I'm kind of perplexed by the blanket assertions here as if private security everywhere will never offer either threatened or actual violence in either official or unofficial capacity.
Nevermind casinos, do people think every bouncer at every bar is merely for show? Since "management reserves the right", trespassing, threats and assault are not really a huge due-process kind of thing, and local establishments/insiders rank higher than outsiders. Within reason they know what is allowed and that isn't always going to be exactly and only whatever the law technically says.
Edit for even more context. For people that don't know already, not every casino or bar is owned by some megacorp who gives a shit about PR, has tons of cameras, has some HR department to educate staff on doctrine, etc. Many casinos are literally in sovereign territory of indigenous peoples also. Not that summary execution for offenders will be status quo there, but come on folks. The world is large and complicated, so simple stories about it are usually incomplete
I mean, I think you're making up blanket assertions where there are none. I haven't made a blanket assertion. I specified the difference between policy and legality.
I then said "I don’t think most casinos have private security that will beat you any more" That's not a blanket assertion. It specifically says "most casinos".
I have never asserted that it NEVER happens and can NEVER happen.
So, I think your confusion is a product of your own assumptions.
Fair, you're as careful to use qualified language as I think I have been. Guess I wasn't really replying to you but just frustrated by the thread in general.
To be clear, if they tell you to stop playing, and you don’t, then they absolutely can call the police for trespassing, which is a crime.
I don’t think most casinos have private security that will beat you any more, since they can tell you to stop playing and enforce that with police.