99%er arrested for trying to close their account at Citibank!

[dogtowner]

When enough long term customers leave, that will make a statement that they can't ignore.

want to bet ?

there is little chance that a large enough number to register with them will leave (that haven't already). but the ones that DO leave will be doing so over the debit card fee. BofA really doesn't care. Not saying thats a good idea just how they roll.

And don't overrate their interest in personal checking. Little profit in it.

 

[dogtowner]

I am not sure we have that long.

And besides, I am a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And as such, I wish I could do something. Too bad I don't have a bank account in a large bank anymore. . .

Pretty happy with my credit union though!

you would have far more effect with a brokerage account change assuming that your 1%er status equates to a large one. just sayin...

 

[Openmind]

A former Marine Sergeant, Shamar Thomas confronted the NYPD about their violence toward the peaceful protesters.

Since so many "don't like videos," I will post the statement he made following that confrontation.
However, I will ALSO give the link to the video of the incident, because I believe it needs to be seen and heard.

Here is the statement:

I took an Oath that I live by. am NOT anti-NYPD. I am anti-Police Brutality. I am no longer under contract with the USMC so I do NOT have to follow military uniform regulations. I DON’T affiliate myself with ANY GROUPS or POLITICAL ORG. I affiliate myself with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that’s it. I REFUSE to affiliate with anything that SEPARATES. There is an obvious problem in the country and PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be allowed to PROTEST without Brutality. I was involved in a RIOT in Rutbah, Iraq 2004 and we did NOT treat the Iraqi citizens like they are treating the unarmed civilians in our OWN Country. No one was brutalized because our mission was to ‘WIN the hearts and minds.’ why should I expect anything less in my OWN Country.”

And here is the link to the video:

http://youtu.be/N9HvJhilJzo

 

[dogtowner]

A former Marine Sergeant, Shamar Thomas confronted the NYPD about their violence toward the peaceful protesters.

Since so many "don't like videos," I will post the statement he made following that confrontation.
However, I will ALSO give the link to the video of the incident, because I believe it needs to be seen and heard.

Here is the statement:



And here is the link to the video:

OK where's the police brutality ? all I see is the cops not arresting him for disturbing the peace. And I'm having no luck seeing what this has to do with the OP.

 

[Dr.Who]

Obviously I disagree. Since when did banks stop providing "service" to customers, and became doing "favors" to customers?

The banks never stopped providing a service. They just expect that people respect the private propety of the bank while they do it. Expecting a customer to not wage a protest in the lobby of the bank is no different than expecting them to wear a shirt and shoes while in the lobby of the bank.

Since when did the banks become able to refuse to give people THEIR OWN money. . .because they didnt' like the "attitude?"

Again ever since the beginning of commerce. People must behave in certain ways while on the property of others and can be kicked out for disobeying some basic rules.

Well, I don't like the new "attitude" of the big banks.

And, I already said that, OBVIOUSLY these women wanted to make a statement, they even SAID it clearly in the video: THEY WANTED TO SHOW the bank that their new policies of pushing customers around and charging them ever increasing fees to access their OWN money was not acceptable, and that they were "voting with their feet."

They are free to make their statements on public property or on their own property. just not on land owned by the banks.

I assume you would not let people into your home to protest. Right?


You sound like an "Uncle Tom."[/QUOTE]

I am not sure you know what that means.

"Uncle Tom is a derogatory term for a person who perceives themselves to be of low status, and is excessively subservient to perceived authority figures; particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people."

I respect legitimate authority but do not want to give gov the authority that it has not been given in the highest laws of the land. It appears that you do not respect the basic constitutinoal authority that says people own their own land and you want to give the gov even more authority over that land.

 

[Dr.Who]

If I had had an account at Citi, and wanted to close it, I would have just gone to the teller window, withdrawn all the cash in the form of a cashier's check, and taken it to another bank.

No cameras and no drama necessary.

You could have had yourself filmed going into the bank, coming out of the bank, and going into the other bank - all with commentary.

 

[PLC1]

want to bet ?

there is little chance that a large enough number to register with them will leave (that haven't already). but the ones that DO leave will be doing so over the debit card fee. BofA really doesn't care. Not saying thats a good idea just how they roll.

