Family sues Harrah's for assault using security video
Quote: onenickelmiracleZcore, you state many opinions about what the casino can do and what free people have to do. Back it up or shut up.
Hahaha. That's funny. The thing is I work at a Casino. I attend classes and seminars and read constantly on things related to Casinos, asset protection and other related topics. I talk to Surveillance Directors and Directors of Security about these topics. I speak on first hand knowledge.
And you?
ZCore13
Quote: BeardgoatPretty sure there is more to this story than innocent man and his daughter and wife get singled out and randomly assaulted by casino security. I'm not jumping to the casinos defense because I obviously don't have any facts, but I highly, highly doubt that gentleman was not doing anything to cause multiple security guards to be in the area.
And what did the teenage girl do to deserve having her nose broken by a group of grown men?
Ok, then just things you heard and no proof at all. You fail.Quote: Zcore13Hahaha. That's funny. The thing is I work at a Casino. I attend classes and seminars and read constantly on things related to Casinos, asset protection and other related topics. I talk to Surveillance Directors and Directors of Security about these topics. I speak on first hand knowledge.
And you?
ZCore13
Added: Secondly it doesn't sound like a smart business decision escalating drama which leads to injury. Appeasing the people to dinner, spa, etc., faking kindness would have been smarter to cool them off until the police could get them out.
Quote: renoAnd what did the teenage girl do to deserve having her nose broken by a group of grown men?
I don't know what they did. I said I don't know the facts.
With that said, I think even Harrah's defenders would have to admit that the video of the older woman and the underage girl getting manhandled looked very, very bad.
Quote: EdgeLookerWhat would be fair odds on the lawuits?
Daughter wins vs Harrah's
Yes --700
No +550
Husband/Wife wins vs Harrah's
Yes -275
No +225
lol
No way in hell these go to trial. They get settled; the question is for how much. Unfortunately we will never know because these settlements always seem to come with a confidentiality agreement and no admission of guilt.
Quote: Zcore13But the guest does not get to make up the rules.
Neither does security; that's the point. Even if the people were guilty of trespassing, that does not entitle security to assault them.
Quote: Zcore13Hahaha. That's funny. The thing is I work at a Casino. I attend classes and seminars and read constantly on things related to Casinos, asset protection and other related topics. I talk to Surveillance Directors and Directors of Security about these topics. I speak on first hand knowledge.
And you?
ZCore13
From your first post in this thread it was glaringly obvious who you work for. So in your brainwashing, er, training, did they teach you anything about the Nersessian verdicts. After the Grosjean verdict it was glaringly obvioud that Nevada casino security had backed off from the thug tactics, since they could no longer get away with it. Its high time the same thing happens in New Jersey. Perhaps this case, if it garners a huge punitive award will do it.
Despite repeated use of the word "casino" this is a hotel lobby situation having nothing whatsoever to do with the casino. Even the clerk's dispute is about key cards and excessive demands by the guests on the front desk staff, nothing about gambling at all.
New Jersey law on an Inkeeper's Right to Lockout Guests is very broad, Florida and Federal law is far less broad. So the plaintiff's want the case in Florida and may wait until the jurisdictinal disputes are settled so as to keep their main case in Florida. Its easy to argue than an 18 year old girl is less able to travel to New Jersey, particularly if she would miss classes than to argue the wealthy parents can't fly to New Jersey. Once the case is solidly in Florida the better, even if the Florida court is forced to apply New Jersey law.
Normally, an innkeeper has broad rights to deny lodging to an applicant and only somewhat narrower rights to Lock Out a guest who is registered. Guests are considered transients, not tenants who would be protected by eviction laws.
I understand Mr. Bennis to be a poker player. And New Jersey law to be more favorable to the casino and of course New Jersey judges know where their Bread and Butter come from. The laws on punitive damages play a major role in selecting the forum and since the daughter will need a guardian its a little more to keep the case where it is legally and tactically convenient for the parents.
But so far, this is Hotel Security, unrelated to any gambling or to the fact that there is a casino forty or fifty feet away. Its the right of an innkeeper to lock out someone who is sober, law-abiding but obnoxiously troublesome and demanding. It is about informing him of his lock out and ordering him to leave and how much time to allow him to walk away and how much force to use. Without audio I don't even know if they told him "you have no right to go to that room to collect any belongings", much less gave him time to react to that information. Clearly the force was excessive in respect to all three victims. No violence of threats of violence from the family, no weapons, no agitation or physical posturing or aggressive stance adopted. Just a persistent complainer who wore down the patience of a petty clerk.
