Podcast about the Review-Journal story

A reader sent me an email pointing me to this podcast (#29, March 26, 2009). The first 25 minutes or so are spent discussing the recent Review-Journal story about my Cannery incident. I found it more interesting and thoughtful than most podcasts tend to be. My only quibble was with one participant ("Chuck") who seemed to have the impression that I flaunted my status as a blogger (to either the casino security guys and/or the police; his theory wasn't completely clear) as somehow giving me "extra rights." That was not the case at all. The blog only got mentioned when the police asked me why I was taking the pictures. It's a question that would have been impossible to answer without mentioning the blog.

Two highlights:

1.

David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at UNLV: "Whatever happened with the security officers, they just got a little bit too overzealous there, because I can't imagine escalating anything to that level. I mean, in the course of a shift, you've got so many real issues to deal with and real problems of all kinds, it's hard to believe that somebody would be actually trespassed [i.e., formally forbidden ever to return]--which is really extreme. I mean, y'know, I've seen people vomit on other people and not get trespassed, so to trespass somebody for taking a picture, that's kind of ridiculous. So I don't know what was going on, if there was some other attitude or what was happening. But when I first heard about the story from the reporter I thought, wow, that's really weird, and I was kind of guarded in my comments, because I didn't want to make some kind of sweeping thing and say, oh yeah, they were totally liable, and then it turns into a lawsuit or something. Y'know, I don't know what the situation was, but, y'know, I can say if I was in there working security, I would, if I was told not to let them take pictures, I would politely direct them to where they could take pictures and not, y'know, I want to look at their camera and all that other stuff. That's just weird."

It should be noted that when Mr. Schwartz talks about his experience in casino security being required to forbid photography in certain areas, he's talking about Atlantic City, where, I am given to understand, there are actual gaming regulations that the casinos have to enforce. There are none in Nevada.

2.

Jeff Simpson is a gaming columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He wrote a story about Jerry Yang when he won the World Series of Poker in 2008. Because the story focused on Yang's religious beliefs intersecting with poker, I emailed him a link to what I had blogged about the subject, and I believe he has been at least an occasional reader since then. Here's some of what he had to say on this podcast:

"I was aware of this story, y'know, it seems about a month or so ago. The guy who writes the blog, it's a very good poker blog called Poker Grump. [The man obviously has refined taste!] And the guy who has the blog, y'know, maybe he is a little, y'know, you can tell by the name of the blog, he may be a little ornery, and, y'know, willing to stand up for what he perceives to be his rights. [Comments about how he would have been inclined to be more deferential than I was in hopes of avoiding escalation.] ...The police and hotel security work incredibly closely together. The security forces of all the hotels way outnumber the police who, y'know, deal with crimes in those jurisdictions. Y'know, the police are, y'know, they almost always will side with the security force when there's some kind of a dispute between security and a patron. It's just, it's not even a question. In many of, and so that's, when I read the way the North Las Vegas police treated the guy at first, I thought that the police were even out of line suggesting that they thought there was some kind of law being broken, and then later coming to their senses after checking the guy's blog.... You count on the police to sorta, y'know, straighten them [i.e., overacting casino security officers] out immediately, and that didn't happen in this case. The police should have been, like, they guy wanted to leave, you didn't let him leave, why not? I mean, y'know, the police should have definitely done that."


Addendum

There's another podcast that briefly discusses the article, here (March 27 episode), from about 18:30 to 24:30. Not nearly as thoughtful as the previous one--just the show's co-hosts giving their opinions about what happened. They spend about half the time debating the basic facts, because, although both claim to have read my original story, they're both pretty fuzzy on the details. One thinks that I was OK, the other thinks I should have just capitulated and made things easier on everybody--kind of the basic divide seen in every discussion of the matter.

Thanks again to a reader for pointing this out to me.