Laurence Fishburn, acting in character, says in the movie 21: "My name is Cole Williams. And if I ever see you in this town again, I will break your cheek bone with a small hammer, and then I will kill you." ¹

Cole Williams personifies the advantage-gambler's opinion of the game-protection personnel working for a casino-and it is not entirely in error. Two other examples of the Hollywoodification of game-protection personnel add yet more color to the example. From the movie Rain Man:

Casino Shift Boss (to Charlie Babbit): Mr. Kelso would like to see you.

Charlie Babbit: I don't know any Mr. Kelso.

Casino Executive: Oh, ah, he's director of security. Will you come with me, please?

Charlie Babbit: Sure. Listen, Susanna, why don't you stay with Raymond.

Casino Executive: Right this way, sir.

Security Director: Congratulations, Mr. Babbit. Counting of a six-deck shoe is quite a feat.

Charlie Babbit: I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're talking about.

Security Director: We make videotapes, Mr. Babbit. And we analyze the tapes, and we even share some of the information with the other casinos. These tapes suggest that you should take your winnings and leave the state.

Charlie Babbit: Mr. Kelso, someone has a good day at the tables and you accuse them of illegal activity. Is this how you treat all your guests?

Security Director: All you have to do is close your mouth and go home. And those are the best odds you're going to see in a while. I'd take 'em. ²

And finally, from Casino ³:

SHERBERT: Real special. Somethin' ... (to WINNER) By the way ... I'm Billy Sherbert, your casino manager. (He shakes hands with the WINNER).

WINNER: Hi.

SHERBERT: Having a good time? (SHERBERT leads him away from the cage.)

WINNER: Yes, uh ...

SHERBERT: You'll want to count the money in privacy. You know, you don't need ...

WINNER: Uh, I have a plane to catch to Cleveland ... Can I get my winnings?

ENTER BASEMENT MAINTENANCE ROOM- NIGHT. The WINNER is pushed through the door by two GUARDS followed by SHERBERT and sees his pal moaning in pain and holding his broken hand.

SIGNALER: Look what they did to my hand, man!

ACE: (Walks over to the WINNER): All right, I'm gonna give you a choice. You can either have the money and the hammer or you can walk out of here. You can't have both. What do you want?

SHERBERT stands next to the WINNER.

WINNER: I just wanna get out of here.

ACE: And don't forget to tell your friends what happens if they fuck around in here. You understand?

WINNER: I'm sorry. I made a bad mistake.

ACE: You're fuckin' right, you made a bad mistake. 'Cause if you come back here-we catch either one of you-we're gonna break your fuckin' heads and you won't walk out of here. You see that fuckin' saw? We're gonna use it. You don't fuck around in this place. You got it?

WINNER: Yeah.

ACE: Get out of here.

WINNER: Thank you.

The GUARDS usher the WINNER out of the room.

ACE (To the GUARDS, referring to the SIGNALER): Throw him out in the alley. And just tell the cops he got hit by a car.

Real life might not be that different.

Historically, well-trod legend has casino security and bosses inflicting punishment on bad-acting patrons up to and including death⁴. The common shorthand for trespassing or barring a patron, "86ing," even personifies such a circumstance: The term allegedly originates from "eight miles out and six feet under" in reference to how game-protection personnel addressed players who took advantage of a game, cheated, or even just won too much.

Within my office I have video of an (in)famous card counter being taken to an area mistakenly believed to be outside of surveillance view and repeatedly kicked by game-protection personnel. He is then arrested for apparently injuring the foot of one of these thugs with his ribcage. Another incident captured on tape has a card counter pushed to and held against a wall and threatened with physical violence, while game-protection personnel point out that he's outside the protection of his beneficent and safe home state of Mississippi. Even the state can get into it. In one instance, two Gaming Control Board cops tell a patron he has two choices, to wit: 1) Give back the money, or 2) go to jail.

A series of verdicts in favor of advantage players against casinos⁵ has tempered these actions somewhat in recent years. Some casinos have wisely adopted a strict policy that no one is to be taken to the security office (back room) unless he or she is being arrested, and the police are immediately summoned, for an actual and verifiable crime witnessed by an employee willing to testify. In other recent changes, the officials with the gaming enterprise now recognize the illegality and inadvisability of such actions by their security forces coupled with requests from game-protection personnel, and require higher-management decision before action is taken. This is by no means universal and, on occasion, mere card counters may find themselves in God's country in handcuffs.

In addressing game protection, the first item for the gambler to understand concerns knowing who comprise game-protection personnel. The simple answer is that this includes everyone working for the casino, from the sweeper and slot technician all the way up through the casino manager. Many casino-employee manuals even spell out this responsibility for literally every employee in the casino. Still, the ones likely to cause an issue for players, especially advantage players, are those who appear to be "pit critters" (the non-dealers behind the ropes and in the pits) and surveillance personnel.

This cadre comprises a series of different job descriptions, such as pit boss, floormen, and accountant types, and at times employees who are solely devoted to game protection. If an extra inexplicable person appears in, or is near, the pit, watching games and conversing with the pit boss, in every likelihood this is a game-protection employee (or even an outside game-protection contractor) of the casino, charged with ferreting out the cheater and/or the advantage gambler.

Curiously, the first charge of a game protector is not to find the advantage player, but rather to assure that practices are being followed by casino personnel in order to protect the game. That is, before looking at the gamblers, the game-protection employee has likely carefully scrutinized the dealer and his or her methods. Sometimes, having seen inadequate card protection, he'll merely approach the table and caution the dealer on the spot. In such circumstances, this pit critter may not have even noticed an advantage gambler playing the hole card right in front of him.

The practical considerations of game protection concern what the casino has available. The casino's resources are broad and deep. Outside and inside, sources available to the casino for identification of advantage gamblers are growing⁶. Some are commonly known, others are burgeoning, and still others are fledgling sources.

All casinos likely have an outside vendor or service assisting in the identification of advantage gamblers. Some enlist layers of outside game protection available to their employees; Caesars Entertainment is an example of where this has occurred. The commonly used sources are the infamous Griffin Agency, as well as Biometrica and Red Hand, also known as Oregon Surveillance Network and commonly referred to as "OSN." These sources have compiled databases on advantage gamblers and share them with casinos on a subscription basis. At least two (Griffin and Red Hand) have also compiled printed materials searchable in the pit and/or surveillance room with photos and descriptions of the play and players. All likely incorporate computer access to game-protection information, including databases of known advantage players.

On the inside, a number of game-protection personnel also work directly for the casino. First, in this respect, are the surveillance observers. While advantage players may believe that a dozen people watch live video feed trying to catch them at any particular moment, this is not the case. Commonly, in a major Las Vegas Strip casino, the number of observers in the surveillance room looking for advantage or suspicious play does not exceed two. An ordinary set-up consists of two or three screens available to the agent at a dedicated station, which has access to all the cameras operational throughout the casino, and it is expected that every inch of the casino floor is covered or can be covered. At their disposal are fixed cameras, pan/tilt/zoom ("ptz") cameras, and cameras ordinarily dedicated to operations other than surveillance (e.g., security-room cameras).

Much of the time on task for these observers is taken up by dedicated assignments. Examples include following money movement throughout the casino, observing fills, addressing personnel rather than patrons (counts, drops, etc.), and evaluating a game from a prerecorded event requested by a casino executive. Indeed, of the screens available, the observer may have one where he is analyzing a blackjack play against a count from the previous day, another watching a set of doors for advantage players entering the casino, and only the third assigned to cameras searching out suspicious play in real time. In this respect, the chance that the surveillance observer serendipitously gloms on to any particular play seems remote. It does, however, most certainly happen, and includes one of the primary functions of the surveillance operator.

