More ridiculous arrests coming out of New York today, as Citibank proves it's just as bad, or even worse than Bank of America in how it treats its customers. Earlier today, about two dozen people formed a queue inside the Citibank building in order to close their accounts as a part of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Instead of allowing them to take their money elsewhere, the genius managers and security people in charge locked them inside and had them arrested.
It's not clear why the people were arrested, but speculation is that when the bank would not allow customers to close their accounts, the customers began to protest. When this happened, that's when the genius managers decided to lock them all in and call the police. Nice work, police, protecting your corporate masters.
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle. … 4980587518
arrested for trying to close accounts...or being loud when they were denied ?
Does Citibank really think they can stop their customers from leaving?
I'm starting to question some of the things going on in our country. Are the people really running it anymore?
This country was created "for the people, by the people." I think it's beginning to be "for the corporations, by the corporations."
I'm sure there's a lawyer's office close by and would be glad to file a class action law suit. I personaaly don't deal with either Citibank or Bank of America - they both suck!
It is, but they're clearly worried about people moving their money aren't they. Can an American bank legally refuse to allow customers to withdraw their own funds?? Maybe those protesters have a case against the bank, if this action is not legal.
No. they can't block you. They might be able to stop a run on the bank, in the short run. But, they can't prohibit the removal of funds forever.
That woman didn't do anything. She didn't appear to be there to close her account. I could be wrong. Either way, the police action was way out of line. This is getting serious.
Do you really think the "law" is going to do anything to protect the banks customers?
I can give you 10 million examples of them only enforcing the "law" when it is in the powerful peoples interest.
No I don't and yes I believe what you are saying. Having said that, I'm sure that there are laws that were initially put into place to protect citizens against this kind of thing. However, the law can only be executed by enforcers and I do agree that they protect the interests of the rich ad powerful, not the average citizen.
Running on banks will sink this country in to a depression the likes of which have never been sen before.
Forget the Great depression this one will make that look like a tiny recession!
Not that I am against it, if I could I would tear the whole f'in system down. This IS being done intentionally, someone wants this economy to tank.
Yes the banks can close if they do not have enough funds on hand to cash out the customers.
I would assume they were asked to leave, upon refusing they are now trespassing and subject to arrest! I do not know about locking them in though strange?
It isn't completely clear what events preceded the above footage. I've posted a link down below which is less ambiguous re what happens when someone tries to close their account. I have actually wondered about this, what would happen if there was a mass movement of money and how that would affect the economy. However, if the money is moved from a couple of major banks, not local banks etc. Would this have a devastating effect on the economy? I don't know, but thinking about it, it could be used as an excuse for another bailout, of sorts, maybe.
Read the history of the "Great Depression"
History does indeed repeat itself.
Now the banks will demand that all loans be paid in full, TODAY!
Will the 99% be able to meet their obligations.
Read your loan papers they can call in your loan in full anytime they want.
I've actually read quite a bit about the great depression recently (as a Brit we've obviously been aware of it but when it is taught it's taught as the history of another country, in some respects I think this is naive) I'm obviously no expert and I can see the parallels with the problems of today. I do believe however, that things are much more complex today, I get where you're coming from with foreclosure on debt, and I have no doubt that they would attempt this. But, it also costs money to foreclose on debt, bailiffs, court costs etc. I'm playing devils advocate here, but if the 99% pull the rug, would the 1% be able to finance all their foreclosures? I'm not saying they wouldn't, just thinking out loud. On a personal level, I got rid of the banking gangsters years ago. I had my house repossessed and I had a 4 month old child. Terrible lesson to learn, I had to start over. Now, I refuse credit cards, don't take loans and live very frugally. I only bank where there is free banking, use a debit card and buy what I need, not what I want.
You sound like a Freeman on the Land, like me
I do not even accept their fiat worthless money.
I would rather have a good home made meal then a $20.00 bill anyday.
Who owns the real wealth? The precious metals?
The U.S. confiscated all the people's gold once and that law has never been repealed.
