NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Sounds like a classic "Ignorance of the law" situation.

I'd just pay the fine, no reason to make a fuss over it.

No, wasting time and money fighting it would be very silly. Pay your fine and be done with it.

Yes, you should fight it. I thought the legal age was 18, it is in vegas anyway.

sorry, you broke the law.

This is one of those cases much like the requests that compulsive gamblers use. They ask that casinos prevent them from entering but if they do and then they gamble, that this is somehow the casino's fault and therefore the person is not responsible.

So who is responsible? The person not the casino should be.

In your case, Avertum, you are responsible for your actions. You made the choice, you live with it. However, the casino is guilty on another account and that is letting a minor gamble.

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Yes, you should fight it. I thought the legal age was 18, it is in vegas anyway.

No it isn't.

sorry, you broke the law.

Yep, take your punishment. You knew you were doing something illegal. Or fight it if you want to lose a bunch of money I guess.

If you really want to fight something, fight to make it legal for 18 y/o's to drink and gamble. I'd support that fight.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

I used to work at that very same casino and there are signs. ANd by your own admittance, you had the knowledge. ((makes a copy to use against you in court. ;) ))

Also, be glad you got caught early. Usually, they wait until you've gambled. Then if you lose, they get your money and if you win, they confiscate your winnings. :)

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. "Well, I don't see any sign that says don't murder!!"

Flame much?

Yes, often

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Which casino was this? Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun? What entrance to the gaming floor did you use? Did you get perma-banned from there?

I've worked at and gambled at both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. There are plenty of signs stating that you must be 21 to gamble. Regardless of the fact that you weren't carded on the way onto the gaming floor, you still weren't supposed to be there.

Well now, don't murder people is rather obvious. Laws about the legal age at which one can enter a casino which vary from state to state aren't. I'm not sure you'd (referring now to the OP) have a leg to stand on in court (especially after admitting that you knew you were under age) but they should have posted signs and carded you at the door. Maybe you should contact your state gaming commission about not being carded and the lack of signs.

The thing is, there are plenty of signs at both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (I know, I've worked at both places).

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Flame much?

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Reported for flaming. You're NOT helping at all.






And to Avertum, the correct term you could use is "aboriginal", if you don't want to be offensive. :) Native American can also apply to those who are native to America through birth...

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. "Well, I don't see any sign that says don't murder!!"

Well now, don't murder people is rather obvious. Laws about the legal age at which one can enter a casino which vary from state to state aren't. I'm not sure you'd (referring now to the OP) have a leg to stand on in court (especially after admitting that you knew you were under age) but they should have posted signs and carded you at the door. Maybe you should contact your state gaming commission about not being carded and the lack of signs.

No it isn't.

Since when? I know here in Michigan an 18 year old can gamble at a horse track or play the lottery, but for some reason they can't enter a casino.

Since when? I know here in Michigan an 18 year old can gamble at a horse track or play the lottery, but for some reason they can't enter a casino.

I strongly suspect that has to do with the fact that casinos sell booze, and strongly encourage their customers to partake of it.

Since when? I know here in Michigan an 18 year old can gamble at a horse track or play the lottery, but for some reason they can't enter a casino.

Las Vegas is in Nevada

:p

http://www.lvlg.com/faqpage.htm

# What is the legal age for gambling?

The legal age for gambling or gaming in the State of Nevada is 21 years of age. Casinos are expected to adhere to very strict rules to maintain their gaming licenses. Noone under the age of 21 is allowed in the casino area nor allowed to linger in the casino area while a parent is gambling.

And to Avertum, the correct term you could use is "aboriginal", if you don't want to be offensive. :) Native American can also apply to those who are native to America through birth...First Nations too.

Native American can also apply to those who are native to America through birth...
Or to those born in the Panama Canal Zone?

The thing is, there are plenty of signs at both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (I know, I've worked at both places).

At the time I had only the OP's word to go one. There are only two casinos in the whole state?

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

the term indian is commonly used by indians in the united states.

maybe you should take it up with them.

I strongly suspect that has to do with the fact that casinos sell booze, and strongly encourage their customers to partake of it.

The casinos I've been in didn't strongly encourage me to drink. As for selling booze, so do many resturants that minors are allowed in, as did the race track.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

you are not likely to win in an indian court so why bother?

you knew it was illegal; they know you know it was illegal; ignorance of the law is no defense. take it like a man.

At the time I had only the OP's word to go one. There are only two casinos in the whole state?

Right now, yes. They're both tribal casinos, as CT law doesn't allow regular casinos. The tribal casinos get away with it because technically, they're sovereign nations (that, and they pay the state millions every month as part of the deal they made with CT).

Or to those born in the Panama Canal Zone?

Don't ask me, I don't know... I'm just dumbshit blowing out my ass. :) Yes mods, I flamed myself! ;)

I'm not planning on fighting it. I knew what was going on, I just wasn't expecting a real reaction. More along the lines of an underage who managed to buy alcohol. I'm just appalled at the fact that I wasn't carded on the way in, but still face charges. I agree its my own responsibility, but after discussing the issue with a few people I know, most were more surprised that you've gotta be 21 to get in there, they were sure it was 18.

And in response to the poster who used to work there, I honestly didn't see the signs, I knew because my friend told me.

(I kept my winnings as well. The state trooper who worked there was much more reasonable than the local security.)

I strongly suspect that has to do with the fact that casinos sell booze, and strongly encourage their customers to partake of it.

If you're gambling at a table or slot machine, beverages are free (even alcoholic beverages). Of course, if you don't tip (or tip cheaply) the waiter/waitress when they bring you a drink, don't expect them to stop for you again.

Las Vegas is in Nevada

:p

http://www.lvlg.com/faqpage.htm


Two seperate statements. Since when (does Nevada do that)? Followed by "Here's how it is in Michigan".

If you're gambling at a table or slot machine, beverages are free (even alcoholic beverages).

That varies by state, here in Michigan they'll bring you water or soda for free but you are required to pay for your booze.

That varies by state, here in Michigan they'll bring you water or soda for free but you are required to pay for your booze.

in new mexico you have to drink alcohol in seperate bars inside the casino. no drinks allowed on the floor.

Two seperate statements. Since when (does Nevada do that)? Followed by "Here's how it is in Michigan".


hence the ":p"



also, I am not a legal scholar with timelines on when what laws were passed where, I just know what it is now and has been as long as I can remember.

That varies by state, here in Michigan they'll bring you water or soda for free but you are required to pay for your booze.

My statement was meant to pertain to both casinos in CT. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. :(

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Funny, I thought Indian reservations had an age cap of only 18. Oh, well. I guess I had better avoid the area in the future....

By-the-way: That law is stupid.

Or with me. :p

yes but y'all dont get your own casinos.

its a shame really.

Funny, I thought Indian reservations had an age cap of only 18. Oh, well. I guess I had better avoid the area in the future....

By-the-way: That law is stupid.

21 was one of the concessions that the casinos had to make in order for the state of CT to allow the casinos. Another alcohol related concession is alcohol is cut off at 12:30am on weekdays (Sunday-Thursday nights), and 1:30am on weekends (Friday and Saturday nights).

the term indian is commonly used by indians in the united states.

maybe you should take it up with them.

Or with me. :p

21 was one of the concessions that the casinos had to make in order for the state of CT to allow the casinos. Another alcohol related concession is alcohol is cut off at 12:30am on weekdays (Sunday-Thursday nights), and 1:30am on weekends (Friday and Saturday nights).

Well, it seems to me that since it's on a reservation (which is SUPSED to be soverign teritory) that they could have told the state to fuck off. But then we don't really have a good track record of treating the reservations as the soverign teritory they're suposed to be.

Well, it seems to me that since it's on a reservation (which is SUPSED to be soverign teritory) that they could have told the state to fuck off. But then we don't really have a good track record of treating the reservations as the soverign teritory they're suposed to be.

The state still had to approve them before they could be built. Without the concessions the tribes made (the monthly payments to the state from slot revenue, the following of CT liquor laws, etc), the state wouldn't have given its approval and the tribes would have been out of luck.

Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.I have no idea whether them failing to inform you that you're not allowed in is a valid defense, but you should look into it.

Almost certainly not.Sucks to be in America then.

I have no idea whether them failing to inform you that you're not allowed in is a valid defense

Almost certainly not.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Legally you are without a leg to stand on. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from breaking it." Pay the fine and be done with it. Then wait until you are 21 to go back and gamble.

Almost certainly not.

I agree with Neo here. Since Neo is a lawyer, and I'm just a law scholar studying it for the pure joy of getting a law degree and perhaps never using it.... I'll defer to him. Ignorance of the law does not excuse you is the general rule of thumb.

This is one of those cases much like the requests that compulsive gamblers use.
Except compulsive gambling isn't illegal :rolleyes:
The casino should be getting charged for letting him gamble in the first place.

The state still had to approve them before they could be built. Without the concessions the tribes made (the monthly payments to the state from slot revenue, the following of CT liquor laws, etc), the state wouldn't have given its approval and the tribes would have been out of luck.

My point is that the way the reservations are suposed to work (to my understanding) the state had no RIGHT to require the consessions and no need to grant aproval. It would be like requiring concessions from and granting aproval to a casino in Canada.

I agree with Neo here. Since Neo is a lawyer, and I'm just a law scholar studying it for the pure joy of getting a law degree and perhaps never using it.... I'll defer to him. Ignorance of the law does not excuse you is the general rule of thumb.

How are you suposed to avoid breaking a law that you don't know exists?

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Check your TGs, please.

My point is that the way the reservations are suposed to work (to my understanding) the state had no RIGHT to require the consessions and no need to grant aproval. It would be like requiring concessions from and granting aproval to a casino in Canada.

its more complicated than that.

the state doesnt really have final say over whether or not there can be indian casinos in that state. it all has to be decided in federal court according to a bucketful of laws and treaties. in the end, the tribes end up giving concessions to the states just to get the fuck out of court and into the gambling business.

more or less.

every case is different because of state laws and federal treaties.

How are you suposed to avoid breaking a law that you don't know exists?

that would only possibly be a problem if the casino didnt post signs saying that those under 21 are not allowed to gamble.

How are you suposed to avoid breaking a law that you don't know exists? your own responsibility to find a big book of laws and read it. If you don't and you break a law it's your own fault for not knowing. (I'm not being sarcastic.)

Yeah, but who needs Gambling? It is is immoral and sucks up money. I just do fake gambling (computer games).

that would only possibly be a problem if the casino didnt post signs saying that those under 21 are not allowed to gamble.

This has little to do with the thread itself and is more thread drift on the subject of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Yeah, but who needs Gambling? It is is immoral and sucks up money. I just do fake gambling (computer games).

How, exactly, is gambling immoral?

How are you suposed to avoid breaking a law that you don't know exists?

you have a certain level of responsibility to find out. For example, asking would be a safe bet.

you have a certain level of responsibility to find out. For example, asking would be a safe bet.

So if I go to a wake in Massachusetts it's my responsablity to ask how many sandwitches I'm allowed to eat, even though I wouldn't have had any idea there was a law that delt with it if I hadn't gone here http://www.eldar.org/~ben/funny/html/180.html ?

- Massachusetts:
1. Mourners at a wake may not eat more than three sandwiches.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse should only be aplied to laws which are common sense.

Isn't it sort of 'common knowledge' that it's 21 for casinos? Anyway, pay the two bucks.

I always prefered the ponies anyway - fresh air, excitement and decent odds with a bit of experience. Beats sitting in a smoke-filled room at a slot machine developing blood clots in your ass for eight hours. :p

How, exactly, is gambling immoral?

Because, *insert good reason here because I was shot by a drunk gambler*

As a person of descent from immigrants from te Republic of India I resent your use of the term "Indian", and more specifically it's plural form "Indians", to describe the Aboriginal peoples of North America.

You'll be hearing from my attorney...

...My lawyer-talk is pretty good if I don't say so myself...

Even if someone steals the speed limit sign, you can still be fined. Hire a good lawyer and they may get you down to a lesser sentence or find a technicality to get the case dismissed.

As a person of descent from immigrants from te Republic of India I resent your use of the term "Indian", and more specifically it's plural form "Indians", to describe the Aboriginal peoples of North America.

You'll be hearing from my attorney...

...My lawyer-talk is pretty good if I don't say so myself...

hmmmmm did the people of india call themselves indians before the europeans came?

As a person of descent from immigrants from te Republic of India I resent your use of the term "Indian", and more specifically it's plural form "Indians", to describe the Aboriginal peoples of North America.

You'll be hearing from my attorney...

...My lawyer-talk is pretty good if I don't say so myself...

Once again, you may want to stop the indians themselves from using the term before you convince the general public. ;) And of course, the U.S. Government, which calls them American Indians.

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

I'm pretty sure this guy was joking, guys. Like very sure.


I'm not sure what gives anyone the idea the casino isn't liable at all. Parents and vendors are held responsible for furnishing alcohol to minors, so I'm not sure why casinos wouldn't be held responsible for furnishing gambling to minors. But if you guys are sure I'd honestly love to know why, unless I'm wrong about the alcohol thing too.

I'm pretty sure this guy was joking, guys. Like very sure.


I'm not sure what gives anyone the idea the casino isn't liable at all. Parents and vendors are held responsible for furnishing alcohol to minors, so I'm not sure why casinos wouldn't be held responsible for furnishing gambling to minors. But if you guys are sure I'd honestly love to know why, unless I'm wrong about the alcohol thing too.

surely he violated tribal law. and surely under tribal law the casino is not liable.

I'm pretty sure this guy was joking, guys. Like very sure.


I'm not sure what gives anyone the idea the casino isn't liable at all. Parents and vendors are held responsible for furnishing alcohol to minors, so I'm not sure why casinos wouldn't be held responsible for furnishing gambling to minors. But if you guys are sure I'd honestly love to know why, unless I'm wrong about the alcohol thing too.

Haha. Not quite. I don't think 'attractive nuisance' protects minors in casinos.

Maybe in some cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

But I don't think a judge is going to be sympathetic. ;) Minors are explicitly not invited to partake, after all.

Sounds good however i am only 13...:sniper:

I'm pretty sure this guy was joking, guys. Like very sure.


I'm not sure what gives anyone the idea the casino isn't liable at all. Parents and vendors are held responsible for furnishing alcohol to minors, so I'm not sure why casinos wouldn't be held responsible for furnishing gambling to minors. But if you guys are sure I'd honestly love to know why, unless I'm wrong about the alcohol thing too.

The casino isn't liable because they didn't willingly allow the underage OP to gamble. Is a liquor store liable if a minor steals a bottle of Jack Daniels from the store, gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse should only be aplied to laws which are common sense.

And the question of whether the age is in fact 21 is one of perfect common sense when discussing a casino floor in which drinks are served.

The casino isn't liable because they didn't willingly allow the underage OP to gamble. Is a liquor store liable if a minor steals a bottle of Jack Daniels from the store, gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone?

Possibly. Bartenders have been held liable for not cutting off customers who later drove drunk and hurt someone. I read about a few cases where that had happened when I worked at a bar, but I haven't followed it since.

Possibly. Bartenders have been held liable for not cutting off customers who later drove drunk and hurt someone. I read about a few cases where that had happened when I worked at a bar, but I haven't followed it since.

A bartender not cutting someone off is totally different than someone breaking the law and stealing a bottle of alcohol. A bartender serving people of age isn't by itself against the law, whereas someone stealing a bottle of alcohol is.

A bartender not cutting someone off is totally different than someone breaking the law and stealing a bottle of alcohol. A bartender serving people of age isn't by itself against the law, whereas someone stealing a bottle of alcohol is.

The common denominator is negligence - it's there in both cases. You're talking about civil rather than criminal law here, remember (using the word 'liable' as you were when I responded to you): it's what you can convince a jury of, not common sense. Failure to grasp this costs people big money every day. ;)

The common denominator is negligence - it's there in both cases. You're talking about civil rather than criminal law here, remember (using the word 'liable' as you were when I responded to you): it's what you can convince a jury of, not common sense. Failure to grasp this costs people big money every day. ;)

So a shop owner getting product stolen from him is negligent? I really don't think so.

So...its the Native American's fault you knowingly and willingly broke the law?


:rolleyes:

And the question of whether the age is in fact 21 is one of perfect common sense when discussing a casino floor in which drinks are served.

Except that this was intended as an aside on "ignorance of the law is no excuse" in general not specifically as applies in this case. However, if it's common sense that someone under 21 is not allowed to be in a casino where alcoholic beverages are served wouldn't it also be common sense that one has to be over 21 to enter a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served? Yet this is clearly not the case. Until this thread I had assumed that 21 + to enter a casino was some weird quirk of Michigan law.

So a shop owner getting product stolen from him is negligent? I really don't think so.

I don't think you know what negligent means...But hell, prove me wrong, what are the elements of negligence again?

The casino isn't liable because they didn't willingly allow the underage OP to gamble. Is a liquor store liable if a minor steals a bottle of Jack Daniels from the store, gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone?

The more appropriate analogy would be if the person behind the register had sold the underage person a bottle of JD without IDing him. Every casino I've been to had someone stationed by the entrance to the gaming floor, no ID no entry.

I don't think you know what negligent means...But hell, prove me wrong, what are the elements of negligence again?

Are you actually trying to argue that a victim of theft is by definition negligent?

The more appropriate analogy would be if the person behind the register had sold the underage person a bottle of JD without IDing him. Every casino I've been to had someone stationed by the entrance to the gaming floor, no ID no entry.
And just HOW big are these casinos?

Even seen a Vegas style resort? There's no way in hell that would work.

And just HOW big are these casinos?

Even seen a Vegas style resort? There's no way in hell that would work.

I can't find any specifics on size on their sites, so I'll have to settle for pretty damn big. However they only had one entrance to man.

I can't find any specifics on size on their sites, so I'll have to settle for pretty damn big. However they only had one entrance to man.

You obviously have never been to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun. There are multiple entrances to the building, as well as multiple entrances to the gaming floor. And since both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are MORE than casinos (they are almost malls, because they have restaurants, shops, clubs, and arcades), there are people of ALL ages in the building. Some of the entrances to the gaming floor are as wide as a 2 lane road, while others are only a door's width. There are spots on the concourse where people can climb over the half wall, avoiding security, to get onto the gaming floor as well. When I worked there, I saw people climb over those same walls all the time. I also saw people passing babies and strollers over those walls, so they could gamble with their kids by their side. If underage people are determined enough to get onto the gaming floor, they will.

ETA: Mohegan Sun has over 300,000 square feet of gaming (with another expansion already under construction), and Foxwoods is the largest casino in the world with 340,000 square feet of gaming. Basically, they're HUGE.

I don't think you know what negligent means...But hell, prove me wrong, what are the elements of negligence again?

I looked it up on wiki to be sure, and I don't see how a liquor store owner that was a victim of a crime could be held as negligible for someone stealing a bottle of alcohol from him, getting drunk, getting behind the wheel, and injuring/killing themselves or others.

Maybe you, as a lawyer, can explain how a liquor store owner would be negligent in this situation.

I looked it up on wiki to be sure, and I don't see how a liquor store owner that was a victim of a crime could be held as negligible for someone stealing a bottle of alcohol from him, getting drunk, getting behind the wheel, and injuring/killing themselves or others.


That's because you believe those things to be supervening events. A lawyer's job is to convince a jury otherwise. Pretty simple. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_chain

Breaking the chain (or novus actus interveniens, literally "new act intervening") refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.

That page refers to British common law, but ours is about the same on that count.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

You'd also have to successfully argue that the bartender/shopkeeper had a duty of care to stop the children stealing booze. This could be pretty easy depending on what state you live in. In Texas, minors aren't even allowed on the property a liquor store occupies, let alone inside, even with parents, according to some people I met there (yet they have drive-through liquor stores - gotta love it). Same thing applies in Illinois, where I wasn't allowed to buy soda and potato chips at a liquor store when I was a kid, and was threatened with arrest once, ignorant that I couldn't enter under any circumstances if I was under 21, even to buy legal goods. So, if there's forseeability and a duty of care there, you have the possibility of liability as a bartender/storekeeper.

Hate to break it to you, but they post literally dozens of signs broadcasting the minimum age being 21. They even use it to create increased interest in bingo and keno, both legal for those 18 and over.

Basically, you willingly broke a law that is well advertised on both properties at every enterance as far as I've ever seen.


As for the question of size, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the world by floorspace dedicated to gaming. Second largest? Mohegan Sun. So yeah, both are pretty huge (and expanding)

I can't find any specifics on size on their sites, so I'll have to settle for pretty damn big. However they only had one entrance to man.
Looking at a few of them, they seem small to me. Try a Nevada one with multiple entrances, ones that never close either.

Then also try the amount of visitors Las Vegas or Stateline (Lake Tahoe) receives.

Carding just would not work, it would be attempting to card a popular shopping mall (Which a lot of Vegas casinos have, BTW). That's why there are signs to remind those who come that gaming is a matter of 21 or over only.

I'm not overly concerned with the legal aspects.

Yeah, I knowingly broke the rule. I'll pay whatever the fine comes out to be.

I'm just blown away that I got arrested for it; I knew it was a rule, but not a law; sort of like "You must be this tall to ride this ride," sort of thing. Where they'd escort me out, slap me on the wrist and tell me not to come back.

Oh well.

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

It's mostly guilty white people who give a shit about what term gets used

you dumb fuck

;)

Looking at a few of them, they seem small to me. Try a Nevada one with multiple entrances, ones that never close either.

Then also try the amount of visitors Las Vegas or Stateline (Lake Tahoe) receives.

Carding just would not work, it would be attempting to card a popular shopping mall (Which a lot of Vegas casinos have, BTW). That's why there are signs to remind those who come that gaming is a matter of 21 or over only.

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are the 2 largest casinos in the world.

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are the 2 largest casinos in the world.
Actually the Venetian in China is the world's largest (Though I think the latest one currently under construction in Vegas might take the title back, Steveie gets annoyed when he ain't the biggest).

But, in any case, the point was on gaming in Michigan, not Connecticut.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Oh well, you fucked up and you got caught, be a man.

At any rate, I've developed a new system of nomenclature for the world's competing claimants to the title "Indian."

To wit, the world has Winchester Indians and Enfield Indians.

Actually the Venetian in China is the world's largest (Though I think the latest one currently under construction in Vegas might take the title back, Steveie gets annoyed when he ain't the biggest).

But, in any case, the point was on gaming in Michigan, not Connecticut.

I did not know about the Venetian, and stand corrected. However, how did the conversation turn to gaming in Michigan, when the incident in the OP happened in CT?

The Venetian in Macau is obscenely, overwhelmingly enormous, and still being expanded.

It takes a long time to drive past it, the structure is remarkably huge.
90 747s could fit in it, according to the web site.

The Vegas one is also incredibly large, lots of fun to window shop in though.

Actually the Venetian in China is the world's largest (Though I think the latest one currently under construction in Vegas might take the title back, Steveie gets annoyed when he ain't the biggest).

But, in any case, the point was on gaming in Michigan, not Connecticut.

The Venetian in Macau is obscenely, overwhelmingly enormous, and still being expanded.

It takes a long time to drive past it, the structure is remarkably huge.

I did not know about the Venetian, and stand corrected. However, how did the conversation turn to gaming in Michigan, when the incident in the OP happened in CT?
Uh... Redwulf was saying that casinos should card everyone going in and that they do so in every casino he's been to in Michigan where there is just one entrance to the gaming floor. I was pointing out that the ones in Nevada (And apparently CT) are MUCH bigger.

I did not know about the Venetian, and stand corrected. However, how did the conversation turn to gaming in Michigan, when the incident in the OP happened in CT?

Because I was using examples I have direct experience with, casinos in Michigan.

Uh... Redwulf was saying that casinos should card everyone going in and that they do so in every casino he's been to in Michigan where there is just one entrance to the gaming floor. I was pointing out that the ones in Nevada (And apparently CT) are MUCH bigger.

Dammit, I think I need to catch some sleep. I misread his post and your response to him, thinking you were still talking about the CT casinos.

Uh... Redwulf was saying that casinos should card everyone going in and that they do so in every casino he's been to in Michigan where there is just one entrance to the gaming floor. I was pointing out that the ones in Nevada (And apparently CT) are MUCH bigger.

Actually there are multiple entrances to the floor, I misspoke (mistyped?). I was carded at the single entrance to the building itself.

Actually there are multiple entrances to the floor, I misspoke (mistyped?). I was carded at the single entrance to the building itself.
CircusCircus Reno (I used to live up the street from there) has 10 that I know of. During a busy time, say Hot August Nights, it will get thousands of visitors coming in and out per day. CircusCircus is NOT one of the large casinos in Nevada either.

Edit: Not to mention there is multiple gaming floors in that thing too.

Except compulsive gambling isn't illegal :rolleyes:
The casino should be getting charged for letting him gamble in the first place.


While compulsive gambling isn't, these compulsive gamblers are holding the government and the casinos accountable and saying they have a legal obligation to prevent the gamblers from entering these places. However, I know it isn't illegal, however, I am saying that like these people. Avertum is accountable for his/her actions.

Reported for flaming. You're NOT helping at all.






And to Avertum, the correct term you could use is "aboriginal", if you don't want to be offensive. :) Native American can also apply to those who are native to America through birth...

"aboriginal" NO> Native Americans means INDIANS for you white folks.

the problem that we face here is that how can some one take something of monetary value away from you for a crime that is socially acceptable, for something to be taken from you there needs to be a victim(casino dosen't work cuz, well he did what people do in a casino, did not violate anybody). Therefore when you abide by the rules of the private party(the casino), in your winning of this money, how can the government say no, when in fact they are not a part of the transaction?

According to the rules of the casino (in the initial post), you must be 21 or over the gamble there. The OP wasn't 21 or over, therefore, he was not abiding the rules of the casino. The casino in question is a tribal casino, and the OP was probably arrested by tribal police (whose jurisdiction is the reservation including the casino).

the problem that we face here is that how can some one take something of monetary value away from you for a crime that is socially acceptable, for something to be taken from you there needs to be a victim(casino dosen't work cuz, well he did what people do in a casino, did not violate anybody). Therefore when you abide by the rules of the private party(the casino), in your winning of this money, how can the government say no, when in fact they are not a part of the transaction?

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

It's flaming, so knock it off.

I know this really isn't the point of this thread, but when was the first time that the Indians were "at it"?

Don't ask me, I don't know... I'm just dumbshit blowing out my ass. :) Yes mods, I flamed myself! ;)

*thwacks you with soggy spaghetti*

Compulsive gambling != underage gambling just like alcoholism != buying beer underage. It was the casino's job to prevent anyone under 21 from being where it is illegal for them to be because of their age. Businesses can't get off the hook from selling beer to underage people even though those people know it is illegal.

The casino did its job by removing the OP from the gaming floor, when they found out he was under age.

I'm not planning on fighting it. I knew what was going on, I just wasn't expecting a real reaction. More along the lines of an underage who managed to buy alcohol. I'm just appalled at the fact that I wasn't carded on the way in, but still face charges. I agree its my own responsibility, but after discussing the issue with a few people I know, most were more surprised that you've gotta be 21 to get in there, they were sure it was 18.

And in response to the poster who used to work there, I honestly didn't see the signs, I knew because my friend told me.

(I kept my winnings as well. The state trooper who worked there was much more reasonable than the local security.)

Be happy. One of my students had to go to court in Jersey for doing the same at Atlantic City.

While compulsive gambling isn't, these compulsive gamblers are holding the government and the casinos accountable and saying they have a legal obligation to prevent the gamblers from entering these places. However, I know it isn't illegal, however, I am saying that like these people. Avertum is accountable for his/her actions.

Compulsive gambling != underage gambling just like alcoholism != buying beer underage. It was the casino's job to prevent anyone under 21 from being where it is illegal for them to be because of their age. Businesses can't get off the hook from selling beer to underage people even though those people know it is illegal.

Compulsive gambling != underage gambling just like alcoholism != buying beer underage. It was the casino's job to prevent anyone under 21 from being where it is illegal for them to be because of their age. Businesses can't get off the hook from selling beer to underage people even though those people know it is illegal.
There's a fine point of law to consider though, it is illegal to sell to a minor, AFAIK, it is illegal for a minor to gamble, but not to deal to a minor unknowingly.

And as noted, given the size and amount of players within a casino, carding everyone like they do at a bar wouldn't work.

Yes, you should fight it. I thought the legal age was 18, it is in vegas anyway.

No its not ... went on a trip down there with a group and was very disappointed that you can gamble here (Minnesota) but cant even be trusted walking around the machines in vegas

(Note this could have changed in the last 6 years or so I suppose but have not heard anything)

I know this really isn't the point of this thread, but when was the first time that the Indians were "at it"?

Scalping eachother / settlers comes to mind.

I know this really isn't the point of this thread, but when was the first time that the Indians were "at it"?

at what?

at what?

The title of the thread is "Damned Indians are at it again"

Scalping eachother / settlers comes to mind.

Well that seems like a completely different sort of "it" to me.

No its not ... went on a trip down there with a group and was very disappointed that you can gamble here (Minnesota) but cant even be trusted walking around the machines in vegas

(Note this could have changed in the last 6 years or so I suppose but have not heard anything)
No, the law is still very much 21 in Nevada. Don't even THINK about violating it.

Seriously, the Nevada Gaming Board would yank a gaming license if a casino had a chronic problem with minors gambling. Casinos are not going to take any risk with that.

Scalping eachother / settlers comes to mind.

Bigotry/stereotpyes comes to mind. But I'm sorta taking it for granted that silly racist bullshit is all you ever post nowadays.

Bigotry/stereotpyes comes to mind. But I'm sorta taking it for granted that silly racist bullshit is all you ever post nowadays.

Cut it out/don't start, you two.

Scalping eachother / settlers comes to mind.We're talking about the Native Americans though, not the settlers.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.

Hold on there so you knowingly broke the law and want to lay the blame at somebody else feet?

Your descision to brake the law you live with the consequenses.

We're talking about the Native Americans though, not the settlers.

The question was just what "it" might the indians have been up to before.

Scalping one another and settlers is just about the only objectionable thing I can think of.

A pretty admirable track record all things considered.

Of course, to certain pinheaded squealers, this fact is WrrrrrrrrraAAAAIIEEEEHSSSSIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Gambling should be avoided. It's too easy to destroy families and homes with it.

