jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (17 posts)

Citibank has customers detained by NYPD

  1. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 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 money.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdeuuzXS … embedded#!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RqGzQ4SzCAk
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/22 … customers/

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Modern. It has been a while since we exchanged views.

      I reckon some care and a lot of training is required to determine what is legal or not legal. This is what I gathered from these three links you supplied:

      About 25 demonstrators occupied the Citibank branch with the intent to disrupt the bank’s legitimate business activities. The costumes and disguises that concealed their identities refute the transparent claim they were just trying to close their accounts. One demonstrator had a telephone number written on his forearm, so he knew in advance he would be arrested.  The “innocent” bystander outside had been inside the bank with the demonstrators, was arrested outside acting as a liaison for those inside, and she wouldn’t have been carried into the branch had she followed the order of the police officer who obviously had probable cause in his favor. She refused to take responsibility for her participation in the disturbance by pretending to be a customer. Whether the methods used were legal or illegal is not for me to say.  That’s the role of the judiciary and not web site editors like Gordon Duff. 

      I am sympathetic with the objectives of OWS but dislike the hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric found in the Veterans Today article. “Illegal force was used, illegal arrest powers were used, bank security committed numerous felonies at the request of bank officials, including but not limited to illegal arrest and detention, kidnapping, assault, and a litany of civil crimes.” All of these allegations, and scores of others in the article, are declared “illegal” and "criminal” in print before they are even aired in a courtroom. To me, that just encourages anarchy.

      Thanks a lot for your slant, Modern.  I hope all is well with you these days.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Normally, Q, I agree with many of the things you say. But, people should have the right to move their money. I'm going to post a link below, 3rd video. The people involved did walk into the bank as protesters with handheld signs. But, there are so many other ways that this could have been dealt with by the bank in question. In this instance, the bank did not call the cops, even though they threatened, the protesters did. And, it appears, I'm not saying this is concrete evidence, that the bank was not within their rights.

        http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-banks-r … ounts.html

        1. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nice to see you again, Hollie.

          We agree! People should (and they do!) have the right to move their money. I fully support the “Move your money” campaign. I’m currently researching local credit unions as my own way of saying “Banks to big to fail are too big to exist.” Unfortunately, banks don’t rely on retail level checking and savings activities for the bulk of their income, so even if the intent is good, the strategy is likely to fail.
          I fail to see how this applies to this event. Clearly, their intent was to disrupt a legitimate business activity. You don’t bring along 2 dozen people, some in disguises to conceal their identities, if you just want to close your account at a local branch. This appears to be thinly veiled and counter-productive excuse.

          I expect the OWS movement will also fail if it doesn’t articulate a streamlined roster of objectives and define what constitutes victory.
             
          Be well, Hollie.  You and your moderate voice is refreshing.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Who says CitiBank is a legitimate business? It's a criminal enterprise. It's caused more problems than any other bank for years. It's paid billions in fines to settle charges of all kinds of fraudulent misconduct, of course, without admitting nor denying guilt. For years it's been the worse actor of all the big Wall Street banks.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I understand your point, Ralph, but I was referring to the demonstrators' intent to disrupt a legitimate business activity. I think you are trying to focus our attention on other Citibank activities you consider illegitimate.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Fair point. I don't disagree. After a couple of bad experiences I would never have anything to do with CitiBank. Under Sandy Weill's predecessor, Walter Wriston, the bank sent several Latin American countries and the bank into a tailspin if my memory serves. Sandy Weill was a slippery character. Some refer to him as the "original bankster" or a dime store JP Morgan. He bribed my alma mater's medical school to change its name to the Sanford Weill Cornell Medical School.

                1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hello Q, thank you for commenting I enjoy your insight on these matters.Everyone has their point of view and I no longer think that America is the "Land of Milk and Honey" and everything is as it seems at first glance. I re-watched the Video and I have a few questions that most likely wont be answered until this matter hits a courtroom. First the thug picking up the woman outside went too far, period. That is not the way a person is arrested.She should of been cuffed and read her rights then and there . Would this heavy handed action be OK if this was your wife or daughter?Please don't use the "My family members would not behave in that manner" because being in the wrong place at the wrong time may happen to anyone. I saw no badge on that person and I did not hear that person identify themselves as NYPD.Secondly did the protesters Damage the bank? Did they rob the bank? Why were they not ushered out?They seemed to be detained in the lobby and not ushered out. As far as disrupting a business,when is this a crime that is reason for immediate arrest? To go on the record I would prefer the world and our country to be a better place. Financial fraud and political corruption are well documented and go unpunished,so until some sort of reform is ushered in I will continue to stand by my perception of "Business as Usual" and who is actually in control of our lives whether we like it or not. Thanks

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this


                    Good Afternoon, Modern.