This is the big question. I posted on a link re a Sri Lanka thread today, after visiting that country (largely undeveloped but you should see how many investment arms of major banks are landed there, wow) I've noticed it's never been repealed, why not? I mean who, who would want to ensure this never happens?
This happened twice in the UK in the last 30 years - I got hit both times. The first time was manufactured by Maggie Thatcher (around 1978) and this foreclosed and closed most small businesses, putting the service industry into the hands of big business and the land and property back into the hands of the wealthy. The second time was around 1990 and did the same thing to the surviving small businesses.
I have no idea what I was looking at, what happened inside the building before someone filmed two and a half minutes of video? Was that woman involved in something that happened earlier? I'm not convinced that anyone was arrested for trying to close a bank account, any real proof of that?
You've got to be kidding? The video is self explanatory. No one was doing anything. You could see people were quietly milling around inside and that woman was shocked that simply wanting to conduct business would have her arrested.
This is going to get out of hand if the police don't stop overreacting and treating citizens as if they are already criminals.
I'm not kidding! Do you know what happened from watching that video? Do you know that woman didn't do anything before the video was taken? How come only she was taken back in the building? Why not take the person videotaping the event? Are you psychic?
I would have thought that if the police suspected her of some offence or another, wouldn't they have arrested her, rather than drag her back into the building?
You are not arrested for being suspected of something, you are arrested for a crime! Police do these things called investigations, and sometimes the investigation includes identifying the right person. Has it ever occurred to you that she was taken back into the building so an investigation could happen? Getting all the parties involved together to hear what happened? I'm sure it never occurred to you, but it occurred to you that she was arrested for closing her bank account.
If the police want to arrest people they suspect of committing an offence they would normally say "I'm arresting you on suspicion of" The process of identification usually takes place in a line up and not a bank. An official investigation is never conducted while the suspect is present and witness's give statements. The woman was sent back into the bank forcibly (against her will) police have the right to detain or hold a "suspect" however, they have to indicate that this is what they are doing. I'm sure non of that ever occurred to you did it? Repairguy, take a chill pill, you need it.
And, actually people are arrested for being suspected of something.
No, people are not arrested for being suspected of something, they are arrested when there is probable cause to do so. Investigations are performed all the time when a suspect is there especially if they can be identified on scene. What you know about police procedures would fit into a thimble and have lots of room left.
So, there is probable cause for arrest,? such as an accusation for example, if the police were not there to see the crime with their own eyes and need witness statements. A witness statement does not necessarily equate to absolute fact, therefore, when the police arrest they arrest on suspicion of an offence having occurred. If the opposite were true, suspects not would get the chance of trial and/or a court hearing. By the way, I worked within the criminal justice system for 10 years. Within a prison, community probation offices and at a police custody suite as an arrest referral officer(on secondment from the probation service) I do agree with you about one thing though. When you post, I haven't got a clue how to fathom what on earth your going on about.
I didn't say there was probable cause for an arrest and I didn't see anyone arrested either. I saw a woman taken back inside a bank screaming and causing a disturbance. What did you see in that 2 minutes of footage? A witness statement does not equate to absolute fact, that is true. But it does give reason for an investigation to be performed. I would think with you vast knowledge of the United states legal system you would know that...Thats sarcasm in case you don't understand what I'm going on about.
I didn't say there was probable cause for an arrest and I didn't see anyone arrested either
And that Repairguy47, was what I was getting at initially. You stated that you were not convinced people were being arrested for closing their bank accounts and that it may have been because of an event that happened earlier. So, if this were the case, and I'm not saying that it wasn't, why didn't they arrest (probable cause or suspicion, wouldn't want to appear silly and split hairs here) Or, notify her that she was being detained pending further enquiries? And, if you read my response to tsmog, I mentioned CCTV, if there had been an incident committed earlier on, wouldn't that have been caught on CCTV? Why would they need witness statements in this event? As you quite rightly pointed out, you didn't see an arrest and you didn't see probable cause. You saw police brutality.
Yep, you're right, my knowledge of the US legal system is not extensive. It does appear, however, that it is slightly more realistic than yours.
