WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT NY CITIBANK!

[Nostalgic]

Run time: 03:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTFDmyUet_Y   Posted on YouTube: October 16, 2011 By YouTube Member: MOXNEWSd0tCOM Views on YouTube: 306   Posted on DU: October 16, 2011 By DU Member: Nostalgic Views on DU: 3388

 
From MoxNews.

[aquart]

1. A little summary would be useful.

[Nostalgic]

4. Summary

A guy in the crowd is stating the sequence of events that led to the arrest of the people in the bank, while the crowd repeats what he says. Meanwhile the people under arrest are led to the police vans.

[pacalo]

5. By way of the human microphone, a protester explains to those around him

that a group of protesters went to citibank to close their accounts. They were told to leave the bank, they were complying & were exiting when the doors were locked by security, preventing them from leaving.

At that point, the camera pans in on the protesters taken from the bank as they were being escorted by police to the police van.

***

Not good p.r. for citibank to have its customers arrested because the bank disapproved of the type of legitimate service being requested. Even if there were certain guidelines put into place by the bank & their sugardaddy lawmakers, detainment & arrests were outrageous.

[chervilant]

2. In solidarity

with the OWS movement, I will be closing my bank account this week, and moving to a small, local credit union.

[99th_Monkey]

17. Why not wait until Nov 5th > it will have more of an impact

being part of a global protest .. peeps moving money from the big banks
to small local credit unions, etc.

[chervilant]

21. Hey,

thanks for letting me know. That will give me time to OPEN the credit union account, transfer all of my info to the new account, and I'll do the actual removal of my funds on November 5.

These greedy, grasping bankers will forever embody the pathology of unfettered hedonism.

[wundermaus]

3. Look at all the manpower required to arrest non violent protesters

who wanted to close their bank accounts...
This is what I call "very effective" civil disobedience!
They did not break any laws and were arrested at the request of Citibank management.
Result: A legal nuisance to the banks (false arrest) and a frivolous, exorbitant cost the authorities.
Nicely done!

[Jack Rabbit]

7. The problem is that this really doesn't qualify as civil disobediance

It was a business transaction. The bank would not allow its customers to close their accounts and take their business elsewhere.

That's not the way the free market is supposed to work.

[wundermaus]

9. Excuse me, but how is this different from

people sitting at a cafe counter being refused service?
If a bunch of my friends started a bank account at Citibank on Monday and came back on Tuesday to close them and we were arrested there would be hell to pay.
That sure smells, sounds, and tastes like civil disobedience to me.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Exactly. Civil disobedience involes breaking the law in some way.

If they sat down in the middle of the floor and prevented the bank from doing business, that's civil disobedience. But the bank prevented them from doing business. What law did they break?

One could argue, though I would not, that as a private business the segregated cafe had the right to refuse service to any one for any reason. But a bank that is holding your money does not have the right to prevent you from withdrawing it. In this case, it's like the cafe took your money for your order (like some pizza parlors) and then refused you service. I can't see where the bank has a leg to stand on. The bank is guilty of holding money that didn't belong to it, which means they misrepresented the agreement when he opened the account. That agreement no doubt stated the customer had the right to withdraw his funds. The police officers at the scene made false arrests. They really can't argue that the bank customers were trespassing or loitering, the charge that was usually leveled at lunch counter patrons who were refused service. They were there doing business.

There is certainly a taste of civil disobedience here. But only because this action was obviously organized, as were the actions at segregated lunch counters. Nevertheless, it's the bankers and the police who should be facing legal problems over this matter. Of course, they won't.

[wundermaus]

16. Excellent analysis and explanation of your points of view.

Thank you for taking to the time to be so detailed in your reply. I do not know the specifics of what they did in the bank while they were closing their accounts.
I suspect there was some "disruptive" behavior by the "protesters" who wanted to close their accounts that may have "alarmed" the bank employees and bank security officers. I sincerely hope there were legal representatives for the protesters present when the events were taking place and that there is lots of video to collaborate testimony. It should be very interesting to hear how that incident plays out in court.

[Gregorian]

6. On what charges were these people arrested?

[unblock]

10. if they really want to go through with it despite the p.r. the charge would probably be tresspassing

commercial establishments generally have a right to kick out anyone they want, something typically used only on disruptive and unruly people. you don't have a right to protest on commercial property if the owner says otherwise. of course, usually the goal is to escort them off the premisses, so locking them in for arrest is silly and provocative.

i expect the bank to say that they were asked to leave and they refused to comply, at which point they would have committed trespassing and are subject to arrest. if they have a valid charge, then locking them in is not a crime, it's a form of citizen's arrest.

to the extent that they yanked anyone back off the sidewalk for purpose of arrest, that seems very problematic as it would seem that anyone who LEFT was complying with a request to leave the premisses and therefore wasn't trespassing.



if there's a case here, i would think it would center on the question of whether the people were attempting to perform legitimate commercial functions they were all customers attempting to close their accounts, as they claim) or whether they were engaged in a disruptive protest and therefore interfering with bank's legitimate business. if they were loudly chanting inside the bank and possibly driving away customers not involved in the protest, and refused to stop after being asked by the bank to do so, that may be a problem.


not defending the bank here, so far i'm just there's no facts that support their position; i'm just guessing as to what some of the arguments may be from the bank's point of view. there's always a hazard in reaching conclusions based on "facts not in evidence".

[saras]

12. If you're going to trespass someone from a bank, you had damned better let them close their account.

The bank has the right to require them to shut up in the lobby, which is private. It has the right to take them individually into a private office and let them close their account.

But it doesn't have the right to refuse to return their money to them, unless they're willing to call the FDIC in and say that they can't pay.

[Gregorian]

18. That's all pretty standard stuff. I expect the fact that it was a "group" is what triggered it.

It will be interesting to hear the whole story.

Thanks.

[EFerrari]

8. Who ever was running this call put his men in danger for no effing reason.

Look at the way there were crowds all around them. The cops looked scared and they were right. They were vulnerable from many angles.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[civilisation]

11. Bad move ChityBank!

anonop - target acquired!

[MindandSoul]

13. It seems big banks have colluded to install a new policy:

"You can't be at the same time a protester and a customer" and they all say the same thing:

Don't miss this video that happened in the city of Santa Cruz, California(much smaller in size, but great in spirit) as early as October 7th!

No sign of "misbehaving" or "disturbing the peace" or violent intent there. . .

Worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK0O30aFT7g

[jonthebru]

15. The people, united,

will never be defeated!!!
If the customers were really customers, standing in line discussing with each other about what they were doing and were legitimately closing their accounts then the bank over reacted. If someone made a comment that was inferred as a threat then the bank security was triggered to react. An intelligent person would have just let the transactions occur but they may have thought that a large crowd was about to gather and they would lose control.
The one Lady was outside the bank. Does the security have the power to grab someone off the street and take that person into the bank? Where I live shop lifters get away by clearing the opening of the store and running away. Security has no authority there so the cops are called and the person is gone already. I would bet she will have several lawyers willing to take her case if a legitimate transaction had occurred and she was finished with the bank legally.
The cat is out of the bag and the 1% will strive to keep their power. But if they keep acting like this the cat will never go back in the bag.

[ScottLand]

19. Must've missed something. Where is the part where they show

that the banks were in the right here? I can't imagine how this was lawful. Where are the teabaggers on this one? Shouldn't they be out there joining the fight against the infringement of Constitutional rights?

[iamthebandfanman]

20. Citi bank should be happy

this wasnt in europe.

because it would have been on fire moments afterwards ... lol