Disturbing video

[Norm]

US Supreme Court is the LAW OF THE LAND!

De jure, not de facto. (Pardon my Latin.)

Asked an officer once for his id when he stopped me walking down the street and ordered me to turn out my pockets. He responded: "One more word and I'll run you up the street." Not sure what that meant -- but it wasn't good. Turned out he was off-duty and out of district.

Asked an officer once why he was allowing numerous officers' private cars to illegally block the delivery entrance to my building every day. A week or so later, a cop I didn't recognize stopped me while I was walking to the grocer, said: "We know where you live." and left. I'm sure that was not a threat, but merely a part of their slogan: "Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect".

[Bodarc]

See 2011 Bob Nersesian podcast #2 at richardmunchkin.com

[Three]

If it had been at the Horseshoe in Baltimore he would have had to produce ID upon request of the police officer or be taken to the station. They would be able to hold him for 24 hours before they would either have to release him or charge him with something. This is a contributing factor to the recent riots in Baltimore. Police beefed up the stats for detentions by running people in for no other reason than failing to show ID and rarely charged them. This looked great on the stat sheets but really put a wedge between law abiding citizens and the police. Maryland Live is in nearby Anne Arrundel County. I am surprised that the police are so corrupt there as to treat this case in opposition of the law. There is no reason to kidnap the guy or as they say unlawfully detain which is the same thing.

[Three]

It isn't illegal to not carry ID for most activities other than driving, including gambling. What I don't understand is how you can be legally required to produce ID if you're not even legally required to carry an ID?

It's Baltimore City law. They can't charge you with not carrying ID but it will get you a trip to the station and detention until you can have your ID verified or 24 hours is up. At 24 hours they have to charge you with something or release you.

[KJ]

It isn't illegal to not carry ID for most activities other than driving, including gambling. What I don't understand is how you can be legally required to produce ID if you're not even legally required to carry an ID?

Here's the problem: what's legal and legally required can become fuzzy or grey. I am sure you have read Grosgean's account of his '24 hours' in jail, which turned into 4 1/2 days because of a combination of a Friday night booking (can't see judge until Monday) and because he refused to give his real name and didn't have ID on him. He spent extra days in jail just waiting for the FBI to identify him via fingerprints.

I don't know if Norm would want a link posted, so for anyone that hasn't read the account, it can be found on Arnold Snyder's site, entitled "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum".

[Aslan]

Here are my thoughts on this:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. We know counting is not criminal, but as AP's we are committing a crime against the casino. We are breaking their rules of conduct within their establishment. So, when someone gets busted for counting and then tries to sue for assault, of course it's not going to be taken seriously. The casino does millions of dollars in business in that particular community. They provide jobs for hundreds of employees, they pay taxes, the employees pay taxes, they make political contributions, etc, etc. AP's are not contributing to any of these things. Matter of fact, we look to avoid these things at all costs. So, don't act surprised when a judge laughs at your civil suit. Unless a security guy beats the livin' crap out of you, you won't get anywhere.

Just accept that as an AP, you are playing outside the rules. If you get busted, you get busted. Take it like a man. Don't be all injured and start crying lawsuits.

Spoken like a true member of the evil empire.

As APs and as persons doing nothing whatsoever illegal, we see the casinos as our enemies by their own choice. They cannot forbid us to do that which is legal, but they can stretch the use of the right to refuse service beyond that which it was originally intended. This is one of their weapons against those who set out to defeat their games using lawful methods. If they do not want their games beaten, then they should make the rules such that card counting cannot win in the long run, but they don't. Their policy against card counting IS NOT A RULE OF THE GAME, its a policy of the casino to prevent persons from winning at their [the casino's] own game using nothing but their brains. It would be impossible to make a legal rule that one must agree not to employ brainpower in the pursuit of winning.Truth be known, even a trespass action should not be upheld by the courts if pushed to the limit as their is no behavior on the part of the trespassed person that warrants it and a reasonable and impartial judge should rule in favor of the so-called trespasser if brought to court. But all that aside, the casino uses an anti-cardcounting policy, actually, an anti-thinking policy, against its cardcounting patrons, and the cardcounter is simply replying to this assault by bringing court actions against the casino. It's not crying over being evicted or trespassed, it's fighting back and standing up for one's lawful rights.

Also, it's a good way to make some money, which the casino is doing everything in its power to prevent. In some cases it is more lucrative to sue the casino than to count cards. My hat is off to anyone who beats the casino at their own game. Kudos to Justin and everyone else who fights back at the casinos who try to take unfair advantage of their patrons. What we do is fair and morally defensible; what the casino does is unfair and morally indefensible.

