Disturbing video

[Aslan]

Some states have written into the law that businesses have the specific right to ban firearms. A casino could post “no card counting” signs. But, that’s just a casino policy. It doesn’t have the force of law, and the law doesn’t call card counting cheating. It would be like a restaurant demanding a jacket and tie. They can refuse entry. But, they can’t detain and interrogate you for not wearing a tie.

What you say sounds correct. I was just throwing that out there in case there were such a law. If Mills had held firm and the police took him in, fingerprinted him and forced him to divulge his ID, it sound like he would have a legitimate action against the state for (1) illegal arrest (or illegal detention), (2) divulging his identity to the casino without his permission. Mills would, and still has, the right to sue Maryland Live for forcibly detaining him. In a trespass case, the police will always side with the business in terms of making you leave the premises, but they should not demand you provide ID. Also, the business never has the right to detain you unless you are suspected of committing a crime.

It is a sad truth, too, that casinos will at times deliberately wait until a card counter is losing before they back him off. I have that straight from surveillance at one of Vegas' leading casinos. It's like sticking the knife in you (backing you off) and then turning it (but waiting for you to be in the losers column first). There was no evidence in the article, however, that the casino deliberately waited until Mills was losing.

[Aslan]

I wonder if Mills has a case for defamation of character since this is in the newspapers and all over the internet, although it may be his fault that the press has this story, I don't know? Does it matter? Even though he is depicted in stories as within the law, it may tend to paint him as a shady character to the public at large. What are your thoughts on this?

[Exoter175]

This is the way I see it as well. I thought the cops acted professionally, just incorrectly. With all these new jurisdiction in the last few years, there is a learning process for casinos as well as police. It will take a few successful lawsuits to educate all of them. They may think they are acting within the law, but they will find out that they are not. And just because something is written that way by the casino or even by the state, doesn't make it legal. That's what the whole court process is for.

Justin Mills seems to have a pretty good idea that the actions taken against him were unlawful. I hope he pursues the issue. In my mind, the funny thing is that they have made it so easy for him. Maryland Live will be providing the key evidence in the form of this video. Testimony from officers and Maryland Live personnel will almost be irrelevant.

I disagree here on the grounds of professionalism. The Officer clearly attempts to mock him with the reference of "Since you're a lawyer" and the body language applied to the remark.

[Aslan]

I disagree here on the grounds of professionalism. The Officer clearly attempts to mock him with the reference of "Since you're a lawyer" and the body language applied to the remark.

They were professional for the most part, although not well informed on the law in this case. I'm sure the police are sick and tired of people who think they know the law better than the police do, although in this case they did, or rather Justin Mills did.

[Norm]

Okay, now that we’re over the anger phase, let us look at this in a pragmatic manner.

In the 60s, I was stopped by the police over 100 times in a one-year period simply walking to or from work, because of the length of my hair. I was felt up a few times, pulled into the station a few times, twice on dates, and questioned for no reason. Somewhere there is a huge file detailing my comings and goings during that year. I was never charged with a crime. I was ‘arrested’ in the dictionary sense because I was halted by the police and could not leave. In one single night, walking to work, I was stopped by three different patrol cars. When the third stopped me, I told him this was my third time tonight. He said he was sorry, but it was orders. I asked for a ride the rest of the way to work – and he obliged. We had a pleasant chat on the way. I owe a debt of gratitude to the ACLU for suing the city of Philadelphia and putting an end to this constant harassment. I put up no fuss because it would have been pointless. Decades later, a NY judge, during voir dire, apologized to me for the treatment from the bench.

Look, I applaud those that stand up for their rights, and I make noise when I think it is truly useful. I have been doing this lately over copyright infringements, extortion, bullying and slander. But, let’s get serious. What the fuck is a 23 year old card counter purposely putting his face on the Internet for? And, it’s not even a great case. YES, the way he was treated pisses me off, and I’d love to see the casino pay a price. But, he wasn’t bruised and we have no evidence that they didn’t eventually pay him. And there are people stopped and frisked in vast numbers solely due to the way they dress and the color of their skin. There are better cases.

If he sues, I hope he wins, and I hope he wins big. I just don’t think this is the best case to hang our hats on. One must pick one’s battles.

Just my silly opinion.

[Three]

Yeah, you might get a big payout by getting beaten up and having your rights violated. Is that your goal in life? To provoke violence against yourself so you can sue -- or write a book? Do you really want to spend years fighting a court case? That is not my idea of success.

Just my opinion.

If you get in a "brawl" as someone suggested you better not show any aggression. You could give them the ammunition to legally bar you if you are seen creating a disturbance or acting unlawfully. Things can get misrepresented and your entire case can fall apart. All of the sudden your detention is lawful and they can legally permanently bar you from the property in any jurisdiction. You just made their case.

[Norm]

Absolutely agree. The RC case against El Cortez made him some money. And, I’m glad he won. But, he has said that he purposely provokes bad behavior. Now that may have been post-case braggadocio. And, that case was long ago. And El Cortez is a very old, small casino not known for having the greatest technology. Had they Maryland Live's technology, I think RC may have lost that case. Just my opinion.