These surveillance observers are also well-trained. Generally, they are able to keep a count under more than one system, and do so in real time under two systems at once. I have seen reports where the surveillance operative actually names the count that a particular person is using. Simultaneously, they can discern whether a player is making decisions based on the count from either of the systems he's using. They also receive training in many other types of advantage play and all types of cheating.

The environment in which these people work would put NASA operations to shame. In addition to the two or three dedicated screens, commonly the entire surveillance room is surrounded by monitors of all sizes, including 55- and even 80-inch screens. Most of these are on at all times and, standing in the middle of surveillance operations, provide a cacophony of information, most of it indecipherable. Today, in functionally every casino, all of this information is being recorded live as well. Despite all this information being available, there may be only one other person on duty (usually the surveillance supervisor), in addition to the two operators. Extra surveillance personnel are called in as the need arises.

Behind the surveillance observers might be game-analysis personnel. Oftentimes, these are surveillance observers working overtime shifts on special assignments. These might involve an in-depth analysis of a single-player's bets, cards, and results over a number of sessions. They can be undertaken to determine how a given patron appears to consistently win, despite no outward appearance of any advantage. These assignments regularly relate to a suspected dishonest employee and chip-tray evaluation to determine if some form of palming and passing-off is occurring, because when a casino doesn't know how a person is winning, the first concern is always an inside job.

While this all sounds very scary, and it is, there is still a failure in the efficacy of these systems. An example was given in Beat the Players that warrants repeating here. The play, and the casino's reactions, actually resulted in a published court decision⁷.

In that matter, game protection noticed a winning propensity and determined that a person with high wagers was likely playing with an advantage. They called in a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent to assist. As the agent and the in-house game-protection personnel watched, more and more money flowed out of the casino. Hours of review and watching passed before the observers determined that the wagerer was merely receiving communications from the player at the other side of the table, but that he wasn't counting cards. Through dealer changes and special care, it was also determined that the players were not hole-carding. The players finally took a break.

The Gaming Control Board enforcement agent on scene then instructed that he be contacted if the players returned. The above scenario repeated itself, with everyone watching for an additional number of hours. Much of this time was spent in an unsuccessful attempt to espy the actual signaling. The players again left, and again, the agent gave the instruction that he be called upon their return. In the meantime, thousands more flowed from the casino's coffers.

The players returned. Contrary to instructions, the casino didn't call the agent, but took the pair into custody instead. It appeared, in my opinion, that the casino was choosing to stop the hemorrhage of cash caused by the interminable observation rather than just making a mistake in communications and simply calling the agent as requested. After all the hours of watching, the first time that the agent or the game-protection personnel discovered that the play was accomplished through wholly legal shuffle tracking was on the filing of the lawsuit for false imprisonment. At that point, they also discovered, for the first time, the method of signaling, which was as basic as it could get. Simply, the high-wagering player's decisions were made based on three, and only three, hand positions of his partner: 1) one hand on the table; 2) two hands on the table; or 3) no hands on the table.

There is a lesson here for the casino and gaming agents as well. An entire day of analysis was devoted to these players. A sizable settlement was also shelled out due to the false imprisonment. The enlistment of the gaming agent cost the casino large losses as well. A simple back-off would have avoided all this rigmarole, but everyone wanted the big sting. It wasn't there; it would never be there. In fact, the converse happened: The players stung the observers ... twice.

A review of the reports also indicated that no one applied Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is always the best and most likely) to the circumstance, and all the casino interests suffered. For example, the enforcement agent assumed that he was addressing some complex, computer-driven, calculating system, even though the remote counts showed that there was no counting occurring. On later approaching the player in the security office, the agent literally ripped apart the player's shoes, certain that a computer was hidden inside. Touches to a hat, positioning of chips, and even an investigator listening on the floor to the chatter of the players at the table were chronicled in looking for the signals. Had they started with the simple, rather than the extravagant, discovery would have taken minutes, not more than seven hours.

