RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
January 13th, 2015 at 4:15:28 PM permalink
Quote: AcesAndEights

I got my new sig out of it, so the discussion wasn't totally useless.



Excellent signature. That was hilarious when I read that for the first time.
Brewfangrb
Brewfangrb
Joined: Sep 4, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 48
January 13th, 2015 at 11:26:48 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

No. It shows the character of a person who abuses the system. I have been a long proponent of reverse action lawsuits, where if somebody files a lawsuit that fails they have to pay that to the defendant.

I hate lawsuits. And people who make a living baiting them. I feel not the slightest sympathy for this sham artist. I feel terrible for an honorable chaperone of responsible gaming such as CET have to struggle with such predators.



So if I run a red light and permanently disable you, I can safely assume you'd take no action against me? SWEET!
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
January 13th, 2015 at 11:31:40 PM permalink
Quote: Brewfangrb

So if I run a red light and permanently disable you, I can safely assume you'd take no action against me? SWEET!



I think Gandler is saying something more like: If someone jumps into the crosswalk (on purpose/knowingly) with incoming traffic and gets run over. Then that person was baiting a lawsuit. And that I agree with, especially since the driver, essentially, can't do anything about the situation.

On the other hand, CET definitely had an option. They had a choice of what to do.

You put drugs in front of someone, they have a choice. If you pump it into their bloodstream while they're asleep through an IV, they have no choice.
Brewfangrb
Brewfangrb
Joined: Sep 4, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 48
January 13th, 2015 at 11:44:51 PM permalink
Quote: RS

I think Gandler is saying something more like: If someone jumps into the crosswalk (on purpose/knowingly) with incoming traffic and gets run over. Then that person was baiting a lawsuit. And that I agree with, especially since the driver, essentially, can't do anything about the situation.



That I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.

Quote: RS

On the other hand, CET definitely had an option. They had a choice of what to do.



And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1589
January 14th, 2015 at 12:34:10 AM permalink
Quote: Brewfangrb

That I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.



No, I hate people who going somewhere intending to sue. So, yes, any lawsuit involving setting up a situiain with prior intent I hate or at least disagree with.



Quote:

And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?



They did call the cops.

And, I am sure they would have cashed the chips if he showed ID.

He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1589
January 14th, 2015 at 12:34:10 AM permalink
Quote: Brewfangrb

That I get. But he said "I hate lawsuits". Then added "and I hate people that bait them". So he just hates lawsuits he's decided he doesn't like. Or maybe just those that don't involve him. Which is nonsense.



No, I hate people who going somewhere intending to sue. So, yes, any lawsuit involving setting up a situiain with prior intent I hate or at least disagree with.



Quote:

And this is exactly my issue. Even if Miller was "looking for a fight", CET solves this problem by simply not giving him one. They would have been far better off to have cashed his chips and banned him outright from the casino, as they're allowed to do for essentially any reason. And then tell him if he did leave, they'd call the cops. If a throws a fit, you let him. Call the cops and let THEM cuff him and haul him out. Their taking the steps they did simply opened themselves up to exposure they simply didn't need. Gandler argues Miller was looking for a fight. Well, CET, it seems, was too. Why do all this over $5000?



They did call the cops.

And, I am sure they would have cashed the chips if he showed ID.

He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
January 14th, 2015 at 3:03:30 AM permalink
Hating people who try to find lawsuits is fine but it doesn't somehow automatically invalidate their lawsuit...on the other had, CET could have prevented the lawsuit by doing what everyone here seems to agree on--pay him out, trespass him, and escort him off the property with police assistance, if needed.

They would have tape of his refusal to show ID (though there seems to be no real legal reason for it anywhere in this thread BUT the "whole story" could show more of a reason), his attitude, and his ejection.

He may have wanted it. CET was willing to give it to him.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
January 14th, 2015 at 3:15:58 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

...and he knew CETs policies...



So what's your solution (nevermind don't answer that)? Just say, "Hey, even though CET's policies are against the law, that's perfectly dandy with me" and let CET do whatever they want?

How do you get change and fix something without doing anything about it? Years ago, do you think the blacks were like, "We have our own schools, sh*tty books, have our own water fountains, we can't eat at certain restaurants and we gotta sit in the back of the bus....but that's OK, I'm sure something will eventually change." Or perhaps do you think there were leaders who said, "F*** this sh*t, we're rising up. We're going to go to whatever schools we want, we're sitting where we want, and we're going to be treated equally."

Change only happens if someone / people protest against those with bad policies.
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 5898
January 14th, 2015 at 3:28:34 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler


He was a profesional gambler. He knew this, he knew the law, and he knew CETs policies. He wanted this.



Say there are complaints to CET regarding security illegally detaining people to Gaming.
Now police are always baiting liquor stores by sending in under age buyers to see if the liquor will make a sale.
How about gaming sending somebody pretending to be AP, complaining loudly, not showing id, and stay whithin the law but bait CET to illegally detain.
Gaming testing CET to see if they will break the law.
Do you have a problem with that?
WOV supports censorship. Bring back free speech challenging lies.

  • Jump to: