I'm either an author or co-author, as well as the publisher, on two books whose purpose is to improve the poker room experience for players and to help the poker room (and it's management) to become more successful. Also, on both of these books I gave away hundreds of copies to poker room management. The books are:

https://www.amazon.com/Cardrooms-Eve...s%2C142&sr=1-1


and

https://www.amazon.com/Professional-...80685477&psc=1

you're welcome to read them yourself.

Also, in each of my Poker Essays books. there's a section titled "IN the Cardrooms" where I again address similar topics. Feel free to look at those as well.

Mason

Did your book talk about how players should cool it with the talking to dealers if they don’t want to be smacked on the leg by another player?

Think you might need to google what a physical assault is. Just to make sure I wasn't crazy since you seemed so sure of yourself, I looked it up. It's state law, my state PA, wasn't even close to a physical assault. So then checked the most candy assed state around, California, this wouldn't come close to a physical assault there either. Not going to check all 50 states, but I'd imagine it would be similar in all states. Not sure where you got your definition of physical assault from, but you might want to check into it before using caps to emphasize something as 100% fact when you are so far off.

If your thoughts on knowing what it means to be a man is anything like your thoughts on what constitutes a physical assault, should I even bother to respond?

Dr Meh is certainly a cool screen name so not saying you should change it, but Dr Snowflake would be more appropriate.

Also, I love California, wasn't hating on it.

Now I know I’m being trolled. Nobody could possibly be this stupid. Well-played.

Ah, the boozing fighting irish up to their usual shenanigans!, the only surprise here, is that people are surprised!.

The participants were a Dutch and a Canadian, lol.

It takes the brightest and most mitty of minds to come up with a "LOLZ iRisH pEoPlE dRiNk" in 2023. You should really go into comedy with that groundbreaking insight.

Hey, he waited two years since his last post, but saw his time to shine and took his shot with that zinger.

Ah infacta, it happened in Ireland diddle it!

Welcome to irish humour

BTW, Keep your shirt on sweetheart!

Imagine how unbelievably deluded you have to be to think a "smack" on the thigh as described in this instance constitutes physical assault. Some people surely dont live outside of certain twitter echo chambers.

Walk up to a woman in a shopping centre, smack her on the thigh twice then yell "FU" in her face, see how far you get before security and/or cops drag you away.

Google "assault", then google "battery". Pick your jurisdiction.

Then, carry on.

(This is 2+2, Twitter is somewhere else.)

I'm not sure to which part you are referring as stupid, nor can I speak to what he actually found in re other states, but he's mostly correct about California and its definition of assault. The main points are "violent injury," "application of force," and "present ability," plus it's important to point that the attempt itself is what constitutes assault. Throw a punch and miss, and you still have committed assault, per our laws. It's only when you land the bunch that you're on the hook for a battery.

The "violent injury" and "application of force" parts don't always go hand in hand, and that's the part where I would have to defer to an attorney on how that works. I can only assume it's an either-or thing: you only need one or the other and not necessarily both. After all, several Acts of force that don't likely result in an injury can still be considered assault and/or battery (e.g. spitting in someone's face, dumping a beer on their head). As zrap said, we're candy asses out here.

Not for nothing, when I first heard about this story, it was worded something like "he touched her thigh under the table." And that version gave me the jeebies until I came here and realized it was probably more of a "hey, wake up" tap than it was someone getting all Joe Biden handsy on her. But yeah, my first reaction was for sexual assault.

Of course, NONE of this matters because the California laws are not the ones in effect in this Irish Open situation.

My half-assed Internet research gives me reason to think what happened at the poker tourney, if it went down as described, might not constitute assault under Irish law. This is from Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997:

So depending on whether or not the under-the-table contact is seemed "ordinary conduct," or whether or not this guy has a reasonable expectation to know that Louise will find such contact "unacceptable," it seems like he could be in the clear. But who knows, I'm just someone reading some words I saw in the code. I score a solid zero in the stare decisis category, meaning our friends across the pond are much more qualified to guess how this stuff has been adjudicated over the years.

Oh, and when it comes to the Shamrock Shake, I've heard both good (tastes like melted mint chip ice cream) and bad (tastes like someone poured Scope into a glass of milk).

A fair response, but with entirely too much work, reason and insight for NVG I'm afraid.

You're raising the bar and making the rest of the posters on NVG out as mooks.

https://youtu.be/8vw8t4O9JQM

Exactly this.

As pointed out by someone else, none of us thus far are experts in Irish law. However, the codes cited show this meets the threshold. I’m not saying the guy should be arrested and face charges as it wouldn’t really serve a purpose of Justice. But by the letter of the law, this certainly qualifies.

