4 ms·

More concerning is that the police and judges will follow on the casino's requests.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Sad because they know who pays their bills, however indirectly, yet it's the little people getting hurt who need protection of the courts the most.
dfxm12 4y ago
Siding with capital is par for the course for LE and courts though.
listenallyall 4y ago
Is it "concerning" that police "follow up" investigating store robberies? And judges who convict the theives? How about passing bad checks? Eat-and-runs? A lot of criminal activity is perpetrated against corporations, they should be allowed recourse.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  Winning at roulette is not a crime. There might be a crime involved when someone wins at roulette, there might be negligence by the casino in maintaining their games. There might be luck. Some people do win hundreds of millions of dollars on a $2 lottery ticket. The police where I live do not follow up investigating store robberies, they do not follow up on people who pass bad checks, and they definitely do not follow up on eat and runs. More often than not they will answer the phone when someone calls 911, but not much more often than not. So yes, the idea that the police seem to be at the beck and call of the casinos to detain people with no hard evidence that any crime at all has actually been committed is concerning. At least let us know what phone number they are calling that the police actually pay attention to.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    > There might be a crime involved when someone wins at roulette Exactly. And so, the police investigated. When they determined there wasn't a crime (or at least had no proof or evidence of one), they released the accused and required the casino to pay them their full winnings.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      There might be a crime involved when someone <anything>.
      - listenallyall 4y ago
        You said it, I just quoted you.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The thing you quoted did not justify action. Your "exactly" was wrong, because you're using a different meaning of "might be" than the person who wrote the quote, and given the childish "you said it" reply it seems like you did that on purpose.

Sad because they know who pays their bills, however indirectly, yet it's the little people getting hurt who need protection of the courts the most.

dfxm12 4y ago

Siding with capital is par for the course for LE and courts though.

listenallyall 4y ago

Is it "concerning" that police "follow up" investigating store robberies? And judges who convict the theives? How about passing bad checks? Eat-and-runs? A lot of criminal activity is perpetrated against corporations, they should be allowed recourse.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
Winning at roulette is not a crime. There might be a crime involved when someone wins at roulette, there might be negligence by the casino in maintaining their games. There might be luck. Some people do win hundreds of millions of dollars on a $2 lottery ticket. The police where I live do not follow up investigating store robberies, they do not follow up on people who pass bad checks, and they definitely do not follow up on eat and runs. More often than not they will answer the phone when someone calls 911, but not much more often than not. So yes, the idea that the police seem to be at the beck and call of the casinos to detain people with no hard evidence that any crime at all has actually been committed is concerning. At least let us know what phone number they are calling that the police actually pay attention to.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  > There might be a crime involved when someone wins at roulette Exactly. And so, the police investigated. When they determined there wasn't a crime (or at least had no proof or evidence of one), they released the accused and required the casino to pay them their full winnings.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    There might be a crime involved when someone <anything>.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      You said it, I just quoted you.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The thing you quoted did not justify action. Your "exactly" was wrong, because you're using a different meaning of "might be" than the person who wrote the quote, and given the childish "you said it" reply it seems like you did that on purpose.