<a href="http://tinyurl.com/boom5m">
http://tinyurl.com/boom5m</a>
LV Cannery Security Encounter
This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
them it seems that probably would have ended it. When dealing with
high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
Pointing out how stupid/legally incorrect their actions are merely
invites confrontation. No offense but the tone of your blog posting
almost shouts defiant attitude. In addition from one perspective
your behaviour -- moving as quickly as possible to the door -- is
suspect. Taking photos of a casio could be a way to case the
joint. Once the locals cops satisfied themselves that you weren't
doing that you were let go. Why not just tell the rent-a-cops the
same thing from the start?
I get we have rights and rules to protect us. In this case what was
proved or won? Your name is in a police report, you've been
tresspassed at a casino and likely had your named entered into a
database or two you don't know about. The suspended
liscense 'mistake' was probably a pretext to both intimidate you and
take you in if there was no other charge redily available. No one
was educated or enriched, so what was accomplished aside from
generating a blog posting?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/boom5m">
http://tinyurl.com/boom5m</a>
Maybe he was more concerned with standing up for his rights than with
avoiding confrontation. Cooperating with authority is always the easy path,
but not always the best.
Cogno
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of worldbefree22001
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:12 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/boom5m
>
> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/boom5m">
> http://tinyurl.com/boom5m</a>
>
This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
them it seems that probably would have ended it. When dealing with
high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
Pointing out how stupid/legally incorrect their actions are merely
invites confrontation. No offense but the tone of your blog posting
almost shouts defiant attitude. In addition from one perspective
your behaviour -- moving as quickly as possible to the door -- is
suspect. Taking photos of a casio could be a way to case the
joint. Once the locals cops satisfied themselves that you weren't
doing that you were let go. Why not just tell the rent-a-cops the
same thing from the start?I get we have rights and rules to protect us. In this case what was
proved or won? Your name is in a police report, you've been
tresspassed at a casino and likely had your named entered into a
database or two you don't know about. The suspended
liscense 'mistake' was probably a pretext to both intimidate you and
take you in if there was no other charge redily available. No one
was educated or enriched, so what was accomplished aside from
generating a blog posting?------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Why weren't the security guards arrested for kidnapping?
···
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com>wrote:
Maybe he was more concerned with standing up for his rights than with
avoiding confrontation. Cooperating with authority is always the easy path,
but not always the best.Cogno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
> Of worldbefree22001
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:12 AM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "vpFae"
<vpFae@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/boom5m
> >
> > <a href="http://tinyurl.com/boom5m">
> > http://tinyurl.com/boom5m</a>
> >
> This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
> look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
> them it seems that probably would have ended it. When dealing with
> high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
> Pointing out how stupid/legally incorrect their actions are merely
> invites confrontation. No offense but the tone of your blog posting
> almost shouts defiant attitude. In addition from one perspective
> your behaviour -- moving as quickly as possible to the door -- is
> suspect. Taking photos of a casio could be a way to case the
> joint. Once the locals cops satisfied themselves that you weren't
> doing that you were let go. Why not just tell the rent-a-cops the
> same thing from the start?
>
> I get we have rights and rules to protect us. In this case what was
> proved or won? Your name is in a police report, you've been
> tresspassed at a casino and likely had your named entered into a
> database or two you don't know about. The suspended
> liscense 'mistake' was probably a pretext to both intimidate you and
> take you in if there was no other charge redily available. No one
> was educated or enriched, so what was accomplished aside from
> generating a blog posting?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Why don't you have Bob Nersesian's phone number in your cell phone? I know somebody posted his number a while back so I put it in my cell phone. I can't wait to use it.
···
--- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jason Pawloski <jpawloski@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jason Pawloski <jpawloski@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 10:09 AM
Why weren't the security guards arrested for kidnapping?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@ gmail.com>wrote:
Maybe he was more concerned with standing up for his rights than with
avoiding confrontation. Cooperating with authority is always the easy path,
but not always the best.Cogno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com <vpFREE%40yahoogrou ps.com> [mailto:
vpFREE@yahoogroups. com <vpFREE%40yahoogrou ps.com>] On Behalf
> Of worldbefree22001
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:12 AM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com <vpFREE%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. com <vpFREE%40yahoogrou ps.com>, "vpFae"
<vpFae@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://tinyurl. com/boom5m
> >
> > <a href="http://tinyurl. com/boom5m">
> > http://tinyurl. com/boom5m</a>
> >
> This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
> look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
> them it seems that probably would have ended it. When dealing with
> high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
> Pointing out how stupid/legally incorrect their actions are merely
> invites confrontation. No offense but the tone of your blog posting
> almost shouts defiant attitude. In addition from one perspective
> your behaviour -- moving as quickly as possible to the door -- is
> suspect. Taking photos of a casio could be a way to case the
> joint. Once the locals cops satisfied themselves that you weren't
> doing that you were let go. Why not just tell the rent-a-cops the
> same thing from the start?