This type of circumstance is not as rare as it sounds either. Casinos and gaming agents consistently look for the complicated and illegal, rather than the simple and reasonable. Incredibly, this is true even when they know and have available the very causes that allow the advantage player to win.

Two anecdotal examples confirm this. The first involves roulette. Wheel tracking and wheel bias⁸ are, contrary to some assumptions, very real. In fact, the TCS John Huxley company provides subscription services to casinos to ferret out wheel bias. In this sense, well before a player could ever find a biased wheel, the casino is already aware of the fact. This doesn't mean that no biased wheels are in play, and a casino has every incentive to use a biased wheel if it is biased against the most commonly bet numbers, despite the fact that this is cheating⁹. If a patron gleans and capitalizes on the bias, history indicates that the casino will arrest him, despite the fact that the casino is the cheater, thus necessarily recognizes that the player is innocent. Yet, commensurate with seizing the player is a construct of alleged cheating by the player beyond all belief and reason.

In the second example, the casino put out a .3% video poker game, while offering up to 2% cashback on players cards (provided achievement of the highest cardholder level on the players card and play on a bonus day). An advantage player in this scenario would, on average, win $1.70 for each $100 bet, and could turn over thousands of dollars an hour. After dropping six figures to the gambler, the casino discovered the error. Did it correct the game? No. It seized the player and his cash. The math is too simple to expect that the casino did not know exactly what happened, but the realization that it had suffered to that extent under its loss leader was just too much to take. Despite this knowledge, the casino attempted to advance an incredible, and in fact impossible, claim of cheating in an attempt to recoup the losses and punish the intelligent player. Some results of this bizarre investigation can be viewed in the decision by a court recognizing the unreasonableness of the claims¹⁰.

So how should one act in an encounter with game-protection personnel? Best is to avoid any encounter in the first place. On any suspicion of heat (targeted scrutiny from the pit), get out of Dodge. If followed, make it verbally clear that you are proceeding to an exit, proceed to the exit, and don't engage in further conversation. If physically blocked, make at least one non-threatening, non-physical attempt to step around the person blocking your way. If you are then stopped, stop peacefully, and any attempt or invitation for physical contact by the casino employee should be met with conspicuous avoidance.

If possible and if you have one, attempt to turn on a recording device (e.g., smart phone). Whether or not a recording device has been activated, verbalize clearly and concisely your perspective that the encounter, which has now morphed into a detention, is an illegal violation of your rights, that the casino has no right to detain you, and that you desire to leave immediately. Again using Nevada as the example (with one exception discussed below, the laws of which are in accord with a majority of other jurisdictions as well), casino security ordinarily has no right to detain you absent suspicion of, or probable cause supporting, a real crime.

Truly, the rights of casino security to detain an individual are circumscribed. Security guards are private citizens who hold no authority greater than any other citizen over the gambler, save for a couple of statutes giving them additional rights. First, they may detain for "probable cause" of a gaming crime¹¹. They may also detain if there has actually been a felony committed upon their premises and the casino has reasonable cause to believe that the gambler is the perpetrator¹². If they suspect the gambler of shoplifting or stealing from an area in the casino selling merchandise, a detention is also allowed¹³. Following this, a detention is also authorized for the actual commission of a felony (whether on premises or off), or the commission of any public offense, provided the public offense is committed in the presence of the persons effectuating the arrest¹⁴. And finally, there is an arguable right to detain an individual voiced as, "If one has reasonable grounds to believe that another is stealing his property, he may be justified in detaining such person for a reasonable time in order to investigate¹⁵."

This final authorization to detain may not be as secure as you might infer from the statement. First, it flies in the face of the common law¹⁶, which ordinarily requires that, absent an actual crime or an authorizing statute, a detention is illegal¹⁷. Second, it doesn't appear that anyone vociferously argued the common law to the Nevada Supreme Court. Finally and most importantly, within the authority providing the rule, it appears that the allowance of a detention on probable cause rather than the commission of a crime is limited solely to a claim of theft, and that the actions of an advantage gambler would not amount to theft¹⁸.