And don't overrate their interest in personal checking. Little profit in it.

Fair enough. If B of A doesn't need my business, then I don't need them either.

Which is a good thing, since I don't have an account there anyway.

Just don't use my tax dollars to bail them out when they start to get into trouble.

 

[dogtowner]

Fair enough. If B of A doesn't need my business, then I don't need them either.

Which is a good thing, since I don't have an account there anyway.

Just don't use my tax dollars to bail them out when they start to get into trouble.

amen to that

 

[Openmind]

The banks never stopped providing a service. They just expect that people respect the private propety of the bank while they do it. Expecting a customer to not wage a protest in the lobby of the bank is no different than expecting them to wear a shirt and shoes while in the lobby of the bank.

Free speech? As a customer, I expect to be able to speak my mind any place I choose, including the bank who holds my money.


Again ever since the beginning of commerce. People must behave in certain ways while on the property of others and can be kicked out for disobeying some basic rules.

If a commerce doesn't want you to enter without shoes and shirt. . .they have to post a sign on the door. The bank didn't have a sign on the door stating you couldn't enter with a video camera. . .or a sign!

They are free to make their statements on public property or on their own property. just not on land owned by the banks.

When people have a legitimate business in a commerce (or a bank,) they should be allowed to make whatever statement their right to free speech allows them to do.

I assume you would not let people into your home to protest. Right?

You do not know me very well!

You sound like an "Uncle Tom."

I am not sure you know what that means.

"Uncle Tom is a derogatory term for a person who perceives themselves to be of low status, and is excessively subservient to perceived authority figures; particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people."[/QUOTE]

I am well aware of the meaning of "Uncle Tom." I do not limit it to "black people," and I do not limit it to "low status" people. But the message "excessively subservient to perceived authority figures" is exactly what I met to convey! Although in this case, the "Perceived authority figures" are only perceived that way because of WEALTH!

I respect legitimate authority but do not want to give gov the authority that it has not been given in the highest laws of the land. It appears that you do not respect the basic constitutinoal authority that says people own their own land and you want to give the gov even more authority over that land.

But you seem to have no problem giving that authority to big business and corportations. . .who buy out the government!
I buy out to the principle that as members of a bank, with legitimate business in a specific bank, I have the right to enter that bank within business hours, with no guns and no violence, with the specific intent to enter into a legal transaction, and while reserving my right to express my opinion whether it be verbally or in writing!

And when ALL the big banks react the same way. . .this sounds a lot like "collusion" to me!

 

[Dr.Who]

Free speech? As a customer, I expect to be able to speak my mind any place I choose, including the bank who holds my money.

(undline added)

Could you go into the vault to conduct your business? Could you go into the vault after hours to conduct your business?

of course not, the property belongs to the bank and they get to decide where you get to go and hve the right to kick you out for a variety of reasons.

If a commerce doesn't want you to enter without shoes and shirt. . .they have to post a sign on the door. The bank didn't have a sign on the door stating you couldn't enter with a video camera. . .or a sign!

No they don't. But you can show me a link proving your case.

So when the sign says "no shoes, no shirt, no service" do you think that as long as your are wearing a shirt and shoes you can go into Red Lobster with no pants on?

When people have a legitimate business in a commerce (or a bank,) they should be allowed to make whatever statement their right to free speech allows them to do.

well then since burning a flag is speech lets just go burn a flag in a bank. Ridiculous.

You do not know me very well!

What's your address? I have flags. Do you have curtains?

But you seem to have no problem giving that authority to big business and corportations. . .who buy out the government!

You would be wrong about that.

I buy out to the principle that as members of a bank, with legitimate business in a specific bank, I have the right to enter that bank within business hours, with no guns and no violence, with the specific intent to enter into a legal transaction, and while reserving my right to express my opinion whether it be verbally or in writing!

that sounds fair enough. But once you bring in a video camera and start waving a sign around I can easily see how the manager would ask you to leave.

And when ALL the big banks react the same way. . .this sounds a lot like "collusion" to me!

Is that collusions illegal. Then the role of gov is to prosecute those banks.

