a person is dead over a poker seat...

amazing

actually, an arguement over a poker seat escalated into a situation where one person died.

big difference.

I doubt stabber/slasher was thinking at that instant, "I'm gonna kill this guy for freaking out over a poker seat"

as I doubt the dead guy wasn't thinking "I'm gonna beat this fool with his own cane for taking my seat".

By the time it escalated to physical violence, the initial perceived transgressions were most likely forgotten.

Still sad, IMO.

I do think poker players are more likely to be violent than other gamblers. Maybe I am inexperienced, but I have not seen gamblers at craps tables or roulette wheels criticizing each others' play, insulting other players in an attempt to make the other players crazy and therefore play suboptimally, or play in such a way as to challenge another player's courage/bravado.

All that was an extremely inconcise way of saying that I believe the mental combat aspects of poker could lead to violence much easier than slots or let it ride.

I don't have an answer for that because I've been only to AC where I've never seen more than three or four people enter or leave a poker room at the same time. Maybe it's more in Vegas? I see your point about people being pulled to the side, but it would be possible to call a central office to send someone to handle the person that needs to be re-checked if you wanted to work it with only one guard.

I don't know how often violence occurs in poker rooms, so maybe you're right--maybe it's not often enough to justify weapons screening. Does anyone have statistics on this issue?

I would contend that only poker rooms need the screenings and that they are special per my reasoning above.

I am OK with gamblers who do not research these rules being semi-captive in the situation you describe because they can deal with the trade-off of time spent calling ahead versus time spent changing casinos as they see fit.

As opposed to some of the points Poshua made, this is the kind of reasoning I would be less inclined to accept if I were making policy in the area. IMO, the inconvenience of emptying my pockets and taking off my belt if I'm wearing one is worth knowing I'm not sitting next to someone with a gun or knife.

Try sitting in the last seat at a $100 BJ table and drawing to your 16 with the dealer showing a 6. You'll hear criticism. And maybe begin to fear for your kneecaps.

As for traffic in the poker room... metal detectors would be HORRIBLE at most poker rooms because of tournaments. 140 people playing a tourney at Venetian and at 2pm they ALL take a 10 minute break at once and run for the restroom. And think of all those poor folks who dash outside, take a few puffs on a cancer stick, and run back inside... that would end. At a very very minimum they'd have to put a restroom inside the poker room.

I just don't buy that because of ONE stabbing (which coulda been pulled off just as well using a non-metallic knife that woulda slipped through a metal detector) that the universe needs to change. As well, somebody who wants to fight and wants a weapon will probably just go to his car to get one and return to the casino--events like THAT happen pretty regularly and wouldn't be prevented by poker room metal detectors (I'm thinking of the Caesars LV shooting right at the parking garage elevator doors where the guy went out and got a gun and came back with it).

I think a simple attitude adjustment by the floor people would do the trick. Don't let situations escalate. And if that ain't enough, just station a security dude or two in the room--no need to have 'em tied up running metal detectors and wands, better to have 'em prowling around and glaring at anybody who gets loud.

This does not at all describe the circumstances of the stabbing at the Taj. The players' dispute was about whether one had stolen the other's seat. As such, it was unrelated to the fact that the game involves players competing against each other, and could just as easily have happened at a house-banked table game in the pit.

Indeed, I don't think I've ever heard a story about a dispute over poker play escalating to armed violence. So, to the extent you are proposing increased security solely for poker because of the risk of game-related conflict between competitors, I think you're providing a solution in search of a problem.

Unlike poker rooms, one frequently sees media reports of disputes in bars (and nightclubs) that escalate to armed violence. If we were going to pick a public place to have new metal detection, they would be a better candidate.

If the dealer had been paying attention, and kept the seat locked, there would have been no dispute. The dealer got someone killed. Everyone at the table knew the seat was not open, except the goofy dealer.

It didn't. He pleaded guilty in May and was sentenced yesterday.

Way to bring a thread back from the dead.

Solid update, though.

Nice work, tailspin, thanks.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.



//Moran

For reference, the NJ statute on self-defense:

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

b.Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(1)The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a)To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

(b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

Woh:

"First Assistant Prosecutor Murray Talasnik, who represented the state, said that Perez brought a deadly weapon into the casino – and that is what keeps the case from being one of pure self-defense.

The knife, Talasnik said, was nine inches long with a three and a half inch blade."

That's Crocodile Dundee knife

As well as you good sir.