At the point the gambler finds himself or herself illegally detained, the advisable course is to cooperate in the physical restraint. This is not a guarantee that the gambler will not be physically abused, or even killed, by the casino security officers, but the downside of resistance outweighs this. First, resistance or fleeing will likely, if not universally, result in physical violence. Minimally, this will be undertaken by grabbing and escorting the gambler to the security office. From there it can extend to, as seen on one video secured, being kicked in the head while held prone on the floor. Cooperation, on the other hand, will likely result in a detention, which, while frightening and often injurious to one's wrists, frequently ends with a release or an overnight trip to the hoosegow. On balance, physical cooperation wins.

With this being said, what are the gambler's rights on an illegal detention by casino security (as opposed to a police officer)? First, as discussed in the chapter on suing casinos, there is the right to later proceed with a civil remedy. Beyond this, the gambler has a right to self-defense, under which all attempts necessary to effectuate an escape are legally authorized¹⁹. Again, this is not advised.

The ill-advised nature of physically confronting the security officers can be shown through a real-world example²⁰. Justin Ready, a recognized DJ, was attending a performance at the Altitude nightclub at a Harrah's property. He claims he was invited on to the stage by the performing DJ and, after he left the stage, given a trespass warning by two security officers. While escorting him out, the security officers sought to non-consensually remove the Altitude entry wristband from Mr. Ready's wrist. He pulled his hand back, at which point he was forced against a wall. In the ensuing scuffle, Mr. Ready stabbed each security guard in the neck. He escaped. He later turned himself in to authorities. He was jailed and charged with two counts of attempted murder, amongst other charges.

At his trial, he claimed self-defense and relied in part on the Nevada statute allegedly authorizing his actions. Despite the statute, and an evident battery in the attempt to remove the wristband and the placing of Mr. Ready against a wall, the prosecutor aggressively prosecuted the action. The court, to the point of trial, agreed with aggressive prosecution and the apparently evident (to the court) criminal activity by Mr. Ready, and set bail at $200,000, which Mr. Ready was unable to post. At trial, 10 months later and supported by video evidence, Mr. Ready was acquitted by a Nevada jury.

This is a cautionary tale of being right, but losing. There can be little doubt that there was no privilege to remove the band from Mr. Ready's wrist. Thus, the attempt to remove it could be construed as a criminal battery upon Mr. Ready by the security officers and Mr. Ready was within his rights to resist. The continued attack without privilege, following the reasonable defense of pulling his hand away, could also be construed as a second and more violent (or continuing) battery against Mr. Ready with arguable risk to life and limb²¹. Nonetheless, this man spent 10 months in jail. Until acquittal, his name was dragged through the press with allusions of criminality. Throughout the process, he remained at risk of a 40-year prison sentence. No matter how much he might receive in subsequent civil litigation or how vindicated and elated his feelings on acquittal, he can never recoup those 10 months.

So, what are the appropriate actions once detained? First, attempt to contact an attorney. I have intervened no less than 10 times on such a call and, on approximately half, secured the release of the gambler. Also, be prepared to pay dearly for this service.

Then, make sure that you document your ire, without being overly flamboyant or creating a disturbance, and demonstrate your true feelings and distress to the audio and video recording equipment in the security office. If they try to take your phone or rifle your wallet, protest, but don't resist for the reasons mentioned above. If you are in handcuffs, request that they be removed. And third, voice your desire that you either be immediately released or the "real police" be summoned.

Another concern arises here. Be advised that the casino and its minions may attempt to fabricate suspicion of cheating or some other crime. While, generally, questions should not be answered, an exception may exist in this respect. If you were card counting, admit it, and try to get the persons detaining you to admit that that is what was suspected as well. Truly, if you're playing under any of the indisputably legal methods, get this on record in the security office. At least in Nevada, it appears clearly established that hole-carding and card counting don't constitute crimes²². Any casino that detains a player for undertaking a method of play clearly established to be legal and, arguably, any police officer who continues such detention would be civilly liable for false imprisonment.

