Problem at the TI

Candy - it has been 2 weeks & I have not heard back.  In this particular case we were not staying at the TI, but had stopped in to play.  We did file a complaint on the day of the incident & followed it up with an email.

It is a shame that we have not heard back.

kevin you were not there so you have no idea on how aggressive the panhandler was.  He saw a woman playing by herself, so he saw an opportunity to harass someone.  He did not ask; he DEMANDED money.  A second panhandler was approaching her when I came over & he beat it when he saw me.

Customers have the right to play in peace 

There's an element of subjectivity in every encounter, and one person's "ask" may be another person's "demand." In any event, if I don't like an interaction with someone, I 1) avoid any continuance of the interaction, as in, I move 2) ask the person in question to stop the interaction ("please leave me alone" or simply, "No!") 3) tolerate the interaction if it will end in a few seconds regardless. What I don't do is howl for someone to protect me from the interaction and punish the foul miscreant.

Why do I feel that way? I've voluntarily chosen to be in a public space, where not all of the people I encounter are going to be appealing and not all interactions will be positive. Therefore, it's incumbent on me to properly navigate such interactions. And boy oh boy, in Vegas, being asked for money is an extremely common interaction!

The casinos (and any business) will construct their own rules/policies as to what constitutes something to be handled by their Security personnel regardless of what you or I think.  To suggest that what happened to Tom's wife...well, I come down on Tom's side, however TI sees it.  The panhandler's threat/demand was a lot more than just a minor annoyance to Mrs. Tom, and certainly more than a "free speech" issue.  Casino customers have cash on them, and when not one but two persons approached her that is possibly a team of hustlers.  They saw a female and hoped they could scare her into handing over some cash.  The fact that they beat it when Tom approached just about supports this theory. No, I wasn't there, but the story contains the facts of what occurred in the eyes of a customer, and it IS a security issue.

Certainly, asking another person for money is not committing a crime.  But escalating the nature of it from asking to demanding moves the needle toward a threat.

Candy 

The problem with this assessment is that a casino isn't a public space, but a privately owned business, customers have every right to gamble in peace without having to be asked for money, your argument is naive, would you like to be bothered for money while you are out at a restaurant eating dinner? At the grocery store? These places give access to the public to spend their money, but won't tolerate people panhandling or otherwise harassing paying customers.

   An unwarranted and unwanted interaction with an agressive person should not be allowed - no matter where one is. Tom's warranted concern is twofold,(1) the fact that there was no security around, for whatever reason, and (2) the fact that the T.I. has not responded to his just complaint. Personally, if my wife had of been acosted, as Tom describes, I would also expect for security to assist/deal with the situation at hand. The T.I. is obviously remiss in responding. When I am in Vegas, or anywhere else, I have an expectation that I and my family will be safe. Expecting and accepting less is just foolish and is unacceptable.

What you all are missing is that Tom's version of events isn't necessarily 100% accurate. The person asking his wife for money wasn't necessarily aggressive or threatening. Tom and his wife clearly resented it, though, and painted it as negatively as possible. Then, given time to simmer, they became highly indignant that TI didn't treat the incident with the seriousness they thought it deserved.

Maybe they're justified in their reactions. Maybe not. But at the end of the day, why get all that upset about it? Nothing actually happened except some mild annoyance. Dwelling on it and expecting TI to DO SOMETHING about it turned it, retroactively, into a major annoyance. Why escalate after the fact?

It's certainly an overreaction to indignantly vow that you are never never never again visiting a place that you've greatly enjoyed many times over the years because of a single, brief incident. And visiting Vegas for any length of time and expecting to never be asked for money is unrealistic. They should just let it go and continue to visit TI.

Actually, a casino is mostly public space, given that the public can freely enter and exit. The various laws that deal with privately owned public spaces are far too complex to list here.

This is the crux of the issue. You do NOT have the "right" to be in a public space and shielded from interactions with others. From a legal standpoint, the fact that you have voluntarily entered such a space means that you are aware that such interactions may occur and are prepared to deal with them. The panhandler(s) had exactly as much right to be in the casino as Tom and his wife. The casino can decide whom to admit or not, but until they do so, every individual who enters that public space is equal to every other.

"Please don't ask me for money, and if you continue to do that, I'll have to call Security" would have been the best response. Even a simple "NO!" would have gotten the message across.

 According to Tom's post --"kevin you were not there so you have no idea on how aggressive the panhandler was. He saw a woman playing by herself, so he saw an opportunity to harass someone. He did not ask; he DEMANDED money. A second panhandler was approaching her when I came over & he beat it when he saw me. Customers have the right to play in peace"

As I said, Tom's impressions and recollections may not be entirely accurate. He was obviously very, very, very, very, very upset by this. Exactly what is the difference between asking and demanding? Demanding is a COMMAND. "Can I have some money?"= ask. "Give me some money."= demand. Which was it, actually?

Also...it was his wife who was asked. Did she react calmly? Or did she react with anger and/or hysteria, which Tom is justifying after the fact by amplifying what the panhandler actually said to her?

In my (frequent) experience and observation, no panhandler DEMANDS money, because that's a certain way to be refused. I think what actually happened was: a panhandler asked Tom's wife for money. She got very angry. She reacted strongly. Tom is defending her reaction. And I speculate that the reason he's not dropping it is because she's pressuring him not to.

Here's why I think Tom's not telling things the way they actually were. He said "a second panhandler" approached her. How did he know that that person was also a panhandler? Or was he assuming that? Did he actually find out why that second person "was approaching" her? Maybe he was another casino patron who wished to play a slot machine in the same bank. Tom assumed he was allied somehow with the panhandler. Based on what?

Anyway, only Tom and his wife know what really happened. I just doubt his version of events. But I am certain that he decided to make far too much of this and he and his wife would do best to just let it go.

Your argument appears to be biased based on your dislike of Tom, that's the only way to make sense of it.