>
> I get we have rights and rules to protect us. In this case what was
> proved or won? Your name is in a police report, you've been
> tresspassed at a casino and likely had your named entered into a
> database or two you don't know about. The suspended
> liscense 'mistake' was probably a pretext to both intimidate you and
> take you in if there was no other charge redily available. No one
> was educated or enriched, so what was accomplished aside from
> generating a blog posting?
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members. cox.net/vpfree/ Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
them it seems that probably would have ended it.
yes, it would have. and it would have reinforced the expectation by
the security guards and casino management that they can ask anyone on
their property to do anything unreasonable and have it done. kowtowing
before petty abuse of authority helps to create a toxic society.
it is the *duty* of free people to assert their rights. they should
not be belittled as troublemakers - they should be applauded.
as someone who spends a lot of time in casinos, i very much appreciate
the blog author's actions, and wish that more people would do the
same.
When dealing with high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
i expect that whoever hires them will have given them a minimal
education in what they can or cannot do to patrons, and will take
corrective action if they cross the boundaries.
this isn't much to ask. it even makes economic sense, in addition to
being ethically correct, given the flurry of big-dollar verdicts
against casino security goons we've seen recently.
cheers,
five
···
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:12 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:
I am going to play the devil's advocate....just because.
It is very easy to paint the picture of over zealous, wannabe cops giving a innocent customer a hard time for no good reason.
Let's turn the table just a bit.
You have a guy taking pictures.
You tell him this is not allowed.
He acts belligerent and uncooperative when asked about the pictures and attempts to flee while being requested to comply.
Through the eyes of the casino:
1) you don't know what the person was taking pictures of.
What if the picture taker was a disgruntled player who had just lost and wanted to retaliate against the dealer. Or a stalker that was following an employee or following a guest of the hotel.
What if the next day the employee or guest was seriously harmed in some way.
There would be public outrage and newspaper headlines declaring that this could have been prevented if security 'did their job' and investigated the 'suspicious patron taking pictures'.
Bottom line is you are on private property and they have the right to ask for ID at anytime, and the right to detain with reasonable suspicion and possibly the right to search any suspicious bags or packages.
For them it is better to err on the side of caution, than it is to notice something that may be a problem and not check it out.
If I were the one with the camera, I would have shown them the shots and explained why if asked. 5 minutes later, I'm out the door and telling friends telling a story that makes me laugh instead of one that raises my blood pressure.
···
--- On Fri, 2/27/09, fivespot <fivespot55@gmail.com> wrote:
From: fivespot <fivespot55@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 4:04 AM
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:12 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@ pg.com> wrote:
This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you had let them
look at the photos from the start and told them why you were taking
them it seems that probably would have ended it.
yes, it would have. and it would have reinforced the expectation by
the security guards and casino management that they can ask anyone on
their property to do anything unreasonable and have it done. kowtowing
before petty abuse of authority helps to create a toxic society.
it is the *duty* of free people to assert their rights. they should
not be belittled as troublemakers - they should be applauded.
as someone who spends a lot of time in casinos, i very much appreciate
the blog author's actions, and wish that more people would do the
same.
When dealing with high school educated, bored security gaurds what do you expect?
i expect that whoever hires them will have given them a minimal
education in what they can or cannot do to patrons, and will take
corrective action if they cross the boundaries.
this isn't much to ask. it even makes economic sense, in addition to
being ethically correct, given the flurry of big-dollar verdicts
against casino security goons we've seen recently.
cheers,
five
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am going to play the devil's advocate....just because.
Bottom line is you are on private property and they have the right to ask
for ID at anytime,
They can ask, but you're not required to show it.
and the right to detain with reasonable suspicion
No, not really.
and possibly the right to search any suspicious bags or packages.
No, they don't.
···
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:09 AM, annie adlin <annieadlin@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well what is unreasonable? "Let me look at what pictures
you're taking." That's unresonable? Guys, this person
isn't Rosa Parks. This is someone who read a book and
then petulantly tested the legal limits. I wonder sometimes
if spending so much time in casinos make some people overly
advesarial with the house.
Tell you what you do. Head down to your local WalMart and
behave exactly as this person did and see what happens. Is
WalMart the arch enemy of personal liberty too? No they're
just business people trying to protect their interests.
There are innocent responses and there are suspicious
responses. That's all that happened here. I'm still
wondering what was proved aside from the fact that you
can divert police from productive work by behaving defiantly.