Police brutality? Where? I saw a woman resisting an effort to take her back inside a building. CCTV? Are you serious? Why would they need witness statements? Why wouldn't the police want witness statements? You are jabbering away about nothing. I saw no arrests made! I saw people crowded into a lobby of citibank! I saw a woman taken into the bank by the police for some unknown reason! Please provide proof that people were arrested for closing their bank accounts.
Unless she was being arrested or detained she has the right to "resist" as you put it. Although I saw her just walk off. Banks do tend to have CCTV installed, something to do with the amount of money they hold and security.
The police would not necessarily need witness statements if they had CCTV footage. You saw a woman being forcibly dragged back into a bank. Please provide proof that they weren't being brutalized for closing their bank account.
No! She doesn't have the right to resist. Yes, they would want and possibly need witness statements! In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and witness statements are one way of proving a case. The burden of proof is on all of you who said that is why people were arrested, not me. Just admit this whole thread is more liberal propaganda. No one was arrested for closing bank accounts, no one was brutalized and no you can not be detained for 24 hours for not having an ID! There is no law requiring anyone to have an ID except under certain circumstances. Please quit posting about things you do not understand Inspector Clouseau.
Just because the law states ...
It doesn't mean it is adhered too. Most people are using court appointed lawyers (free) and don't have the money to afford lawyers,so yes they are exploited.
I have witnessed people assumed to be guilty before a trail..granted they were misdemeanors,but it happens in many counties.
You should probably refrain from commenting on other's grasp of police procedure. Police arrest people all of the time with little to no grounds. They can get away with it because, by law, they can detain you for up to twenty for hours for no offense other than not carrying id.
You need to remember that tv is not a good source to go to in order to determine what you can argue the police can or cannot do.
Police arrest when they have probable cause, just because you disagree with what constitutes probable cause doesn't mean they don't have it. Where and under what circumstances can one be detained for twenty four hours for not having ID and is it against the law for not carrying ID? Those words written in the law mean something you know?
Did you miss something there? If they ask for id and you don't produce it. They can detain you for 24 hours. Without cause.
I don't consider the statement ' I'm a customer' or 'I have business here' or whatever the woman said as probable cause for the police reaction.
Where can you be detained for twenty four hours for not having an ID? Please provide proof that your statement is true, just because you said so isn't proof to me.
I'd have thought with you extensive knowledge regarding police procedure you'd have been aware of this, still.
You know what? You are right. There is no law. I guess they just get away with it because they stretch the law past its intended purpose. I just reviewed the cases that had led me to believe that and, even though all charges were dropped and it was obviously harassment because of race; they did get away with it because they claimed probable cause initiated the arrest. Although it still isn't right, I was wrong.
I know I am right, and it takes a large person to admit when they are wrong. You know, large in character. By the way, I don't rely on TV for my law knowledge its very simple to read laws to know what they mean.
But, you have to admit that video was pretty damning. That poor woman was shocked. Her only crime appeared to be that she was a typical New Yorker.
I admit I don't know what I saw. Like I've said over and over it could all have been about something that happened inside the bank and they were bringing her back in. I'm well aware that police brutality exists, I'm aware that the police sometimes do unlawful things. But there is nothing in this video that is evidence of anything most certainly not that people were arrested for closing bank accounts.
In this day and age such staunch upholding of officers of the law would be refreshing were it not for the hundreds of proven cases of police overbearance. As for probable cause in this case, the police may have been acting on a simple request of the bank people to arrest these customers for disturbing the peace. I still contend the bank acted poorly and the people will rise up in protest.
"We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former detective testifies
BY John Marzulli
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, October 13th 2011, 4:00 AM
A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.
The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.
Anderson, testifying under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, was busted for planting cocaine, a practice known as "flaking," on four men in a Queens bar in 2008 to help out fellow cop Henry Tavarez, whose buy-and-bust activity had been low.
"Tavarez was ... was worried about getting sent back [to patrol] and, you know, the supervisors getting on his case," he recounted at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny.
"I had decided to give him [Tavarez] the drugs to help him out so that he could say he had a buy," Anderson testified last week in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
He made clear he wasn't about to pass off the two legit arrests he had made in the bar to Tavarez.