Lets wait for the complaints to be filed.
Not so much. But let me ask whether those constant classes and seminars clearly explain the limitations on physical restraint in the absence of clear threats to body and property?Quote: Zcore13I attend classes and seminars and read constantly on things related to Casinos, asset protection and other related topics. I talk to Surveillance Directors and Directors of Security about these topics. I speak on first hand knowledge. And you?
Quote: FleaStiff
Lets wait for the complaints to be filed.
That's no fun ;)
I recall a similar incident at my joint, although it was 5-0 and not Security. Guy got lippy, didn't want to listen, argued with staff and authorities. Just jawing and jawing, on and on. Guy pointed in Security's face, cop gently put his hands up to tell him to stop, guy tensed up, and BOOM! DDT, right into the sidewalk. That was a great day.
I think this all hinges on what led up to what we saw on video. If his rights were truly violated, hell, I might just react the same way. And if Security wanted to tangle, then so be it. I'd be sure to send at least one to the hospital and smile the whole way to the bank.
But if their request was reasonable and this guy escalated, then I see nothing wrong. Just as I I saw nothing wrong with my own idiot taking a sidewalk to the face, I see nothing wrong with Security meeting a perceived threat (guy hyped and tensing up) with physical force. That's textbook assault - "creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person".
In the words of that philosopher Lil Jon, "Don't start no (redacted), there won't be no (redacted)
Like what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.Quote: FaceBut if their request was reasonable and this guy escalated, then I see nothing wrong. Just as I I saw nothing wrong with my own idiot taking a sidewalk to the face, I see nothing wrong with Security meeting a perceived threat (guy hyped and tensing up) with physical force. That's textbook assault - "creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person".
Quote: SanchoPanzaLike what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If this were a black family, you just know that Al and Jesse would be picketing right now.
Quote: SanchoPanzaLike what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Aaaaand this thread just jumped the shark.
Quote: AcesAndEightsAaaaand this thread just jumped the shark.
And what kind of shark was it that just got jumped?
Quote: FleaStiffBut so far, this is Hotel Security, unrelated to any gambling or to the fact that there is a casino forty or fifty feet away. Its the right of an innkeeper to lock out someone who is sober, law-abiding but obnoxiously troublesome and demanding. It is about informing him of his lock out and ordering him to leave and how much time to allow him to walk away and how much force to use. Without audio I don't even know if they told him "you have no right to go to that room to collect any belongings", much less gave him time to react to that information. Clearly the force was excessive in respect to all three victims. No violence of threats of violence from the family, no weapons, no agitation or physical posturing or aggressive stance adopted. Just a persistent complainer who wore down the patience of a petty clerk.
This is really the point. Even if they were within their rights to ask the victims to leave, and the victims refused, and they were not within their right to refuse, that does not absolve the security guards of the assault.
This is like the idiot in Florida who shot the guy who was texting in the movie theatre. Yes, he was right to ask the guy to stop, and the guy was wrong to refuse. That does not absolve him of shooting the guy.
Quote: SanchoPanzaLike what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Not really. Zimmerman was defending himself against an assault, and the force that he used was reasonable, since his life was probably in danger.
In this case no one was in any danger at all, and the force used by the security guards was unreasonable. As I said in a previous post, this is like the guy who shot the texter in the movie theatre. It was not a situation where the use of force was reasonable.
>>That's no fun ;)
Oh, I agree that it is fun to speculate. Its similar to an air crash wherein it may take years before a five hundred page final report is produced, by that time its no use to speculate about anything at all. The public has even forgotten about it and no amount of pressure can change anything.
Its like that Egyptian flight where a pilot was deadheading home in disgrace having been fired for treating hotel maids the way Egyptian males treat all females. He lost the high paying job, he lost the "favors to friends" and other income from smuggling small consumer goods into Egypt duty free for them. And suddenly he utters a prayer and pulls the yoke all the way back causing a stall and soon hit the engine kill switches so no power can be added.
Speculation about cultural concepts of masculinity and shame are useless after the FAA published a sanitized report bereft of all data on Egyptian culture and the pilot's prior history of repeated warnings about forcefully grabbing women by their breasts.
I too think it perfectly proper to speculate prior to the Jury's verdict, but at least the complaint will show what the allegations are and what is claimed to have been said and done. The Daughter's complaint was filed first solely to lock in the legally and logistically convenient forum of Florida. Once its determined that the Daughter's complaint will be heard in Florida, then the two parents will each file their own complaints in Florida.
From the film just about anything might have been said, but from his body language he sure was not agitated or swearing at them or likely to have been threatening to swing at them.