 

[Openmind]

(undline added)

Could you go into the vault to conduct your business? Could you go into the vault after hours to conduct your business?

of course not, the property belongs to the bank and they get to decide where you get to go and hve the right to kick you out for a variety of reasons.



No they don't. But you can show me a link proving your case.

So when the sign says "no shoes, no shirt, no service" do you think that as long as your are wearing a shirt and shoes you can go into Red Lobster with no pants on?



well then since burning a flag is speech lets just go burn a flag in a bank. Ridiculous.


What's your address? I have flags. Do you have curtains?




You would be wrong about that.




that sounds fair enough. But once you bring in a video camera and start waving a sign around I can easily see how the manager would ask you to leave.


Is that collusions illegal. Then the role of gov is to prosecute those banks.

Obviously the exemple of "no pants" you gave are little more than a joke. . .and obviously, although if a store doesn't want you to bring dogs (except for service dogs) in their store, they will not say "no dogs, or lions, or snakes, or skonks!

But you are talking about "waving a sign." First, if you did watch the video, you will see that that sign was not being "waved around," but that the two customers sat in the chairs in the lobby, with the sign laying down. . .and that when they were told by the manager that they couldn't come in with a sign, they offered to surrender the sign or to put in out on the street.

And, about "forbidden signs," could a T-shirt with the same words written on it would have been cause for "eviction" without doing their business also?

These customers did NOT ask to go to the vault (although, if they had a safe deposit box, they would have been in their right to request to go to the vault), and they didn't try to enter the bank outside business hours.

Burning ANYTHING (whether it be a flag or a book, or a t-shirt) would have been a safety issue in ANY commerce, and would certainly have been cause for police (and fire department) involvement. .what does this have to do with "the price of tea in China" in this case?

By the way, and I do not know the answer to this, are you allowed to enter a bank while carrying a weapon in Texas, or Arizona? And if so. . .what do you think is ore likely to create havoc and to harm both the staff and other customers in a bank? A sign carried by two young women customers. . .or a loaded gun carried by someone who doesn't have the smart to konw that you don't go around town carrying a loaded gun?

Apparently this is the law in Texas.. . the restriction on carrying a concealed weapon does not seem to include banks, but includes the following places:

Senate Bill 60 also clearly provides that a license holder is not permitted to carry a concealed handgun in certain places. Section 46.03 of the Penal Code specifically prohibits the carrying of a handgun (or other prohibited weapon) in certain places. An offense under section 46.03 is a third degree felony. Penal Code § 46.03(g). Senate Bill 60 renumbers subsection (f) of section 46.03 as subsection (g) and inserts new language into subsection (f) providing that it is not a defense to prosecution under section 46.03 that the actor possessed a handgun and was licensed to carry a concealed handgun under article 4413(29ee). Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 229, § 3, 1995 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1998, 2013. Section 46.03 prohibits the carrying of a handgun

1.on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
2.on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;
3.in any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
4.on the premises of a racetrack; or
5.into a secured area of an airport. [Footnote added.]
Act of May 27, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 260, § 42, 1995 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2207, 2490. Thus, it is clear from Senate Bill 60 that a license holder is not permitted to carry a concealed handgun in the foregoing places.

In addition, Senate Bill 60 adds section 46.035 to the Penal Code. Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 229, § 4, 1995 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1998, 2013-14. Subsection (b) of section 46.035 provides that a license holder commits an offense if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of article 4413(29ee) in certain places. Such conduct is prohibited.

1.on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, or 69, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption;
2.on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
3.on the premises of a correctional facility;
4.on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
5.in an amusement park ; or
6.on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship. [Footnote added.]

I'm afraid I cannot agree that this bank manager acted appropriately in this case.

 

[dogtowner]

But you are talking about "waving a sign." First, if you did watch the video, you will see that that sign was not being "waved around," but that the two customers sat in the chairs in the lobby, with the sign laying down. . .and that when they were told by the manager that they couldn't come in with a sign, they offered to surrender the sign or to put in out on the street.

there was one customer, one sign holder and one videographer all obviously colluding to disturb the business of the bank.