If this was such a brave act that is protecting individual
liberty why not replicate it and get tresspassed at every casino
you can?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:12 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@...> wrote:
> This probably won't be a popular sentiment, but if you
> had let them look at the photos from the start and told
> them why you were taking them it seems that probably
> would have ended it.Five responded
yes, it would have. and it would have reinforced the
expectation by the security guards and casino management
that they can ask anyone on their property to do anything
unreasonable and have it done. kowtowing before petty
abuse of authority helps to create a toxic society.it is the *duty* of free people to assert their rights. they should
not be belittled as troublemakers - they should be applauded.
Well what is unreasonable? "Let me look at what pictures
you're taking." That's unresonable?
Yes, absolutely. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise.
Cogno
They can perform a "citizen's arrest", that being to detain you until
the police arrive. If the police find there are not grounds for
arrest, you can sue for "false arrest". If the police arrest you but
the courts throw your case out, you can sue the original citizen
arrestor for "false arrest". There is a lot of potential liability in
doing a citizen's arrest, it should never be done on flimsy grounds.
http://www.google.com/search?q="citizen's+arrest"
http://www.google.com/search?q="miranda+rights"
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, King Fish <vpkingfish@...> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:09 AM, annie adlin <annieadlin@...> wrote:
> and the right to detain with reasonable suspicion
No, not really.
True enough, but it would have to be an actual crime.
Taking pictures is not a crime.
Taking pictures where there's a policy against it is not a crime.
Refusing to show them you pictures is not a crime.
Suppose you (I mean the generic you here) had a party at your house.
Someone you don't know shows up (perhaps as the guest of someone you
invited.) Do you think you can force that person to show you ID? Do
you think that if he doesn't follow your rules (maybe he refuses to
take his shoes off on the carpet) you can forcibly search that
person? Do you think you have the right to keep him from leaving? Do
you think you can handcuff him and throw him in a small room for
hours?
I would guess you don't think you'd be within the law to do these things.
So what magic wand was waved over these people wearing a tin
'SECURITY' badge that conferred on them legal authority that you don't
have?
It's easy for casino employees to think they have more power than they
do. That doesn't mean we should go along with it so meekly.
···
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:19 PM, nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
They can perform a "citizen's arrest", that being to detain you until
the police arrive. If the police find there are not grounds for
arrest, you can sue for "false arrest". If the police arrest you but
the courts throw your case out, you can sue the original citizen
arrestor for "false arrest". There is a lot of potential liability in
doing a citizen's arrest, it should never be done on flimsy grounds.http://www.google.com/search?q="citizen's+arrest"
http://www.google.com/search?q="miranda+rights"
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:
> Well what is unreasonable? "Let me look at what pictures
> you're taking." That's unresonable?Yes, absolutely. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise.
Cogno
There's no shortage of ignorance when it comes to civil liberties in
the casinos located in the State of Nevada.
Players will invest hundreds, sometimes thousands of their dollars at
casinos but very few have coughed up $20 for Bob's book.
If you're going to spend time in a casino you owe it to yourself to
spend time reading the text noted above.
What's really scary is some people don't think the casino goons did
anything wrong. I really shouldn't be surprised given the direction
this nation as a whole is headed...but that's a XXXXVP topic where I
won't go. 
as it happens, i take photos in walmart quite often, and have never
been hassled about it, let alone kidnapped as the blog poster was.
occasionally they ask to search me - the "i need to check your
receipt" nonsense - and i walk past with a polite "no thank you". i
have never been hassled about this in walmart. a couple of times at
other retail stores i've had someone repeat the demand or walk after
me, but that's the extent of it. no one has ever used force, no one
has kidnapped me.
cheers,
five
···
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:04 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:
Tell you what you do. Head down to your local WalMart and
behave exactly as this person did and see what happens. Is
WalMart the arch enemy of personal liberty too?
I've been lurking so long it's become a habit ... but this is an
interesting topic, so what the heck.
I like to take pictures of my royals and notable jackpots
(incidentally the "Hedy" photo is a topper). Not wanting to draw any
attention, I always look around for suits etc. before doing so.
Still, there have been several occasions where I've been spotted and
told (invariably by a suit) "no more photos." Pointing out that I
just hit a jackpot does nothing to lighten their mood, so I always
play dumb and ask why (I can't take a jackpot picture). This
invariably sets their brain wheels spinning and I get lots of "gaming
commission", "cheating", "the law" and other buzz words in a soup of
nonsensical content. I try to keep a low profile so this little game
of making them feel temporarily awkward is as good as it gets.
If I ever hit something really big and the casino wants to take my
picture, I'm going to say "no photos."
