A riot is when six or more people engage in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly create a grave risk of causing public alarm.
The argument turns on the phrase "tumultuous and violent conduct". Now, I'm not a lawyer but per this site it says:
Whether conduct is “tumultuous and violent” depends on how conduct viewed in whole would reasonably be perceived when related to specific situation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Saechao, 167 Or App 227, 2 P3d 935 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Thus they are NOT weasel words. But there is some room for interpretation, which is how law is written to avoid legislating from the bench. Let's give this a little more thought before saying the left is all wet here.
Let's consider for a moment the Lansing anti-lockdown protests, where armed citizens had a "sit-in" in the statehouse. Clearly there were more than six people - check. Was there the "(creation of) a grave risk of causing public alarm"? The mere presence of a firearm doesn't scare normal people, but per the aforementioned website
“Grave risk of public alarm” is not unconstitutionally vague description because alarming public in general requires that alarm be objectively reasonable response to conduct. State v. Chakerian, 135 Or App 368, 900 P2d 511 (1995), aff’d 325 Or 370, 938 P2d 756 (1997)
For the sake of discussion I'll be overly cautions and say yes - check.
But the Lansing protesters did NOT engage in "tumultuous and violent conduct". Were they intimidating and scary? Probably, especially if you are a bureaucrat hellbent on turning the citizenry into docile obedients. But intimidation isn't the issue here - it is CONDUCT.
The Lansing crew didn't throw frozen water bottles or garbage at the police, they didn't yell "f the pigs" into bullhorns in the statehouse, nor did they set off fireworks. THAT conduct is that of the Portland lot, and THAT conduct is reasonably tumultuous and violent.
The end game in this regard, is for the left to say that such conduct is OK because the rioters have the "moral high ground" and point to the late 1960s as where law changed via civilian action. But what they fail to recognize is that more Americans changed their views which begot law changes because they saw peaceful protesters getting hosed etc. No rational human will redefine tumultuous and violent conduct because some dope redefines torching property as reasonable conduct. Maybe in academe, but not in the real world where real people -blacks and whites et al - actually try to get along.
These enemies of civility are barking up the wrong tree.