Dr and Family on Vaca in FL called N-word and assaulted by white couple. Cops/hotel do nothing.

[darkswordsman17]

Disturbing the peace.
Drunk and disorderly conduct.
Attempted assault.
Or simply removed from private property.

Pick one. There were many remedies. The hotel and police chose to do nothing.

I wonder how it would have gone were black people harassing and threatening white people and their children?

That's the kind of idiocy you get from him and his brother. Cops fucking murder a black person "well he shouldn't have been doing what got the cops there", but drunk white assholes antagonize a black family and "what could the hotel or police have even done?" I don't know if he realizes he's perfectly highlighting the point other people are making with his insipid arguments.

 

[woolfe9998]

Disturbing the peace.
Drunk and disorderly conduct.
Attempted assault.
Or simply removed from private property.

Pick one. There were many remedies. The hotel and police chose to do nothing.

I wonder how it would have gone were black people harassing and threatening white people and their children?

The hotel should have thrown the racist douches out on their asses, but that's an entirely different issue than whether the police and DA should have charged them with a crime.

You can't criminalize certain speech by calling it "drunk and disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." If it isn't a crime to use the "n word," when sober, it isn't a crime to do it when drunk either.

I don't know Florida law on this, but in CA, drunk and disorderly means being intoxicated and either a) clearly not being able to take care of oneself as when someone is passed out on a sidewalk, or obstructing a pedestrian path or roadway so as to not let cars or people through. In practice, it 's hardly ever prosecuted. The statute exists to give probable cause for police to take extremely drunk people off the streets and stick them in the tank until they sober up. After which they are rarely ever charged because charging them wasn't the point.

"Disturbing the peace" statutes are so broad that they theoretically criminalize doing anything in public that may upset anyone. These statutes are unconstitutional when applied to speech or else anyone saying anything at a political rally is potentially guilty of "disturbing the peace." They really only apply to physical conduct like brawling in public, meaning in basically every case there is a more serious crime which can be charged. "Disturbing the peace" is for plea bargains. Charge someone with a battery, and let's say there are proof problems, or the injury wasn't that serious and the prosecution doesn't want the time and expense of a trial, so they let the defendant plead down to "disturbing the peace."

The assault accusation as I said is the only real possibility here, and not only is it a he said, she said, but because the putative blow never landed, the accused can always say they weren't attempting a battery, just making a crude gesture or whatever. Very tough to get a conviction on that when the standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.