"As a detective, you still have a number to reach while you are in the narcotics division," he said."
Why don't we just go ahead and make our police departments public companies?
They already have to meet financial quotas, it seems.
They are already answering to artificial financial pressure rather than the public they serve and manipulating their results accordingly.
Yessir. I'd like to buy me a few shares of stock in the NYPD narc squad.
Although I have no proof, I do have experience. Going along with Repairguy47 for just a moment, reflecting on that experience going back to the 70's, and of the publications I have read about that era, who says she was not undercover? What a brilliant way to get her inside. Simply, arrest her.
OK, not trying to be a conspiracy theory monger, looking at my previous post, my reaction is 'distrust.' Again, I emphasize 'no proof,' but rely on subjective experience.
But, I'm still emotional about this vid. And, my emotion is 'disgust.'
Yes, I agree tsmog that police use undercover officers or informants in this way (thinking of the UK specifically) But, if she were an undercover officer would she not be the one who was identifying the suspect? it would have made more sense to let her go in that scenario. And, I would have also thought that there would have been quite sophisticated CCTV equipment within the bank, given the level of security that is afforded to such institutions, they wouldn't really have need to ask others for identification in this scenario also. (I'm not familiar with this process in the US perhaps witness statements are needed also?) If she was an undercover cop though, I doubt she'd have tried to walk off but do as the officer said. Perhaps.
For me it is the emotion I felt = disgust.
Whether undercover or not, I have disgust. I can't get over that. Even though I am doing laundry now, and dancing through Hubpages, my emotion is still disgust. My reaction = distrust in generality, from A-Z and infinity with numbers.
Again, falling back on personal history, while knowing I am really ignorant of the focus surrounding the Occupy Wall Street Protest. We spoke on another thread where I realized this fact - my ignorance of it and it I see not even the tip of the iceberg, only a few floating chunks of ice, which are icebergs within themselves. I am wandering again, which is good.
Thank you for challenging me again, Hollie, since 'perhaps,' well, ???? seems to be the answer.
Metaphorically speaking, I don't see the iceberg or the tips of the iceberg as our collective ignorance, but symbolic of the deceit we are beginning to uncover. I'm afraid after working with the police and criminal justice agencies in this country, I have very little trust in them. Where previously I had complete trust in them. I know that the experiences that I have had have tainted my view of the police, so if I'm being honest, I'm saying maybe I need to try to be a little more detached when presented with such information. When you see one human being physically overpower another though, it's difficult not to feel an emotion. In many respects I think that's good though, it reminds us that we are thinking, feeling, decent human beings.
Very well put. "symbolic of the deceit we are beginning to uncover." I don't think I was talking about a collective ignorance, but of my own. And, your experience in criminal law is extremely valuable. However, my experience is the side of the fence, well, I protested something(s) and learned what arrest means.
A funny story of recollection is I dated a girl from a high school in a neighboring town. I protested with her and friends by sitting on the school lawn. We were protesting girls couldn't wear pants to the high school. Coordinated pants suits yes, pants NO.
I was detained for over 8 hrs both at the school office and the local sheriff substation. Summarily lectured by my school's principal, documented permanently in my student records, warned my actions were being reviewed for causation for not being able to participate on the track team, and was suspended from my school, even though the participants of her school did not receive any penalty, I faced even more yet.
There was the youth pastor, my parents, my scoutmaster, the VFW hall president then, (they sponsored the scout troop). Out of all that I did find one of understanding - my grandpa. And, in jest, that was long before I was a bearded, long haired, pot smoking, race car enthusiast, hippie - smile.
Today, they can wear pants, though I wonder about the pants worn today at times - LOL.
I defer to the video conjuring my stated reaction = distrust, written before the reply here to Repairguy47. In that original post I stated my emotion = disgust, which still looms.
But, darn it, I still have to do my laundry, so I must go do some folding now. Thanks again Hollie, I mean that!
Oh, the hardest part of that experience was I had to ask my dad for a ride to get my car at my girlfriends school, since it was the sheriffs who transported me from her school to mine. I hate silence. Looking quickly to remember who Robert Louis Stevenson - "the cruelest lie are often told in silence."