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Meh, we call ourselves Indians quite often anyway. And it can be Indian native American, First Nation, aboriginal, indigenous, or our tribal names. /pedantry

Is it legal to sell weed to 12 year olds? I only just found out from a friend that it wasn't and now I might be in BIG trouble!


(I live in the Netherlands by the way ;))

It's native Americans, not Indians, you dumb fuck

Polite and politically correct. Gosh, what a delightful person you are.

Can I ask, without being lynched by the NSG roving Nazi hunters, why Indian is deemed incorrect and native American not?

Polite and politically correct. Gosh, what a delightful person you are.

Can I ask, without being lynched by the NSG roving Nazi hunters, why Indian is deemed incorrect and native American not?

Indian is from Christopher Colombus' Grade A fucked up Geography, not anything connected to the people.

Native American is what they are. Apart from the fact their ancestors all went to America from Kamchatka in the last Ice age, or something like that.

Indian is from Christopher Colombus' Grade A fucked up Geography, not anything connected to the people.

Native American is what they are. Apart from the fact their ancestors all went to America from Kamchatka in the last Ice age, or something like that.

Fair enough, although I do wonder why then the West Indies as a name does evoke the same feeling the use of the term "Indian" does?

Native American is what they are.
Um hi? Right here. We've got our own names for ourselves ya know...but since it's unlikely in the extreme you'll bother to learn them unless you happen to be living in our territory, we have found any number of generic names acceptable...including, at many times, Indian.

Well, rather, they're responsible for my first arrest.

I'm 18. I went (knowingly, I'll admit it) onto the gambling floor, won some money, then got carded on the way out. Not on the way in. Apparently in CT, you've gotta be 21 to gamble. So I'm facing some fines and a slap on the wrist. No big deal.

So, my questions to all of you:
Should I fight it on principal that I was never carded on the way in? I mean, sure I knew I shouldn't have been, but on the off chance that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be there, got in and then got carded, I never had the knowledge. Theres no signs there or anything saying minimum age, and there was a security guard whom I walked right by in the entrance.

And two, of course, is that really necessary to make the legal gambling age 21? I mean, sure they serve alcohol on the floor, but can't that be easily answered by carding those that ask for drinks? And should I have been arrested for being on a gambling floor while not 21?

I've got my personal opinions, but I'm sure they're slightly biased. So of course, I'm bringing it to NSG.
Say you'll pay the fine but that you do want to raise the objection about not being carded on the way in, so that this little issue is fixed. That way, you're simply making a statement about how the law was enforced rather than trying to complain using an "ignorance of the law" defense.

Compulsive gambling != underage gambling just like alcoholism != buying beer underage. It was the casino's job to prevent anyone under 21 from being where it is illegal for them to be because of their age. Businesses can't get off the hook from selling beer to underage people even though those people know it is illegal.

Shall I spell it out for you? Need me to dumb-down the rhetoric so you can comprehend the basis of my argument or are you being wilfully obtuse in the matter?

My basic argument is around basic accountability and who is responsible for their own actions. I am merely saying that Avertum is liable for his/her actions, just as a compulsive gambler who demands and ties a LEGAL obligation to the casino to prevent that person from entering is as well.

The casino does have an obligation to enforce the law. However, as it was already argued, there are people who will try and circumvent measures in place and not all entrances are well monitored, hence someone might slip through.

Given that Avertum knew that it was illegal and is professing to deliberate ignorace, he/she is responsible for his/her actions and the consequences thereof, just as someone who has an addiction is responsible for those actions.

I'm using a "silly" argument because this kind of case exist in Ontario right now. There are attempts to make it so the casinos are responsible for preventing compulsive gamblers from entering the facilities, just as they are responsible for preventing the entrance of minors.

Whether or nor it is illegal is not my argument. The basis for this is accountability; personal responsibility. Avertum had the ability to make his/her own choice, and upon doing so, accepted the consequences that come with it.

Polite and politically correct. Gosh, what a delightful person you are.

Can I ask, without being lynched by the NSG roving Nazi hunters, why Indian is deemed incorrect and native American not?

Generally, the term Indian was applied to American Indians because the first explorers in the fifteenth century thought they were in India and not on another continent. The name stuck.

Later the term Native American was adopted since they are the peoples that are originally indigineous to the American continents, and all Caucasian and other European, Asian, and African ethnicities did not really arrive until after the fifteenth century. (There were explorers from before then, obviously, but not any real full-time residents.)

Then there's the term American Indian--or Amerind--which seems to be used occasionally by some tribes and by some other folks. Honestly I can't figure it out anymore, and I think Amerind is a safe centre point, since people might be offended if you use one of the other terms. (One because they might see it as using a politically incorrect term, and the other because they might view political correctness as inherently bad.)

Um hi? Right here. We've got our own names for ourselves ya know...but since it's unlikely in the extreme you'll bother to learn them unless you happen to be living in our territory, we have found any number of generic names acceptable...including, at many times, Indian.

To be fair, the terms Indian, American Indian/Amerind, and Native American are all used more so to refer to the overall ethnicity than any specific tribe, much like the term Caucasian refers to the ethnicity rather than being more specific like saying French or German. It's the same basic thing, really.