A common occurrence has the police arriving sometime after the detention begins. State your desire to this officer to make a complaint for battery (if you're in handcuffs) and false imprisonment against the security officers and their employer. This will likely be refused, but at least you've put it on the record. It may also place the police officer into a position of having to substantiate the basis for the detention, which, if the basis is advantage gambling or a casino's attempt to gain identification, is patently insufficient²³.

At this point, run out the detention without subjecting yourself to any security-officer interrogation except as mentioned above. Casino employees have no right to any response from you. If pressed for identification, you have a choice, and providing it may allow for an earlier release. Be advised, nonetheless, that once the information is provided, it will likely be placed into a dossier maintained by the game-protection services referenced above and spread throughout the industry. Alternatively, you can state that you will provide it to a real police officer.

And when the police officer arrives, if he asks for your identification, clearly and unequivocally state that you would be happy to provide it to the officer, but you request, or even demand, that neither the identification nor the information in it be provided to the casino. Truth be told, the police officer will likely ignore this and provide the information to the casino, but recent incidents indicate that police are beginning to recognize the ill effects of such action. Perhaps this is because courts are recognizing this as well²⁴.

You can also expect to receive a citation or be arrested on false charges conveyed to the police by the security or game-protection personnel. This has happened so many times that the idea that the local authorities are an extension of the casino interests is, in a word, apparent²⁵. Other than following up and defending against the false charges, there is little that can be done.

Finally, there is the concept of protecting your identification. As shown above, with sufficient aggressiveness by the casino, you will likely be forced to provide your identification. Nonetheless, there is no law under which a casino can force or compel a gambler or any other person to provide identification to them. Even on suspected structuring or a claim of necessity for currency-transaction reporting, the production of identification cannot be "compelled." In this last example, the casino's duty is to provide all the information they possess and file a corollary Suspicious Activity Report on the FinCEN form.

Some advice, nonetheless, is applicable here. If you are in possession of alias identification, don't aggressively withhold your identification, as stated on legitimate government-issued documents, from police. While there doesn't appear to be any law rendering use of alias names illegal, even if the use is legal, a court could still conclude that the mere possession of such a document provides probable cause for an actual arrest²⁶. And no matter what, never, ever, ever provide (or rely on in the presence of) a police officer an alias identification that purports to be issued by a government agency. Once discovered to be in a name other than your birth name, you can pretty well be guaranteed that you're going to jail, at least for the night and very possibly much longer.

And when it comes to providing your identification to a casino, I am not suggesting that the gambler make some principled stand in avoidance of it. There are absolute downsides to giving it up, not the least of which is having your name and likeness broadcasted throughout the industry as being dangerous at the tables. But there are downsides to withholding it as well. If the security officers, no matter how unreasonably, appear to be ready, willing, and able to escalate their demands to physical violence, take that into consideration. Further, if payment is being withheld on the refusal, the costs of securing payment need to be balanced against walking out or having the police involved, as well as the difficulty in doing this while maintaining anonymity from the casino. In the end, this is for the gambler to balance, but I suggest that the protection of your bankroll, not to mention the preservation of your teeth, must be included in the calculation.