[footnote: Yes truancy does enter the picture, not of legal age does enter the picture, and so on. But, reflectively I ask how much did it cost them to tell me I couldn't support my 'love' of the time and what she believed in/of/for. All they did from 'our,' being the those friends who protested, was create a martyr, wow, introspectively I was a martyr - wow! LOL, giggle-giggle.
I think they may also have been teaching you an early lesson. just because you have the right to protest doesn't mean we're not going to teach you a cruel lesson when you try. Things haven't changed that much in reality. Still, a conformist learns very little and a rebel lives a lot.
Tsmog, do laundry or you will regret that you didn't tomorrow. Always a pleasure to discuss things with you. =
TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF BIG BANKS! IN NEW YORK CITY; YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR MONEY TO THE MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION. MORE CITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE SIMILAR CREDIT UNIONS. THESE BANKS ARE FORMED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. AND THE NO FEE AND LEADING POLICIES ARE GREAT TOO. DON'T BE A SLAVE TO BIG BANKS!
I'm not in the States but if I was I would be in a branch tomorrow closing my Citibank account.
I am considering the sensible option over here for my vast wealth.
Meanwhile in London we have an 'emergency' rule that says people cannot wear masks.
Let's hope they lift that for Halloween eh? Got to keep those cash registers busy. Plastic crap from China will save the economy.
Whoops. Getting angry again.
On a plus side, and an example of how there are decent people helping where they can.
This morning, UK London protesters camped out near St. Pauls surrounded by riot police. The vicar, or whatever he is, came out, and told the police to clear off. He has no problem with people exercising their democratic right to protest.
There is no way this isn't going to find it's way to the Supreme Court, as it should.
My guess is that Citibank's actions have just escalated everything 10-fold.
yes, Citibank and the rest of the mega giant banks need to change their image or do they really care?
I'm afraid that America has become a totalitarian country which preaches freedom but in reality actively seeks to erode the liberties of its citizens year on year.
In the past 30-40 years your government has stamped all over your constitution, and all that made American great and strong has been jeopardized by an abandonment of true capitalism in place of something far uglier. Probably starting with Ronald Reagan, whose government launched the Rex 84 drills, the beginning of the process which has concluded in another Republican government claiming the right to exercise martial law.
The same can be said for the UK too of course, in fact we don't even have a constitution, we aren't even a true republic. It's great to see people waking up to the true meanings of globalization, furthermore it is great to see more and more people acknowledge that there are very few real democracies in the world, if any, and that if there are any - the United States, United Kingdom, and any other major world economy certainly cannot be labelled as one.
All it takes now is for more of the 'right' to realise that this is not about 'left' or 'right' or about 'capitalism' and 'socialism' but about democracy, and how capitalism can thrive within a democracy. In fact, true capitalism, the capitalism of the days when employees earnings and benefits increased in line with company profits, is more democratic than any form of communism or far left politics could ever be.
What I'd love to see personally is more employee owned businesses, 50% employee owned and 50% publicly floated pr privately owned. In fact, the world would be a much better place if every business with more than 50 employees operated like that.
People are saying that these people shouldn't be on Wall Street but instead outside the White House. Personally I think that they are in the RIGHT place, what better place to begin to develop a fairer and more democratic society than in corporations, with half of the board room elected by employees.
The occurrence in New York is a first that I have heard of.
They have never treated me badly.
Regardless, America is the only place I want to live. I love it here because there is freedom.
People from other countries say their government tells them:
1. America is a terrible place
2. We Americans say we love America because we are brain washed and feel we have to say that.
3. These same people from other countries say now they know it isn't true and also love it here.
Since you don't live here, you should not be spreading your erroneous opinions about America.
I wake up every day and do whatever I want with absolutely no fear.