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:04 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@...> wrote:
> Tell you what you do. Head down to your local WalMart and
> behave exactly as this person did and see what happens. Is
> WalMart the arch enemy of personal liberty too?as it happens, i take photos in walmart quite often, and have never
been hassled about it, let alone kidnapped as the blog poster was.occasionally they ask to search me - the "i need to check your
receipt" nonsense - and i walk past with a polite "no thank you". i
have never been hassled about this in walmart. a couple of times at
other retail stores i've had someone repeat the demand or walk after
me, but that's the extent of it. no one has ever used force, no one
has kidnapped me.cheers,
five
Also, Walmart doesn't have the attitude that it's private property and
they can do whatever they want to you while you're on Walmart
property, including keeping you on the property (kidnapping, false
arrest) while they violate your civil rights. That's the typical
casino security attitude. Eventually they'll learn that that attitude
costs too much from lawsuits and "reflect(s) discredit upon the State
of Nevada or the gaming industry" (NGR 5.011).
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:
as it happens, i take photos in walmart quite often, and have never
been hassled about it, let alone kidnapped as the blog poster was.
Agreed. My suggested procedure (I think Nersessian recommends it also):
You: Am I being arrested?
Security: No.
You: Then I am leaving your establishment now.
If security says you are being arrested, stop in place, don't resist,
and say nothing else other than repeating "Am I being arrested?" and
"I want all surveillance tapes kept as evidence". If you think there
is some negotiation room, you might ask why you are being arrested and
you might state your disagreement and intent to sue for false arrest.
Don't agree to go anywhere, except to leave, if they want to they can
arrest you where you are.
If security says you are not being arrested but that you can't leave,
stop in place, don't resist, and say nothing else other than repeating
"I wish to leave", "Am I being arrested?" and "I want all surveillance
tapes kept as evidence". If you think there is some negotiation room,
you might ask why you are being detained and you might state your
disagreement and intent to sue for false arrest. Don't answer any
other questions, such as "Do you want us to call Police?" etc. Just
repeat the above over and over, loudly and in a clear voice.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, King Fish <vpkingfish@...> wrote:
True enough, but it would have to be an actual crime.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:
> Well what is unreasonable? "Let me look at what pictures
> you're taking." That's unresonable?Yes, absolutely. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise.
Cogno
Well my original post was right on one score;
my thinking is not popular here. There were many
posts and rather than respond to them all I'll simply
respond once here. I guess I'm really coming from
a differnt place. I don't think it is unreasonable
in these circumstances to ask to see these pictures.
I think the context makes all the difference. The
photog acted suspiciously. That's why he elicited
the response he did. People take photos in casinos
all the time. Typically it simply ends with a request
to stop. How are all those encounters different from
this one?
The post tyring to make an analogy to a home party
really drew my attention. I think that the big
difference is that casinos:
1. Are pulic places
2. there's piles of money there
3. they have a history of crime
That's why they have security and incredible surveilance.
Long and short I think the comparison is very weak. But
let me be clear, I'm not advocating illegal detention.
Net from all this, I still have not changed my point of
view -- however unpopular. The gentleman who walks out of
Walmart with a 'No thanks' will eventually be tackled
and detained. What will it prove? That he's one of the
100/people a day that can sue Walmart. Candidly
I don't feel this activity is protecting my rights
even a little. What would your honest reaction be if
you saw someone walk past a security gaurd at a department
store and simply say 'No Thanks' and keep walking when
ask to stop? I doubt it's 'Thank God he's protecting my
rights'. This is what shop lifters do right?
There's plenty of things I'll get in line to protest and
fight. This isn't one of them. If you feel these
organizations are so odious why go there? Oh, and again I
ask, if the issue is so important, why aren't all these
posters with such strong points of view going and
intentionally getting in the man's face to fight for their
rights? Wouldn't the intellectually consistent thing to
do here is to go and get detained at as many casinos as
possible to fight for these rights? How will you ever
overcome?
I am not getting involved in the discussion but I do want to offer up a
correction on what is a huge error and a popular misconception.
I think that the big
difference is that casinos:1. Are pulic places
I am guessing that what you meant to type was that casino's are public
places and this is definitely not true. A casino is a private club and you
as a patron are only able to be in it with the approval of the owner or his
representative. A city park is a public place and you do not require
anyone's approval to be in one.
Nudge
···
From: "worldbefree22001"
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: LV Cannery Security Encounter
I am guessing that what you meant to type was that casino's are public
places and this is definitely not true. A casino is a private club and you
as a patron are only able to be in it with the approval of the owner or his
representative. A city park is a public place and you do not require
anyone's approval to be in one.
Nudge
But casinos are open to the public, whereas a private residence isn't.