1  21 - The Movie (Sony Pictures, 2008)

2  Rain Man (MGM/UA 1985)

3  Casino (Universal Pictures, 1995)

4 See "The Binion Files," Las Vegas Review-Journal, Peter O'Connell (Sunday, June 24, 2001)

5  See Grosch v. Tunica County, Miss., 2009 WL 161856 (N.D. Miss. 2009); D'aquin v. New Frontier, Clark Co. Dist. Ct. No. 02-A-442687 (Clark Co. Nev. 2005), <www.gamblingwiz.com/news/latest_news_23_september_05_Jury_New_Frontier_Must_Pay.html>; Russo v. Caesars Palace, Clark Co. Dist. Ct. No. 01-A-442687 (Clark Co. Nev. 2004); Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 212 P.3d 1068 (2009); Pikaluk v. C & HRV, LLC, d/b/a Virgin River Hotel & Casino, Clark Co. Dist. Ct. Case No. A654252 (2012)

6  See Red Hand at oregonsurveillancenetwork.com/; Griffin Investigations at griffininvestigations.com/; and Biometrica and the Surveillance Information Network at biometrica.com/page/visual_casino_6#surveillance. (All viewed 11/28/14)

7  Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Bd., 279 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2002)

8  See <tcsjohnhuxley.com/en/home/registered-company-details.html> Viewed 9/3/12

9  See e.g. Nev. Gaming Con. Bd. Reg. 5.011(9)(b)

10  Pistor v. Garcia, No. CV-12-0786-PHX-FJM, 2014 WL 116391 (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2014) aff'd in part rev'd in part at 791 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2015)

11  Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 465.101.2

12  Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 171.1235

13  Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 597.850

14 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 171.126

15  Jacobson v. State, 89 Nev. 197, 206, 510 P.2d 856, 861 (1973), citing to Lerner Shops v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75, 78, 423 P.2d 398 (1967)

16  The common law is the law of decision in Nevada. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.030

17  Barletta v. Golden Nugget Hotel Casino, 580 F. Supp. 614, 619 (D.N.J. 1984); Moll v. United States, 413 F.2d 1233, 1236 (5th Cir. 1969); Muniz v. Mehlman, 99 N.E.2d 37 (Mass. 1951); Edgin v. Talley, 276 S.W. 591, 593 (Ark. 1925) ("[A] misdemeanor must have been actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant, and the officer must determine at his peril whether an offense has been committed or not." (Emphasis added)); Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 A.D. 36, 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954); Wakely v. Hart, 6 Binn. 316, 319 (Pa. 1814) (same); Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 A.D. 36, 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954); 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 15 at 25 (1975) (It is "essential that such offense shall actually have been committed or attempted."; and W. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 17 at 100 (1971).

18  Jacobson v. State, 89 Nev. 197, 206, 510 P.2d 856, 861 (1973)

19  Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193.240 ("Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured: 1. To prevent an offense against his or her person, family or some member of his or her family.") Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193.240 (West)

20  See "Man acquitted in casino slashing: Jury finds Ready not guilty" <tahoedailytribune.com/article/20061002/NEWS/110020031> (viewed 11/29/14)

21  See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.481

22  Lyons v. State, 105 Nev. 317, 321, 775 P.2d 219, 221 (1989) abrogated on other grounds by City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 118 Nev. 859, 59 P.3d 477 (2002); Skipper v. State, 110 Nev. 1031, 1034, 879 P.2d 732, 734 (1994)

23  See and accord Grosch v. Tunica Cnty., Miss., No. CIV A 2:06CV204-P-A, 2009 WL 161856 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009); Pistor v. Garcia, No. CV-12-0786-PHX-FJM, 2014 WL 116391 (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2014)

24  See Grosch, supra.

25  See e.g. Grosch v. Tunica, 2:06CV204-P-A (D. Miss. 2009); Russo v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, Clark County District Court, Clark Co. Nevada, Doc. No. 46019 (Nev. 2009); Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc. 212 P.3d 1068 (2009); Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel Casino, Inc., 449 A.2d 1339, 1342 (Ch. Div. 1982); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012); City of North Las Vegas v. Robertson, North Las Vegas Municipal Court, Case No. Case No: CR003862-10; State v. Dougherty, Las Vegas Justice Court, Las Vegas, NV, (news report, Las Vegas Review-Journal, viewed at <bj21.com/misc/doc_archive/19.pdf> (viewed 11/11/2014)

26  Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011)