Quote: TomspurThere are cameras in those rooms, there are cameras everywhere. You are not allowed to have sensitive areas without cameras. Now can you lie and say..."there is nothing sensitive in here" but when Surveillance has to submit their yearly report to the NGC, they have to inform them of such places and if they don't then the Director of Surveillance gets shown the door at the behest of the NGC........
In this case, Oceans 11 is not correct :)
I doubt those laws were around in 1964
I was thinking that Martin, too, likely felt threatened.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNot really. Zimmerman was defending himself against an assault, and the force that he used was reasonable, since his life was probably in danger
Quote: SanchoPanzaI was thinking that Martin, too, likely felt threatened.
Possibly. In any case, the point is, you can only respond with reasonable force when threatened.
If someone is annoying you in a movie theatre is it not reasonable to pull out a gun and shoot them.
If someone is yelling at a clerk in a hotel it is not reasonable to jump on and assault him and his family.
If someone is on top of you bashing the back of your head into the ground in an attempt to seriously injure or kill you, it is (IMO) reasonable to pull out a gun and shoot them.
In other words, even if someone does something wrong, it does not give you carte blanche to respond with as much force as you want.
Had the man taken a swing at the clerk (or tried to otherwise attack the clerk) I think that the guards' actions (against the man) would have been reasonable. If the teenage girl had attacked someone, then I think that the guards' actions against her would have been reasonable, too. Simply yelling at an employee, or refusing to leave when asked, is not grounds for a violent response.
I would think that this is all pretty obvious.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePossibly. In any case, the point is, you can only respond with reasonable force when threatened.
If someone is annoying you in a movie theatre is it not reasonable to pull out a gun and shoot them.
If someone is yelling at a clerk in a hotel it is not reasonable to jump on and assault him and his family.
If someone is on top of you bashing the back of your head into the ground in an attempt to seriously injure or kill you, it is (IMO) reasonable to pull out a gun and shoot them.
In other words, even if someone does something wrong, it does not give you carte blanche to respond with as much force as you want.
Had the man taken a swing at the clerk (or tried to otherwise attack the clerk) I think that the guards' actions (against the man) would have been reasonable. If the teenage girl had attacked someone, then I think that the guards' actions against her would have been reasonable, too. Simply yelling at an employee, or refusing to leave when asked, is not grounds for a violent response.
I would think that this is all pretty obvious.
If what you use as an example was true then I believe you would be correct in all your assessments. But since I believe the man was the aggressor. Violently pulling his arms away when the security guys attempted to lead him away. I would disagree that he was simply yelling and refusing to leave. As soon as he reacts like that and then starts twitching around like a fish out of water, my guess is security becomes feared for their safety. Is he going to punch them? Does he have a knife or gun in his pocket? If I'm security, as soon as he starts with his antics, especially after showing already that he is angry at something, I'm taking him down and making sure he's not going to harm anyone.
ZCore13
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf someone is annoying you in a movie theatre is it not reasonable to pull out a gun and shoot them.
I'm curious to see what the defense does in that case. From what I've read, the texter (who was a pretty big guy) stood up and threw his popcorn at the old man before he got shot. I'm curious to see if a good attorney can cook up some kind of clever defense for the guy.
Quote: Beethoven9thI'm curious to see what the defense does in that case. From what I've read, the texter (who was a pretty big guy) stood up and threw his popcorn at the old man before he got shot. I'm curious to see if a good attorney can cook up some kind of clever defense for the guy.
Presumably they will claim self-defense but it will be a pretty tough sell that he reasonably felt that he was in serious danger.
Similarly, it will be a pretty tough sell to convince the public that because the guy in the video pulled his arms away from security that security felt that they were in serious danger. And I don't know how they will argue that they felt threatened by the teenaged girl.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePresumably they will claim self-defense but it will be a pretty tough sell that he reasonably felt that he was in serious danger.
Similarly, it will be a pretty tough sell to convince the public that because the guy in the video pulled his arms away from security that security felt that they were in serious danger. And I don't know how they will argue that they felt threatened by the teenaged girl.
The thing is, if it goes to trial they don't have to convince the public of anything. Only one out of 9 or 12 jurors who are most likely not even qualified to hold a job much less sit on a week long jury trial.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13The thing is, if it goes to trial they don't have to convince the public of anything. Only one out of 9 or 12 jurors who are most likely not even qualified to hold a job much less sit on a week long jury trial.
I don't think that's right.
First, in Florida, even criminal cases (other than murder) only have 6-person juries. Do civil cases have 12-person juries?