Well, as a woman from another country, my country has never told me that 1. America is a terrible place, and I don't believe it is either. I do believe you have had some terrible leaders, as most countries have. 2. We've never believed you are brain washed, conned at times yes, but irrespective of your country of origin, we all have been. 3. I expect there are lots of people that love America and Americans, we're all people, good and bad. 4. I don't live there either, but the discussion isn't necessarily America centric, it's about the 99% and what happens when protesters try to move their money, note the previous poster talks about inequality and totalitarian governments in the UK and US, this is not about nationalism but a global movement. 5. I, for one, am glad you feel this freedom, but many of you fellow citizens do not feel this way, same in the UK.
I doubt any bank truly cares, they've become so complacent. I wonder how the banks would cope if people didn't go into their local bank to close their account, but just transferred their money to another place using internet banking or some other such process.
CitiBAnk rightly assume that many of their customers are brain dead.
They are running an ad that chastises potential customers for paying high interest rates on their low interest introduction deal to get us to change over to their bank.
In the ad the actor says "Are you paying 20% or more for your credit card"? then operating on minimum legal disclosure shows their interest rate at the bottom of the ad is 22%!
Not necessarily, money makes the world go round, and it would work fine as a system if there weren't so many ultra powerful people with a vested interest and the power to manipulate money supply for their own gain. If they used the gold standard for example, or the amount of currency in the world remained constant, it could work.
Money has been used since BC, in fact we dig up Roman coins in the UK frequently, most of them are gold, silver, or bronze, and as such had a real value attached to them, rather than a piece of paper.... which has a true value of perhaps 1 cent per bank note, if that.
The breed of capitalism that we have seen in the last 30 years, since the days of Reagan and Thatcher, has been far removed from the days that GM motors and other great institutions built up the wealth of America. That was a more honest form of capitalism, still ugly perhaps, but not AS ugly.
It only needs to get a bit less ugly.
It's not the root of all evil. Money is only a tool.
Money is a tool.
"The love of money is the root of all evil"
Which pretty much foretold greed!
When the major banks were bailed out ,that's when people should have shifted their funds.
This is the most stupid thing that can happen in our world today. What the hec is wrong with people? I never trusted banks, nor will I ever trust banks. My grandmother told me spend the money on the things you want and need. There was no reason to keep up with Jones or have materialistic things you can't take with you when you die anyways. Nana saved money but only for certain necessary items needed. I keep only the money needed to open and account to cash checks. That is it. It is my money and the banks seem to get more of it than me.
wow, that video is seriously disturbing! Should be interesting watching the market tomorrow morning.
Glad I keep my money in a credit union account.
Those people should sue that bank for false imprisonment, etc.
WOW! I got a headache and I haven't even see the vid, yet - LOL.
OK, just watched the video. Emotion = disgust. Did you notice how many zip-ties the law enforcement had on their belts? I haven't looked yet, but is there any followup on this yet.
Reaction = 'distrust'
Thoughts = I'm really, really ignorant of current issues. Sorry in the sense I haven't kept up. I have been so wrapped in my little world and trying to survive in it, I may have forgot about why I am trying to survive instead of flourishing. I give pause thinking of the 'little ones' and what future they are being presented with. If I don't understand it, then when one of those 'little ones' asks me, what do I say? ('little ones' are my 6-yr niece, 4-yr nephew, friends middle school kids, etc).
Contemplations = Reminiscence of 'Plato's Cave.' No, not trying to change the thread. But, that is the magnitude of affect that video has had on me. My new drug recently has been 'hubpages.' I have been allowed to forget reality while having it placed right smack dab in front of me.
Thank you Stacie L for sharing this. Thanks all for your comments causing thought. And, honestly, while doing the task I am now procrastinating - laundry, I shall turn off the TV, visit my garden while discussing something with my immigrant unemployed neighbor while his kids show off for me, who is my maestro por espanol, and try to slow down the darting-zipping & zagging thoughts of values, purpose, , ,
I watched that video and was appalled. It doesn't matter if all said they were pulling there money out, or each individual. They had a right to make that choice. I see a lawsuit on the horizon with Citibank! They went against there Constitution al Rights! I do not normally get involved we these issues, but honestly the bank crossed the line. There wasn't any probable cause to arrest them, they were only closing their bank accounts.
What exactly did you see? Everybody slamming the bank and that video shows nothing.