                    Your concerns are well founded and you have done a fine job expressing your feelings.  I agree that your questions must be resolved in court.  Our independent and differing interpretations of the recorded events support something I learned many years ago. The judge who officiated at the “Son of Sam” trial in NY told me awhile back that eyewitness testimony is legally weighed as the least reliable of all forms of permissible evidence.

                    Imagining my wife or daughter in the video would only introduce a bias in my understanding of what I’m seeing. I would prefer to see the images often enough to arrive at an objective and not overly emotional interpretation.
                    Law enforcement officers are trained to take control in every official encounter and they are coached on how to thwart attempts to undermine that control. Verbally defending our legal rights is not an acceptable reason for not following the instructions of a police officer performing his duty. I observed the woman’s gentleman companion in the suit trying to move the lady away from the officer instructing her to go inside. Did you notice that his actions actually triggered the events that followed?
                    Nor did I. But he was in the company of and assisted by uniformed officers. That tells me something about his role that was not captured in the sound track. Did you happen to see a badge hanging from the belt around his waist?  Neither did I but let’s not assume he wasn’t identified as a police officer.  So I agree that he was heavy handed and impolite but I would never refer to him as a “thug”.
                    I saw nothing in the video to suggest the protestors damaged or robbed bank property. Likewise, it’s not hard for me to accept that bank tellers and security personnel get nervous when they’re invaded by strangers dressed in a manner that conceals their identify. I’ve never worked with large amounts of cash and I’ve never been robbed at gunpoint. Have you?  Nor is it difficult for me to concede that one protestor could have been ushered out but 25 might require some outside help.  In addition, willfully disrupting a legitimate business activity is a criminal act.  I think most Americans are aware, although not all are overly concerned as yet, that their liberties and freedoms are slipping away. I totally agree we are no longer in total control of our lives and futures and maybe we never were.  In reality, life is not fair, never was fair, and may never be so in the future. But, like you, I don’t consider this a good reason not to try to make the world a better place in which to live.

                    You are a good man, Modern, and I respect you for that.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Q,

            I appreciate your comments, I always do smile I know there is some ambiguity with regards the footage and the woman being dragged into the bank. We didn't, at least at the time, know what had preceded the event. That's why I posted the other link though, the camera is rolling from the start (although admittedly there is a point where the protesters claim to be locked in the bank and we can't see if that's the case)

            I do think though that this footage shows another side to the protesters and indeed the police, who, from my perspective at least, handled the situation very well, and with a lot of honesty (they admitted they weren't 100% sure of the legality of what the bank had done and could never be accused of being heavy handed )

            The protesters in the film state that they would try to move their money the following day and leave their signs outside. I hope that, in some respects, the protesters realize that their are better ways for them to handle the situation also. Objective reporting is the key here, I think, sensationalism and distortion will not further the cause. Like you, Q, I support this cause and have also moved my money. I think the OWS, like the OWSLSX, is in it's infancy and will not find immediate success. But, like all babies will grow, develop and eventually find it's bearings.

            Let's keep trying. +) Hollie.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      1) Citibank DOES have the right to arrest people interfering with their business.

      2) Why didn't the people start rioting then and there?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The police didn't think so. When people try to close their accounts and withdraw their money, is this not their right? Is that interfering with business? Good question, why didn't people start rioting there and then, is it because they were peaceful protesters?

  2. MikeNV profile image72
    MikeNVposted 5 years ago

    25 people standing in line at a Bank in NYC is NOT a run on the Bank.

    Isn't it amazing that we live in a country where these types of stories only make "Internet News".

    I wonder why the Banker Owned Media wouldn't want this to go National.

  3. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago
    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Didn't know, sorry.

  4. Repairguy47 profile image61
    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago

    Another thread about the occupy space clowns who screwed with the business of a bank and were schooled by the police? Have fun.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Schooled by the police. You have fun.

 
working