Provocation of violence is not a valid defense of violence. But, juries/judges don't like people that provoke. So, in a civil case, even if you prove some violence against you, if it appears that you deliberately provoked the violence, but didn't prove adequate injury, you may win. You may win a judgement of $1. Videos cut both ways.

[Aslan]

Okay, now that we’re over the anger phase, let us look at this in a pragmatic manner.

In the 60s, I was stopped by the police over 100 times in a one-year period simply walking to or from work, because of the length of my hair. I was felt up a few times, pulled into the station a few times, twice on dates, and questioned for no reason. Somewhere there is a huge file detailing my comings and goings during that year. I was never charged with a crime. I was ‘arrested’ in the dictionary sense because I was halted by the police and could not leave. In one single night, walking to work, I was stopped by three different patrol cars. When the third stopped me, I told him this was my third time tonight. He said he was sorry, but it was orders. I asked for a ride the rest of the way to work – and he obliged. We had a pleasant chat on the way. I owe a debt of gratitude to the ACLU for suing the city of Philadelphia and putting an end to this constant harassment. I put up no fuss because it would have been pointless. Decades later, a NY judge, during voir dire, apologized to me for the treatment from the bench.

Look, I applaud those that stand up for their rights, and I make noise when I think it is truly useful. I have been doing this lately over copyright infringements, extortion, bullying and slander. But, let’s get serious. What the fuck is a 23 year old card counter purposely putting his face on the Internet for? And, it’s not even a great case. YES, the way he was treated pisses me off, and I’d love to see the casino pay a price. But, he wasn’t bruised and we have no evidence that they didn’t eventually pay him. And there are people stopped and frisked in vast numbers solely due to the way they dress and the color of their skin. There are better cases.

If he sues, I hope he wins, and I hope he wins big. I just don’t think this is the best case to hang our hats on. One must pick one’s battles.

Just my silly opinion.

It's not silly. Why would a card counter deliberately put his mug all over the Internet so that he is effectively outing himself in every casino across the nation. He must either think he's in for a big payday, which I seriously doubt since there was no glaring defamation of character as in the Grosjean/Griffin case, or he just wants his 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps, he was just shortsighted, not giving sufficient reflection to what he was doing. Card counting comes so easy nowadays with "how to" books everywhere and systems that require only a modicum of skill, that maybe he under values what he has. I don't think he'll be making much of a living at card counting from now on, if that was ever in his game plan, unless he is a veritable master of disguise.

[Harold Harvey]

It's interesting they had audio, too.

When you step up into a backroom, usually signed “Security,” notice the hollow sound your footsteps make on the floor “tile.” You are standing on top of a maze of easily serviced wiring that controls cameras and audio equipment. Every word you say is being recorded.

[Harold Harvey]

To play devil's advocate, where a business posts "no firearms permitted", for example, even though one has a permit to carry concealed, I believe one has committed a violation when they enter the premises with a concealed weapon. I wonder if the same applies to a casino, although I have never seen "card counting prohibited" signs anywhere? Here we have the casino alerting the customer to the fact, and we also have the need of the casino to ascertain the ID of whom they are banning from reentry. You know how the law is often interpreted in such a circuitous fashion and even when it appears one has an open and shut case they rule against them. We can only hope that this case is ruled in favor of Mills and sets a precedent for others to follow. The state may see an advantage, however, in "stretching" the law to fit the outcome it sees as favorable to itself. Am I being overly cynical?

If the sign actually reads "No Firearms Permitted," it may have a problem enforcing its policy. Taken literally, they are saying that not carrying a firearm with you is permitted. It does not say anything about prohibiting firearms.

[Aslan]

If the sign actually reads "No Firearms Permitted," it may have a problem enforcing its policy. Taken literally, they are saying that not carrying a firearm with you is permitted. It does not say anything about prohibiting firearms.

Good catch. I'll check it where I know they use it, Tuesday Morning, a retail household goods store. It probably says, "The carrying of firearms on the premises is prohibited," as you say.

[MJGolf]

Good catch. I'll check it where I know they use it, Tuesday Morning, a retail household goods store. It probably says, "The carrying of firearms on the premises is prohibited," as you say.

Don't even go there guys. Be reasonable. Odds are that there is a cartoon or pic of a gun with a "slash" through it. Reflecting no guns allowed on premises. Do you really want to argue this ticket with a cop? I doubt anyone is actually "confused" or mislead by what they mean. And I live in a very liberal jurisdiction regarding the carrying of weapons. You do have to have a license to carry (concealed or open) which means that you had to take a class AND in the class they inform you of the rules on firearms and where they are permitted. Don't be nonsensical.

[Nyne]

If the sign actually reads "No Firearms Permitted," it may have a problem enforcing its policy. Taken literally, they are saying that not carrying a firearm with you is permitted. It does not say anything about prohibiting firearms.

In some states, it doesn't matter if there is a sign or not. As long as you are not in a place where it is prohibited by law to carry, you are allowed to carry unless asked to leave by the property owner, and as long as you leave when asked, you've committed no crime. The "no guns" signs are meaningless. And since, by definition, they should not know you have a concealed firearm, you probably won't be asked to leave. Obviously this will vary by state, but PA is one example. NV is another. www.handgunlaw.us will have more info.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nevada.pdf (page 5)
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf (page 4)