Second, I'm not sure that unanimity is required for civil cases in Florida (I couldn't find the answer with a quick web search). Many states require only a majority decision.
Quote: Zcore13The thing is, if it goes to trial they don't have to convince the public of anything. Only one out of 9 or 12 jurors who are most likely not even qualified to hold a job much less sit on a week long jury trial.
Perhaps one of the attorneys around here can help on this. I think that in many/most jurisdictions a unanimous verdict is not required in a civil trial.
EDIT: Slow typing once again.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13If I'm security, as soon as he starts with his antics, especially after showing already that he is angry at something, I'm taking him down and making sure he's not going to harm anyone.
And his teenage daughter, too. Just in case. And his wife.
Quote: renoAnd his teenage daughter, too. Just in case. And his wife.
Also hotel security should fly to Florida, track down his friends, and beat them up, just to be safe.
Usually security detention pens are video equipped and often audio equipped but who knows about this hotel.
That appears to be the response also to the question about the training or lack of it for casino personnel. We shall see just how much flailing Binns did do and how much surprise and serious grabbing security did in the eyes of a judge or a jury.Quote: Zcore13Since I believe the man was the aggressor. Violently pulling his arms away when the security guys attempted to lead him away. I would disagree that he was simply yelling and refusing to leave. As soon as he reacts like that and then starts twitching around like a fish out of water, my guess is security becomes feared for their safety. Is he going to punch them? Does he have a knife or gun in his pocket? If I'm security, as soon as he starts with his antics, especially after showing already that he is angry at something, I'm taking him down and making sure he's not going to harm anyone.
Absurd.Quote: Zcore13. But since I believe the man was the aggressor. Violently pulling his arms away when the security guys attempted to lead him away. I would disagree that he was simply yelling and refusing to leave. As soon as he reacts like that and then starts twitching around like a fish out of water, my guess is security becomes feared for their safety. Is he going to punch them? Does he have a knife or gun in his pocket? If I'm security, as soon as he starts with his antics, especially after showing already that he is angry at something, I'm taking him down and making sure he's not going to harm anyone.
>But since I believe the man was the aggressor.
Clearly not.
> Violently pulling his arms away when the security guys attempted to lead him away.
They can NOT touch him ... even gently on the arm.
Nor can they be leading him away when they are still blocking his path.
They have to move out of his way leaving a wide path free to him and verbally instruct him to leave the premises and allow him time to compose himself and comply with the instructions. They can not touch him or prod him. Even if the hand on the arm is gentle... its illegal.
I would disagree that he was simply yelling and refusing to leave. As soon as he reacts like that and then starts twitching around like a fish out of water, my guess is security becomes feared for their safety.
Then tell security to get different jobs, they can't run around "fearing for their safety"... their job is to deal with agitated, upset and distressed people.
> Is he going to punch them?
I don't know but they have to wait for the punch before using force. They can block his swing, but they can't "imagine that he is about to swing".
> Does he have a knife or gun in his pocket?
I don't know but they have to wait for him to BOTH reach for the weapon AND actually exhibit it in plain view before they can use force to restrain him.
They may not assume his reach is for a weapon. If he is reaching for pen and paper to write their names down, its perfectly legal for him to do so, even though both pens and notebooks might be possible implements he could misuse. You can not make assumptions about his intentions, just because you have a hair trigger temper and a fear of some unknown action.
> If I'm security, as soon as he starts with his antics, especially after showing already that he is angry at something,
It is NOT illegal to be angry. After all, the reason the clerk is tossing him out of the hotel is that the clerk is angry. You going to take down the desk clerk?
> I'm taking him down and making sure he's not going to harm anyone.
That take down is excessive force based solely on your imagination and biased perceptions. He can be loud, offensive ... but neither of those constitute a threat to anyone. YOU may think its threatening behavior but its not. It is security personnel that must deal with agitated people and that does not mean tackle them and pile on.
Quote: onenickelmiracleA television news report posted on youtube stated there are pending charges against the security guards. I'm not sure if charges are already filed or if they meant they are considering charges.
I wonder what procedures security follows when they are being charged with assault and battery.
I know that is a cheap shot, and this stuff happens everywhere, but it just isn't a shock here.
Florida law is far more clear on this. Even though hotel guests are transients not tenants they do have rights against arbitrary or capricious lock outs or room changes.
So we will wait for Harrahs to petition for removal to Federal Court in New Jersey and if they fail on that attempt, its going to be Florida that is the most convenient forum despite security guards having to be flown to Florida and the film being present in New Jersey.
