious crime than a felony, punishable by less than a year of confinement.
Person: includes individuals, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies and joint stock companies. See Oregon Statutes 174.100
(2) Criminal conspiracy is a:
(a) Class A felony if an object of the conspiracy is commission of murder, treason or a Class A felony.
(b) Class B felony if an object of the conspiracy is commission of a Class B felony.
(c) Class C felony if an object of the conspiracy is commission of a Class C felony.
(d) Class A misdemeanor if an object of the conspiracy is commission of a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 § 59]
Oregon Statutes 161.450 –
A group of people carrying signs, wearing similar attire, repeating slogans and acting in concert meets the requirement for conspirators. When these same people block a public street and threaten passing motorists, in a manner that causes public alarm fulfills the definition of a riot. The lack of a permit or coordination with local authorities negates the “peaceable assembly” requirement. No mention is made of a permit. It is implied because there are no police barricades or traffic control evident. Bottom line, the Portland Police are co-conspirators in aiding and abetting ANTIFA in creating a riot.
The problem with Portland PD is while they were aiding and abetting ANTIFA in causing a riot (under Oregon legal definition), ANTIFA was violating the rights of the motoring public.
The mayor put out an appeal to the public for help in identifying the motorists so that the Portland PD could pursue criminal charges against them. It seems like that makes city government and the police department co-conspirators with ANTIFA.
On second thought, piano player in a gay whorehouse is a status several levels above the spot currently occupied by the clowns that call themselves cops, in Portland.