Police ‘unlawful assembly’ powers under fire in Ore.
Many concerned over safety, effectiveness
SALEM, Ore. – As racial injustice protesters swarmed the streets of Portland, Oregon, day after day last year, a voice would come over a police loudspeaker, announcing they had assembled unlawfully and would be arrested or face tear gas and rubber bullets if they didn’t disperse.
Law enforcement agencies can respond that way under an arcane Oregon law that critics say allows them to violate people’s First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Now, state Rep. Janelle Bynum, a Black Democratic lawmaker, is seeking to repeal the law in this predominantly white state.
The push comes after Portland saw more than 100 straight days of sometimes violent protests following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May.
Other states have dealt with the issue. In 1971, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated Virginia’s unlawful assembly statute on First Amendment grounds, the ACLU of Oregon said. The court said the law was too broad in banning demonstrators’ intent to use force and violence, even if they did not pose a threat.
Law enforcement has already begun lining up against the Oregon bill sponsored by Bynum, who chairs the House subcommittee on equitable policing and held a public hearing Monday.
“Repealing this statute will eliminate a valuable tool that law enforcement uses to disperse unlawful gatherings and deescalate tensions when violence and threats to community safety become likely,” said Chris Skinner, police chief of the college town of Eugene who testified on behalf of associations of police chiefs and sheriffs.
He said that without the law, “law enforcement would be forced to wait to respond until violence and criminal activity escalates.”
Supporters of the measure say it shouldn’t be up to police to decide if a protest has the potential to become violent. The law also gives officers the power to arrest people before there’s a crime. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon says that because unlawful assembly is not a crime in Oregon, the vast majority of protesters who were arrested were charged with interfering with a peace officer.
A version of the law has existed since before Oregon became a state. Before the 1980s, the law was even more draconian, critics say, allowing law enforcement to order bystanders to disperse an unlawful assembly and that failure to do so could result in arrest.
Sheriff’s deputies used that provision in 1984 during protests by environmentalists against logging in the Willamette National Forest. Protesters blocked a logging road to protest the cutting of trees that they felt should have been preserved as wilderness.
A Linn County deputy sheriff ordered a freelance photographer to arrest the demonstrators or face prosecution for a felony. The photographer told the protesters they were under arrest. They refused to move, the ACLU of Oregon recalled in 1987 testimony to the Legislature.
“The deputy then ordered the photographer to carry the demonstrators to the sheriff’s van. He refused, and he was arrested,” the group said. Two other people also were arrested after refusing to arrest the demonstrators.
NEW YORK – About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.
The poll from The Associated PRESSNORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that while 67% of Americans plan to get vaccinated or have already done so, 15% are certain they won’t and 17% say probably not. Many expressed doubts about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.
The poll suggests that substantial skepticism persists more than a month and a half into a U.S. vaccination drive that has encountered few if any serious side effects. It found that resistance runs higher among younger people, people without college degrees, Black Americans and Republicans.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease scientist, has estimated that somewhere between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population needs to get inoculated to stop the scourge that has killed close to 470,000 Americans. More recently, he said the spread of more contagious variants of the virus increases the need for more people to get their shots – and quickly. So is 67% of Americans enough? “No. No, no, no, no,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University expert on disease dynamics. He added: “You’re going to need to get quite large proportions of the population vaccinated before you see a real effect.”
Nearly 33 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, have received at least one dose, and 9.8 million have been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The poll of 1,055 adults, taken Jan. 28 through Feb. 1, provides insight into the skepticism.
Of those who said they definitely will not get the vaccine, 65% cited worries about side effects, despite the shots’ safety record over the past months. About the same percentage said they don’t trust COVID-19 vaccines. And 38% said they don’t believe they need a vaccine, with a similar share saying that they don’t know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that they don’t trust the government.
Of those who probably will not get the vaccine but have not ruled it out completely, 63% said they are waiting to see if it is safe, and 60% said they are concerned about possible side effects.
“I don’t trust pharmaceuticals. I really don’t. And it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be safe,” said Debra Nanez, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Tucson, Arizona.
Nanez said she has gotten flu and pneumonia shots but is concerned about rumors about what’s in the coronavirus vaccine, and her friends have the same hesitation.
“It would take a while for me to do research on it to make sure it’s safe. I just don’t want to take anything that’s going to harm me,” she said.
Baron Walker, a 42-year-old laid-off insulation installer from Parkersburg, West Virginia, said he is in the “probably not” column, at least for now.
He said that if he were elderly, or lived in a densely populated area, he might consider the vaccine more strongly. But he is in rural part of the country, he has been wearing a mask and social-distancing, and he feels there is a good chance the nation will achieve herd immunity, he said.
“I feel like I have plenty of time before I get a chance to get (the vaccine) anyway, to find out if there are bad side effects and whether it’s even worth getting it,” Walker said.
In interviews, some Americans expressed concerns about the revolutionary speed with which the vaccines were developed – less than a year.
“I feel like they rushed it,” Walker said.
That was echoed by Matt Helderman, 31, of Greer, South Carolina.
“I’d like to see more safety data,” said Helderman, a video editor and associate producer for a Christian TV program. He also said that he would like to see more clarity on whether the vaccine is effective against new variants.
Health officials are trying to counter concerns about the vaccine with science.
The latest evidence indicates that the two vaccines being used in the U.S. – Pfizer’s and Moderna’s – are effective even against the variants, Fauci said.
Also, while the development of the vaccines was unusually fast, it was the culmination of many years of research. And the vaccines went through clinical trials involving thousands of people who were monitored for 60 days after their last dose. Studies of other vaccines have found that harmful side effects almost always materialize within 45 days.
“Safety certainly was not compromised, nor was scientific integrity compromised,” Fauci said. “Many have reason for skepticism. But I think that when you explain the facts and the data to them, you can win them over.”
The survey found that older Americans, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19, are especially likely to say they have received a shot or will probably or definitely get vaccinated. Four in 10 of those under 45 say they will probably or definitely not get a vaccine, compared with a quarter of those older.