HWGA - "Backroomed" for taking photos in casino ...
- Thread starter dmr
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 4K
ferider
Veteran
In addition to what Blake said:
He was lucky not to be escorted to city jail for driving with a suspended license.
He was lucky not to be escorted to city jail for driving with a suspended license.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Actually, quite a few of them do. I kind of make it a point to ask what the photo policies are when I visit a new one. I always ask either a uniformed security person or a "suit". Responses have ranged from "NO WAY" (Green Valley Ranch) to "Just be considerate" (Encore) with various restrictions (no cage, no tables, no flash, etc.) and a couple times the security guy has given me the grand tour of what you can shoot and what not to (Rio) or a long discourse about why certain things can and can't be taken (old Stardust).
Coincidentally, I was in the East Side Cannery over the holidays but for some reason I did not ask. I took several shots of the outside (one in my gallery) but none on the inside.
He's a "tool" for escalating the situation, he was, in my not so humble opinion, picking a fight with security and the city cops. It apparently turned out that his license was suspended, so he is no choirboy.
It's not as bad as it was when "The Mob Ran Vegas"<tm>, but those casino people can still be nasty if you pull their chain the wrong way.
Still ...
dfoo
Well-known
RTFA, there was nothing wrong with his license.
I know attention spans appear to be short these days, but still...
Last edited:
steverett
Anthopomorphized Camera
Yeah, but didn't it turn out at the end that his license wasn't suspended after all? Also, he claims that he did stop taking photos when asked, and only gave them attitude when stopped a second time. Sounds like the casino security was the one picking a fight.
ferider
Veteran
"RTFA, there was nothing wrong with his license.
I know attention spans appear to be short these days, but still.."
Nice.
I know attention spans appear to be short these days, but still.."
Nice.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
I saw your quote, but apparently you didn't read the whole article. In short, his license wasn't suspended... The cops either made it up, or made a mistake, and later told him so.
stnolan
Established
well thats ten minutes I'll never get back
dmr
Registered Abuser
Ok, I missed that. Sorry. 🙁
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I was once denied entry to a casino in Delaware while carrying my camera. Nothing really of interest here...
40oz
...
Seriously? I'm actually embarassed to read the responses here. I can only hope those of you who blame the author for the events are not voting citizens of the USA. It scares me to think some of you might be.
Yes, the guy brought it all on himself simply for acting like a reasonable person. Please bend over now and smile.
We can assume he did not include every detail of the events, but to assume he brought it on himself because "everybody knows ..." is just pathetic. What do you people call security guards who know their job and limitations and treat people with respect? Failures?
Some of you need to stop living in a fantasy world where everybody with something shiny pinned to their shirt is a hero. They are just people making errors in judgement at the same rate as the rest of us. A tin badge or a gun permit confers no halo.
Yes, the guy brought it all on himself simply for acting like a reasonable person. Please bend over now and smile.
We can assume he did not include every detail of the events, but to assume he brought it on himself because "everybody knows ..." is just pathetic. What do you people call security guards who know their job and limitations and treat people with respect? Failures?
Some of you need to stop living in a fantasy world where everybody with something shiny pinned to their shirt is a hero. They are just people making errors in judgement at the same rate as the rest of us. A tin badge or a gun permit confers no halo.
bcostin
Well-known
I hear what you're saying 40oz, but part of being a responsible photographer is making yourself aware of the policies of the private property owners who's property you are photographing. And if they ask you to leave, you leave. Doing otherwise just convinces them that all photographers are uncooperative and spoiling for a fight. Like the guy in the story.
This doesn't seem like a questionable case about the exterior facade of a building, or a pseudo-public place like a shopping mall. It's a private business of a sort that often prohibits photography. (I've never been inside a casino in my life and even I know that.) They live and breathe security, and if they want to prohibit photography then it's their right to do so.
This doesn't seem like a questionable case about the exterior facade of a building, or a pseudo-public place like a shopping mall. It's a private business of a sort that often prohibits photography. (I've never been inside a casino in my life and even I know that.) They live and breathe security, and if they want to prohibit photography then it's their right to do so.
JRG
Well-known
Well said. And thank you.