It really is as simple as this: You do not have the right to punch, hit, slap, or any other form of touch against a non-consenting person. The exemption in the Irish code seems to be geared toward things such as tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention and other non-violent typically acceptable touching behaviors.

Use your words.

Exactly this.

Every response I have made in this thread has made it clear it doesn't matter if the other person's touch rose to the level of assault. It is still inappropriate.

Just because a person doesnt legally assault someone doesn't make their actions ok.

The reason you hear such a wide range of opinions is because it really does depend upon how it it made.

Basically McDonald's shakes are made by taking a crappy base product of highly processed milk based product and sugar. This is called vanilla in McDonald's speak, then and mixing in flavorings. If improperly mixed, this can very much taste like milk and Scope (the mint based mouthwash).

So when you order a Shamrock Shake you are literally gambling. The results can run from a milky-suger product with Scope poured on top, to eh, this isn't terriblad, it tastes like melted mint ice cream. It is a spectrum.

On the rare occasion they get the blend perfect though it tastes like heaven. HEAVAN. That one time of perfection makes all of the previous failed attempts forgotten. There is very little on this earth that is better than a perfectly blended Shamrock Shake. It is really rare though.

It is sort of like golf. You can hit 100 bad shots in a row and hate the game, but then that one time you strike the ball perfectly and you keep coming back.

The Irish statute on the matter

there is a proviso :

If you punch her in the face that might also get the cops' attention but whats the relevance in stating things that didnt happen?

The law literally states that the kind of touch as described is not assault.

Sorry for not keeping up with this, catching up now.

Dr Meh,

Your radar for trolling is working. Although I was only half trolling. I found it so insane with some members posting about "this is a physical assault!" or "the police should have been called and him arrested" Not going back to re-read anything so I don't know who said what, heck, I don't even remember what I posted !! Probably something along the lines of you all are insane if you think this is a physical assault. Then I thing later made a post about the touching her elsewhere being sexual assault and tough to be a man. That was certainly trolling towards all those who thought this incident was such a travesty. Chose a few sentences that while true, would set the off. Sometimes more then one thing can be true, while I was trolling, I also think some peoples responses were ridiculous. Then again, I also hate political correctness, hate the cancel culture, etc etc. This reminds me of that.

JimL

This guy said it well. It's not right for someone to touch someone if it's not bad enough to be physical assault. This guy, while annoyed, shouldn't have smacked her leg or cursed in her face. Don't remember if there was a punishment by the TD or not, obviously he wasn't kicked out, since that's why the woman who was slapped got pissed and started tweeting or whatever. Did he got a couple orbit penalty or anything? Or nothing at all. I'd say some kind of penalty was in order.

Didn't read anything since orignal stuff, but looks like from more recent postings in this thread that the TD came out at a later time and said he should have 86'd the guy or something? Is that correct? To me personally, means nothing regarding the incident. His reactions that day are much more "true" for determining what actually happened. What probably happened was the cancel culture probably showed outrage, sort of like is this thread. The TD then got some heat from his bosses and said you need to make a statement denouncing this to appease people.

These statements or so meaningless because you know it's not their true feelings or beliefs, they are just saying what is needed to not get cancelled. Much like CNN and Don Lemon this year, said the stuff about that woman being past her prime, caught tons of heat. Took it all back saying he was wrong to try to keep his job. He works for one of the networks all about the cancel culture, he was part of it! So you know whatever he said the next day was 100% bullshit , what he said in his slip up was the way he really felt. Think he actually just got fired yesterday, not sure if anything new or because of that incident. I'm rambling, point was, if TD director said the next day punishment should have been harsher, it was bullshit.

Even after I posted last week how silly it was to consider this a physical assault and said just google it people sill tried to argue. Was too lazy to post finding here last week but I'll post some now.

In PA (my home state, automatically comes up when I search based on location):

In California (tried to pick a state that tends to be over sensitive to everything)

also

Not always clear cut. It can be worded in different ways. Seems like a lot of emphasis who intent to cause harm or actually causing harm.

IMO this guy was not trying to "harm" her. If he wanted to harm her, he could have punched her in the face or many other actions. He was not restricted to only being able to get to her leg. He seemed to be smacking her in the leg as a non-verbal way of communicating to her "stop talking to the dealer" or even a non verbal "STFU" but he was not trying to cause harm to her. If you disagree with that, it's cool. We just disagree.
From everything I just read with the laws , the smacking the leg without the intent to harm is not an assault.

Then of course, there is the common sense of the situation. Ten people sitting at the same table, man assaults a woman in the middle and nobody says anything or does anything? Then it happens again and nobody thinks anything of it again. Not until they get in each others face and he starts cursing do people say anything or get involved. That tells me that the verbal stuff was more severe then any of the physical stuff, right? If those slaps were anything wouldn't people have got involved when they occured? What am I missing?

Thread is now closed.