Please don't challenge me with a game and then if it appears I have figured out how to win at it, contrive a policy to forbid me from playing. That is tantamount to cheating IMHO. If the game is offered to the public, then it is the APs right to play it. The law would not countenance a policy of allowing only bad players to play-- it's for everyone, or for no one.

[Aslan]

It is true that the love of money is the root of all evil. The casino wants every last dollar it can squeeze out of its patrons, while the AP wants only what he can derive from his skill and luck at the game. The casino wants to prohibit skillful players, who have a good chance to win in the long run. It's not like AP is a sure thing-- it's still gambling. If the casino wants to shut down card counting, it merely has to make all games 6:5. It doesn't do that because it wants its cake and eat it, too. It wants to advertise that it can be beaten, while at the same time shutting down all those who figure out how to do it. If anything, it is the casino that is dishonest, not the AP. There, I've said it! The casino is the crook, the criminal, the scam artist, not its rival, the intelligent advantage player.

[Aslan]

No. It's not at all ok. Justice should be blind, but unfortunately, it's not. I think we all know this. We see unjust activity in courtrooms and by police all the time. This is just another example. It is important to recognize when you are likely to walk head first into unjust scenarios. That is what my point is.

Hopefully, it will be lucrative for enough APs who get backroomed and unlawfully detained, not to mention, defamed, that APs will continue to fight back at the casinos' unfair and morally dishonest policies. It is up to the AP to decide whether the potential payoff, or likelihood of such payoff, is sufficient for him or her to pursue a court action. Sometimes, you never know until you try. Certainly there have been enough cases that did work out to the benefit of the card counter. Ask 21forme; he opened my eyes to this fact. Forgive me for using your name, 21.

[Aslan]

US Supreme Court is the LAW OF THE LAND!

Law enforcement must have at LEAST "reasonable suspicion" a crime has been, is, or is imminently about to occur to lawfully detain a person and require ID!!!

"Reasonable suspicion" is SPECIFIC, ARTICULABLE FACTS that would lead a reasonably prudent, OBJECTIVE person to conclude that a crime has been, is, or is imminently about to occur.

Therefore, the act/fact of card counting is NOT illegal, in fact it IS LEGAL!

So thus, no objectively prudent, reasonable person can rely on this LEGAL act/fact to support his/her conclusion of suspected illegality (and the detention and ID).

IT IS LEGALLY THAT "STRAIGHTFORWARD."

p.s. Don't bother asking....Yes, I am a _ _ _ _ _ _.

Well, at least you're not a ... [forgive me, Norm ... I didn't mean to bring ... you know what into it.]

[metronome]

they make political contributions

Nuff said right there

[Orangechip2]

Spoken like a true member of the evil empire.

As APs and as persons doing nothing whatsoever illegal, we see the casinos as our enemies by their own choice. They cannot forbid us to do that which is legal, but they can stretch the use of the right to refuse service beyond that which it was originally intended. This is one of their weapons against those who set out to defeat their games using lawful methods. If they do not want their games beaten, then they should make the rules such that card counting cannot win in the long run, but they don't. Their policy against card counting IS NOT A RULE OF THE GAME, its a policy of the casino to prevent persons from winning at their [the casino's] own game using nothing but their brains. It would be impossible to make a legal rule that one must agree not to employ brainpower in the pursuit of winning.Truth be known, even a trespass action should not be upheld by the courts if pushed to the limit as their is no behavior on the part of the trespassed person that warrants it and a reasonable and impartial judge should rule in favor of the so-called trespasser if brought to court. But all that aside, the casino uses an anti-cardcounting policy, actually, an anti-thinking policy, against its cardcounting patrons, and the cardcounter is simply replying to this assault by bringing court actions against the casino. It's not crying over being evicted or trespassed, it's fighting back and standing up for one's lawful rights.

Also, it's a good way to make some money, which the casino is doing everything in its power to prevent. In some cases it is more lucrative to sue the casino than to count cards. My hat is off to anyone who beats the casino at their own game. Kudos to Justin and everyone else who fights back at the casinos who try to take unfair advantage of their patrons. What we do is fair and morally defensible; what the casino does is unfair and morally indefensible.

Please don't challenge me with a game and then if it appears I have figured out how to win at it, contrive a policy to forbid me from playing. That is tantamount to cheating IMHO. If the game is offered to the public, then it is the APs right to play it. The law would not countenance a policy of allowing only bad players to play-- it's for everyone, or for no one.

Very well put, Aslan. Cheers.

Good Cards

[JustinM]

U guys have any recommendations as far as expert witnesses? Someone who can testify about the counter measures casinos can employ like cutting shoes in half and flat betting that they can do in response to advantage play.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I can think of at least two but you'll be billed travel expenses, etc. plus $600 / hr.

WHY are you asking ?

We, the denizens of this website rarely respond to requests without details.