I've been in a casino exactly once, about a year ago while escorting a group of exchange students from central Europe during a visit to Atlantic City. We passed through one of the casinos, and a couple of the students wanted to take some photos. So, we asked a uniformed person about the policy.
The answer couldn't have been more clear, nor more courteous: It's OK in these places ..., not OK in these ... . The students agreed, took their photos as allowed, and all was well.
I don't see a problem with following someone else's rules when you're on their property.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
They've a right to prohibit photography in their facility, but that does not give a rent-a-cop the right to lay their hands on someone. No doubt there's some small print sign at the entrance that says they can kick your arse whenever they want.
Baldadash
#2
My wife and I shot engagement shots in a Tahoe casino before, but we asked permission first. Their policy allowed us to shoot only our clients, not patrons playing and not their staff.
momus1
Established
When you're in a casino you're in someone else's private property. There is never any photography in any casino, for all the obvious reasons. Take photos and you are out. Always been like that.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
all right I will revise:
me said:
I fully understand what you are saying about casinos in Nevada and their employees, the history of their employees, and the pull the casinos have in Nevada. Understood. I live ~3 1/2 hrs from Nevada. I've owned property in Lake Tahoe. I've spent many hours in casinos in both north and south Nevada. I'm familiar with casino etiquette and tactics. I don't F around in casinos.
While this guy may have been breaking policy or rules, according to him, he was leaving. He didn't steal anything. He wasn't caught cheating at the tables. He took pictures, refused to show them to the Navy Seal security guy, tried to leave, and was physically prevented from being allowed to leave. For what? Taking pictures of a mural.
Don't let your infatuation with casino thuggery and Vegas ethics cloud your reasoning. What would any of you think if your mother or grandfather or family member were to innocently start taking pictures in a casino and this were to happen to them. It's not that far-fetched. "Oh well, mom, sorry about the manhandling and the choke hold by the ex-Navy seal, but you should have known better. You can't take photographs in casinos, mom!"
What's to stop Walmart from using the same tactics. They're a big corporation with major pull in communities all over the US. They're looking out for their interest and their customer's interest too. They should hire Blackwater to manhandle shoplifters—that's real theft compared to taking pictures.
Get a grip. It's indefensible.
/
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
That would have been acceptable, but that's not what happened. the guy was trying to leave, but was prevented from leaving. He was physically detained.
/
oftheherd
Veteran
My take for what it is worth, is that the person could have done much sooner what he did later, identify himself and what he was taking the photos for. He was trying to be as close to the edge as he could. Why not, he has a blog to keep going.
From what I know, casino security does what the casino tells them to. They worry a lot about the sophisticated approaches some criminals may take. When that man was right on the edge, they picked up on that, and responded in kind. If he sued, it would be fought with vigor, in courts that were somewhat sympathetic. Even if they lost, they would ensure friendly coverage in the news media, and protect their security force. He knew what he was doing and relished it.
Did the casino security over step themselves? Probably a little. Same with the police. Did the "victim" bring it on himself. Probably did, with malice aforethoght. After all, there were probably better ways to handle it, and he probably was composing his blog entry as he was living through that.
Does it change anything? Not there I expect. Other than to warn people to step lightly around casinos when they have cameras.
From what I know, casino security does what the casino tells them to. They worry a lot about the sophisticated approaches some criminals may take. When that man was right on the edge, they picked up on that, and responded in kind. If he sued, it would be fought with vigor, in courts that were somewhat sympathetic. Even if they lost, they would ensure friendly coverage in the news media, and protect their security force. He knew what he was doing and relished it.
Did the casino security over step themselves? Probably a little. Same with the police. Did the "victim" bring it on himself. Probably did, with malice aforethoght. After all, there were probably better ways to handle it, and he probably was composing his blog entry as he was living through that.
Does it change anything? Not there I expect. Other than to warn people to step lightly around casinos when they have cameras.
amhildreth
Hootie-Hoo
Wouldn't it be easier for the casinos to just post "No Cameras or Photographs" signs through their establishments? For the cost of a few signs, it seems it would save a lot of grief. I'll personally pass on taking pics in a casino. If I want photos of someone losing all of their money, I'll just take a few self-portraits at the end of each month.
Similar threads