You are absolutely correct Repairguy47. What did you see? The tip of the iceberg or the iceberg. A quick research one discovers by typing into the Google browser 'arrested for closing Citibank accounts + New York' 4,650,000 hits in 0.36 sec. OK, factor out the hits of singular words and phrases. How many does that leave? I dun'no.
If we type in Arrested + Citibank + News Association of America we see a result of 1,290,000 in 0.26sec. Reputability of the reported accounts can be argued. What I'm trying to say is it doesn't matter what anyone saw, the fact is it occurred. It is substantiated. There are arrest reports. The circumstances of witnessing is not at question with this forum topic, in my view, notice I am qualifying myself, it is the fact it did occur. The comments of which yours is included are the reactions.
A direct response to your statement "that video shows nothing" is I agree. And, I thank you emphatically for making it. I had a reaction to 'my' original viewing and responded with a comment - purpose of the forum. I agreed with you earlier saying with a conspiracy response of 'maybe she is undercover.'
Because of your comment for 'self' I am now resolved with this atrocity we only get a glimpse of with the video. I saw nothing, but I discovered much more.
Did you discover that people were arrested for closing bank accounts? Would you please provide that evidence? There may have indeed been arrests made but for what? Could it be that a group of protesters occupied the bank and refused to leave? I'll bet that is what arrests were made for.
I'm sorry repairguy47, the philosophical proof belongs to you. The burden of proof belongs to you. I require none.
You just believe everything you read on the internet? http://www.kirotv.com/news/28039062/det … _cntnt_rss
I had seen security shoving that woman inside Citibank and nobody being able to come out. That is what I had seen. So I definitely had seem something.
Clearly wrong, because repairguy47 can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, qualify his argument with footage and evidence that proves he is correct.
I can qualify my statement with the United States Constitution! You rely on emotion.
Really? Show me what is empty about what I have written. Show me where you are right and I am wrong...please. You better hurry another episode of Law and Order is on.
OK, not because you tell me I have to hurry but because you have asked, so out of courtesy. Well, you state that I rely on emotion and you have the US constitution. Initially I didn't state that you were wrong, I was trying to explore what you said, by asking a question, about the women. ie, in that scenario wouldn't a or b have happened? Logic, I was trying to explore the premise of what you had said, therefore, I hadn't dismissed it, was just trying to see how that may come about, trying to think logically about the situation you described, not emotionally. You state that you have the US constitution, but is that not another theme of this thread, because if the woman was only trying to withdraw her money, then aren't the principles of your constitution being threatened? I didn't say at any point I was right and you were wrong, we disagree. perhaps because we both look at the same problem with a different mindset.
maybe unlawful imprisonment would cover this.as the bank locked the customers in the bank...
Well, unless they have committed an offence I can't possibly see how the bank can justify their actions, as you say this is unlawful imprisonment.
Just when you think you've heard it all... I have not watched the video, will have to check it out. This really sounds like they have lost their minds if they think they can keep people from closing their personal accounts and moving their money elsewhere. This is still America, right?
Wow. I hope many more people pull there money out of Citibank
I watched the video and it is not obvious as to why the individuals were arrested. I had a look a the BBC news and it says they were arrested for trespassing as they allegedly refused to leave when asked.
However, it's a major PR cockup by Citibank. All it takes is a rumour of a run on a bank for it to be fulfilled.
Wow, what a surprise trespassing, whoda thunk it? Oh, me!
Whoda thunk you can trespass on your own property! YOUR money is there...they won't let you haveit......who is breaking the law here? They have the right to keep your money against your will?
You have GOT to be kidding me. If not, they should file a law-suit against citibank:
Sue for theft of property!!!
Banks are supposed to be working for the people?
You are loaning them YOUR money, to work for YOU.
Its a service you are paying for.
You also have the right to withdraw your money, without arrest or harassment.
Cheeky buggers, we should charge them interest.
I remember when I first opened an account with Bank of America and they agreed to trade x amount of dollars on my foreign currency etc...
We laughed ,we chatted and I was the cats whiskers...