The defendant does business in Florida and advertises both that particular casino and its various other casinos in Florida. The plaintiff's made their reservations from Florida. No vital interests would prevent a court from retaining the case in Florida.
Not really. The apparent inaction by the authorities supposedly in charge is symptomatic of the publc-be-damned attitude of the whole place.Quote: RaleighCrapsAnyone else want to know why I can't be bothered to go to AC? I know that is a cheap shot, and this stuff happens everywhere, but it just isn't a shock here.
Then you just hide from fraud investigators for the next 5-10 years when you're out mountain climbing or playing Rugby.
Quote: rxwineWhat you want to do is wait until the security reaches in, reach out and grab the arm with both hands and bring it forward towards you rapidly making it look like a strike. You can claim you were just blocking. Then do your best NBA fake-foul-fall and collapse to the floor. After a minute of "unconsciousness" wake up and complain about your neck or back hurting constantly and how you won't be able to do any useful work ever again or lift more than 2 lbs. You demonstrate in court how you can no longer lift a full buffet plate, you are now so handicapped.
Then you just hide from fraud investigators for the next 5-10 years when you're out mountain climbing or playing Rugby.
Spoken like a resident liberal.
Martin was walking home, minding his own business. The rest was the creation of the paranoid and sub-intelligent Zimmerman.
Flea gives a very well-written overview of facts and statute; Harrahs is incredibly vulnerable on this.
I'll post the link tomorrow and a link showing what the security does when they're scared-nothing.Quote: mickeycrimmI wonder what procedures security follows when they are being charged with assault and battery.
I totally agree, although I'm curious to see if a clever Johnnie Cochran-like attorney says that his client feared for his life after a hulking figure stood up and threw an object at him. And since it was dark he didn't know if the brute had any weapons, which forced him to fire his gun to prevent any bodily injury...Quote: AxiomOfChoicePresumably they will claim self-defense but it will be a pretty tough sell that he reasonably felt that he was in serious danger.
You never know...after all, O.J. and Casey Anthony got off!
...and pounding a guy's head against the concrete MMA-style.Quote: beachbumbabsMartin was walking home, minding his own business.
Quote: Beethoven9th...and pounding a guy's head against the concrete MMA-style.
Yeah I do that on my way home every day. The guy is starting to get upset though.
I think that is why Harrahs/CET will fight tooth and nail rather than have someone fall on his sword.Quote: beachbumbabsHarrahs is incredibly vulnerable on this.
They will fight on jurisdiction for trial location, then jurisdiction for which Law of Innkeeper Lockout applies. They will fight over compensatory damages and over punitive damages.
They will appeal all judgments as excessive jury emotions.
And they know they are the ones with an insurance policy at least for the compensatory damages portion of the claim.
Meanwhile, they crank up the incredulously effective Public Relations flacks.
If he refused to leave the premises, they should have called the Police.
Nothing more.
But then, this could have happened:
A Jersey Thing
Quote: Tanko
But then, this could have happened:
A Jersey Thing
Now that one is truly frightening. No loudmouth jerk needed, just someone convenient will do.
Quote: FleaStiffI think that is why Harrahs/CET will fight tooth and nail rather than have someone fall on his sword.
They will fight on jurisdiction for trial location, then jurisdiction for which Law of Innkeeper Lockout applies. They will fight over compensatory damages and over punitive damages.
They will appeal all judgments as excessive jury emotions.
And they know they are the ones with an insurance policy at least for the compensatory damages portion of the claim.
Meanwhile, they crank up the incredulously effective Public Relations flacks.
I don't understand why the right of the innkeeper to lock him out is important. This isn't about an innkeeper locking him out, it's about an innkeeper assaulting him and his family. Even if they were correct to lock him out and ask him to leave, the force used when he refused was unreasonable. (I assume that the Innkeeper's rights in NJ don't include the right to assault customers)
Quote: beachbumbabsFlorida, all non-capital crimes are 6 member juries.
Martin was walking home, minding his own business. The rest was the creation of the paranoid and sub-intelligent Zimmerman.
Flea gives a very well-written overview of facts and statute; Harrahs is incredibly vulnerable on this.
He was doing his job as a volunteer neighborhood watchman. I have been stopped by watchmen for less, and I am a well groomed, well dressed white man. He had every right to be mad at Zimmerman, but he had no right to punch and stomp him, he should of walked away.
Even if Zimmerman is paranoid, racist, anti-Semitic, wife beating, child molester, former SS officer etc... Its all irrelevant , in this scenario he was legally in the right. Personality defects and past associations are irrelevant.