Perhaps it's a location think, here in the UK there is nowt wrong with being known as coming from the West Indies.

Unless you're a cricket team of course, in which it means you inevitably lose.:D

Fair enough, although I do wonder why then the West Indies as a name does evoke the same feeling the use of the term "Indian" does?

I remember the first time I came across the term 'West Indian'...it was a food store, and I was all excited because I thought it meant Western Indian food, which would be things like smoked fish, frybread etc....I was all disappointed when there was no bannock to be found :D

Until recently in Canada, West Indian immigrants made up the majority of 'black folk'. More are directly from Africa now. West Indians seem quite proud of the term, and insist on distinguishing themselves from the stupid label 'African American'.

I remember the first time I came across the term 'West Indian'...it was a food store, and I was all excited because I thought it meant Western Indian food, which would be things like smoked fish, frybread etc....I was all disappointed when there was no bannock to be found :D

Until recently in Canada, West Indian immigrants made up the majority of 'black folk'. More are directly from Africa now. West Indians seem quite proud of the term, and insist on distinguishing themselves from the stupid label 'African American'.

Perhaps it's a location think, here in the UK there is nowt wrong with being known as coming from the West Indies.

Perhaps it's a location think, here in the UK there is nowt wrong with being known as coming from the West Indies.

Where is it not okay to be known as coming from the West Indies?

The title of the thread is "Damned Indians are at it again"

ahhhhh yes.

so you had the same question i had (but felt the time had passed to ask it).

just what "it" are they at and how often are they at it?

Darn, I had hoped to start seeing a few baseball threads, now that spring training has started.

No it isn't.



Yep, take your punishment. You knew you were doing something illegal. Or fight it if you want to lose a bunch of money I guess.

If you really want to fight something, fight to make it legal for 18 y/o's to drink and gamble. I'd support that fight.

I agree! If they are old enough to enlist in the military and defend our country,they are old enough to drink and gamble. Kind of a double standard isnt it?

1. At Foxwoods, the legal age is 21. But only 18 for Bingo. That was your mistake. You should have claimed you were there only for Bingo. But even then, if you don't have gray hair, dentures, and a walker, they might not have believed you.

2. They don't care if you use the term "Indian", "Native American" "Indigenous People" or "Dudes with a casino and a reservation" as long as you have money and a willingness to part with it. Sensitivity is for people who don't have to worry about making money.

No it isn't.


If you really want to fight something, fight to make it legal for 18 y/o's to drink and gamble. I'd support that fight.

So would every casino owner in the country.

18 year old customers... drunk... and with parents' credit cards.

This is to a casino owner what "72 dark eyed virgins" are to suicide bombers.

If you were catalogue every instance of gross stupidity committed by mankind, you would find that fully 80% could be attributed to politicians, drunk teenagers, or in a few very questionable incidents, both.

1. At Foxwoods, the legal age is 21. But only 18 for Bingo. That was your mistake. You should have claimed you were there only for Bingo. But even then, if you don't have gray hair, dentures, and a walker, they might not have believed you.

2. They don't care if you use the term "Indian", "Native American" "Indigenous People" or "Dudes with a casino and a reservation" as long as you have money and a willingness to part with it. Sensitivity is for people who don't have to worry about making money.

The bingo hall is accessible without going on the gaming floor. If he was caught on the gaming floor, using the bingo excuse won't fly. BTW, my college friends and I used to play bingo all the time at Foxwoods, and (when they still had it) Mohegan Sun. We were all over 21, but it was a relatively cheap way to burn a few hours at the casino, while still having the opportunity to win some money (that, and we liked bingo marker wars too much :D).

If you were catalogue every instance of gross stupidity committed by mankind, you would find that fully 80% could be attributed to politicians, drunk teenagers, or in a few very questionable incidents, both.

I refuse to accept this hypothesis on the basis that it would mean the entire, non-teenaged, non-politician bulk of humanity only commits 20% of the stupidities. While I haven't really known many politicians, I know drunk teenagers, and really - they do not do stupid things less often simply because they become drunk adults. Or even sober adults!

I agree! If they are old enough to enlist in the military and defend our country,they are old enough to drink and gamble. Kind of a double standard isnt it?
We fought and won that battle once. Back in the late '60s, the big push was to lower the voting age to match the draft age. We got it done. The drinking and possibly gambling ages were lowered a short time later.

Then the current generation of kids did what they usually do -- screwed it up. Not the voting part, because not enough do vote... But certainly the drinking part. The age was raised back to 21, where it has comfortably stayed, ever since.

Later the term Native American was adopted since they are the peoples that are originally indigineous to the American continents, and all Caucasian and other European, Asian, and African ethnicities did not really arrive until after the fifteenth century. (There were explorers from before then, obviously, but not any real full-time residents.)

This is just OCD with details, but...the bolded portion is technically incorrect with what archaeologists know now. Native Americans are not native to the Americas but originally from Northeastern Asia. The earliest any human could have moved into the Americas was around 13,000 years ago because excavations at Monte Verde, Chile revealed human habitation dating to around 12,500 years ago. Many historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists are starting to use the term "First American" rather than "Native American." Anyone occupying the Americas for any length of time is a native American which leave American Indians being correctly termed "More Native than other Native Americans."