(Of course they made on the deal -currency exchange etc)
A month later I walked in with a $100 cheque and asked could I cash it etc.
Suddenly the happies turned too .wellllll...you can leave it with us 24 hrs ,then cash it tomorrow?
Yea but tomorrows the bus will have left without me
Heres my ID,Im a customer..
Oh but you are not an established customer she explained ?
(By now Im getting embarassed) so blurted out, well perhaps I should have checked you guys out more closely ,like told you to wait 24hrs before you started trading with MY money last month...(Ok I was mad)....
I said ,look I want to close my account- Oh no she said , you will need an appointment...???
( I didnt need one for you to open an account ,why do I need one to close it)
They said I was being hostile!!..and the security guy asked ME to consider making an appointment.
Very wierd the whole experience and that was 2yrs ago.
Occupy Wall Street: Citibank was stupid. Chase bank was smart.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/10/17/o … was-smart/
What you probably don’t know is: on the same morning a similar group went to a Chase bank branch and engaged in a similar action. You don’t know this because, unlike at Citibank, the Chase manager just rolled with it. No arrests, no police, and it was all over in a few minutes.
So while the demonstrators made some poor choices, Citibank made some EXTREMELY poor choices.
Check this out, another citibank incident. (3rd video) Wow, speaks volumes.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-banks-r … ounts.html
Checkout this Veteran confronting the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O2WZXM_ … e=youtu.be
I've watched msot of the videos and came away with this thought.
if the banks say they felt threatened, then all they had to do was limit the number of customer in the bank at a time by having a security guard let a limited number in a time..
fine jewelers like Tiffany s ,Cartiers and shops on Rodeo Drive have this policy...
Ah, but there's a major difference, Stacie.
Those fine establishments cater to the 1%, not us unwashed masses.
Why should bank customers be treated like ... customers?
Something that struck me on one of the videos I watched, was when the woman in the bank said "you can't be a protester and a customer". So, if that is what really bothered them why not say, "leave your sign outside and then come in to make a withdrawal". I have to admit though if they' have said to me you can't be both a customer and a protester, I think I'd have replied with " Exactly, which is why I wish to close my account, then I'll be just a protester"
if I could find a tongue in cheek character i would post it.LOL
I'm putting all my money (all $135) into the Bailey Building & Loan!
I'll take my chances with Uncle Billy.
At least his incompetence is not deliberate!
The bank's side of the story:
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/10/ … k-arrests/
Okay...but WHY were they dragging that woman back into the bank??
I don't know why, this was a bone of contention in another thread. No one knows what happened prior to the woman getting dragged into the bank.. I posted a link in another thread about others that tried to close accounts, the camera rolled from start to finish so it gives a more accurate account of events. Admittedly, different day, different people, but definitely gives a more reliable account.
it's incredible that someone was dragged into the bank...wonder when police will provide an official explanation
hopefully the protestors closed their accounts if they were customers;after all the bank officials stated that they couldn't be protestors and customers.
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
Is this the face of things to come? Since when is it legal to physically pick up a woman and carry her into a bank or commercial building? I guess it's OK when you have a lot of...
by hassam5 years ago
This probably is one of the worse days of my life, after so much effort I have put online, here I stand with my Adsense account disabled due to invalid click activity. I don't have any clue why this happened! I have...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
I mean seriously."NEW YORK (AP) -- Bank of America plans to start charging customers a $5 monthly fee for using their debit card to make purchases. The fee will be rolled out starting early next...
by pgrundy8 years ago
Today at my bank job we all got a memo from our direct corporate overlord (but sub-lord to the CEO) that by the end of June all customer service employees will be required to use the bank's online banking and...
by Jeremy Gill18 hours ago
Hi everyone. I cover many geeky topics, like Pokemon, Star Wars, all that fun stuff. Sometimes I wonder if readers would be better served by multiple accounts, one per topic, so that they can quickly find what they want...
by Stacie L5 years ago
Hate your bank? Saturday is 'Bank Transfer Day'Big banks may have scrapped plans to charge fees for debit card use, but many customers are still angry and taking their money elsewhere.By MSN Money partner on Fri, Nov 4,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.