 

[Dr.Who]

Obviously the exemple of "no pants" you gave are little more than a joke. . .and obviously, although if a store doesn't want you to bring dogs (except for service dogs) in their store, they will not say "no dogs, or lions, or snakes, or skonks!

But you are talking about "waving a sign." First, if you did watch the video, you will see that that sign was not being "waved around," but that the two customers sat in the chairs in the lobby, with the sign laying down. . .and that when they were told by the manager that they couldn't come in with a sign, they offered to surrender the sign or to put in out on the street.

And, about "forbidden signs," could a T-shirt with the same words written on it would have been cause for "eviction" without doing their business also?

These customers did NOT ask to go to the vault (although, if they had a safe deposit box, they would have been in their right to request to go to the vault), and they didn't try to enter the bank outside business hours.

Burning ANYTHING (whether it be a flag or a book, or a t-shirt) would have been a safety issue in ANY commerce, and would certainly have been cause for police (and fire department) involvement. .what does this have to do with "the price of tea in China" in this case?

By the way, and I do not know the answer to this, are you allowed to enter a bank while carrying a weapon in Texas, or Arizona? And if so. . .what do you think is ore likely to create havoc and to harm both the staff and other customers in a bank? A sign carried by two young women customers. . .or a loaded gun carried by someone who doesn't have the smart to konw that you don't go around town carrying a loaded gun?

Apparently this is the law in Texas.. . the restriction on carrying a concealed weapon does not seem to include banks, but includes the following places:



I'm afraid I cannot agree that this bank manager acted appropriately in this case.

It would appear that you admit there are restrictions on what people would be allowed to do: can't be pantless, cant be unsafe, can't go in after hours, can't go to the vault, etc. And there is no need for a posted sign saying that you can't be pantless or bring in a lion.

Now that we agree there are some restrictions the question is who decides what the restrictions are? Clearly it is not the people who would go in without pants that decide. It is the person who owns the property who decides. He might decide rightly or wrongly, but it is HIS decision alone.

In this case the manager decided that the protesters were not merely there to close an account - they had another agenda. an agenda that could interfere with the smooth operations of the bank. The manager was not only within his rights to kick them out but he was also right to kick them out.

 

[Openmind]

It would appear that you admit there are restrictions on what people would be allowed to do: can't be pantless, cant be unsafe, can't go in after hours, can't go to the vault, etc. And there is no need for a posted sign saying that you can't be pantless or bring in a lion.

Now that we agree there are some restrictions the question is who decides what the restrictions are? Clearly it is not the people who would go in without pants that decide. It is the person who owns the property who decides. He might decide rightly or wrongly, but it is HIS decision alone.

In this case the manager decided that the protesters were not merely there to close an account - they had another agenda. an agenda that could interfere with the smooth operations of the bank. The manager was not only within his rights to kick them out but he was also right to kick them out.

"interfere with the smooth operationso of the bank?" Did you WATCH that video? There was only ONE other customer in the bank, there was NO disturbance. Bad faith, that's all.

And, I didn't wait for you to tell me that access to the bank at night, or to the vault without having a safety deposit box was restricted. . .I actually mentionned that the "invasion" of the two female customer and their one sign happened DURING BUSINESS HOURS.

The ONLY thing that even clued the manager of the bank to those women's intention was their sign. And NO ONE answered my question about "how far can those "restrictions" on signs go? Would the same message written on a tee shirt worn by one of the girl have been ground to refuse to consider her as a "customer?"

 

[Openmind]

OK where's the police brutality ? all I see is the cops not arresting him for disturbing the peace. And I'm having no luck seeing what this has to do with the OP.

You want video of police brutality towards the Occupy Wall Street (like the NYPD cop who sprayed two young women with pepper spray . . .and got penalized for "not following guidelines" by loosing 10 days of his vacations?

Or do you want specific exemples of brutality towards the protesters that were witness by Sergeant Thomas on October 5, a few days BEFORE he confronted the policemen who were harrassing the protesters and thus prevented more police over reaching their role?

Funny how YOU have nothing to say about the words of Sergeant Thomas. . .

In fact, funny how NO ONE of the "righteous Right wingers" have anything to say about this video or (for those who "don't like" videos) the statement Sergeant Thomas made later!