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

[Openmind]

"The Wall Street Journal has confirmed the arrests. According to their report, 24 people were arrested. The protesters who tried to close their accounts were asked to leave by CitiBank and when they refused, they were arrested for trespassing. Some were arrested outside the bank for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-str... /

See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdeuuzXS_sY

And this is a "free" country?

 

[BigRob]

"The Wall Street Journal has confirmed the arrests. According to their report, 24 people were arrested. The protesters who tried to close their accounts were asked to leave by CitiBank and when they refused, they were arrested for trespassing. Some were arrested outside the bank for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-str... /

See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdeuuzXS_sY

And this is a "free" country?

If this is indeed accurate, and all that occurred was people orderly attempting to close their accounts, and the bank refused to allow them to do so, then the bank needs to explain themselves.

If there is more to the story, (which is of course likely), then we need to hear more facts before making a judgement.

 

[PLC1]

"The Wall Street Journal has confirmed the arrests. According to their report, 24 people were arrested. The protesters who tried to close their accounts were asked to leave by CitiBank and when they refused, they were arrested for trespassing. Some were arrested outside the bank for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-str... /

See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdeuuzXS_sY

And this is a "free" country?

I don't see where your link to "Addicting Info" gives any info, addicted or not, about the Citibank story.

I'm really not a fan of Citibank, as they reneged on a credit card deal that they advertised for a Visa that had a cash back of 5% on everything. It was a good deal while it lasted.

But, I can't see Citi or any other bank refusing to allow customers to cancel their accounts. there has to be more to this story.

 

[dogtowner]

If this is indeed accurate, and all that occurred was people orderly attempting to close their accounts, and the bank refused to allow them to do so, then the bank needs to explain themselves.

If there is more to the story, (which is of course likely), then we need to hear more facts before making a judgement.

Only hit regarding this, no details

 

[dogtowner]

I don't see where your link to "Addicting Info" gives any info, addicted or not, about the Citibank story.

I'm really not a fan of Citibank, as they reneged on a credit card deal that they advertised for a Visa that had a cash back of 5% on everything. It was a good deal while it lasted.

But, I can't see Citi or any other bank refusing to allow customers to cancel their accounts. there has to be more to this story.

Citi is a terrible bank have been for as long as I can remember. Can't refuse to close accounts of course and if thats all there was to it they will regret it. If the protestors earned their request to leave, well they got what they deserved.

 

[Dr.Who]

"The Wall Street Journal has confirmed the arrests. According to their report, 24 people were arrested. The protesters who tried to close their accounts were asked to leave by CitiBank and when they refused, they were arrested for trespassing. Some were arrested outside the bank for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-str... /

See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdeuuzXS_sY

And this is a "free" country?

Your link doesnt seem to go to the article about the arrest at citibank. And since I dont watch videos that leaves your paragraph as the only thing for me to go on.

And in that one paragraph you say that some were arrested for disorderly conduct.

Isn't it more likely that no one was arrested for trying to close an account and that everyone who was arrested was arrested for disorderly conduct or resisting arrest?

Please give us more to go on. You owe it to yourself to prove to yourself that you are not a shill being taken advantage of by those who would tell you such "news"

 

[Dr.Who]

Here is a link from that trashy source:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...sted-for-closing-their-accounts-call-the-ceo/

After reading the actual story I can say that it does not give enough information to conclude that anyone at all was arrested FOR trying to close an account but that it does indicate that many were walking around with painted faces, holding protest signs, and had a sit-in inside the bank - all illegal. Only a few seemed to have been there to close accounts and most were not there to close accounts.


Open, you have been duped by the authors of this article.

 

[Openmind]

Here is a link from that trashy source:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/1...sted-for-closing-their-accounts-call-the-ceo/

After reading the actual story I can say that it does not give enough information to conclude that anyone at all was arrested FOR trying to close an account but that it does indicate that many were walking around with painted faces, holding protest signs, and had a sit-in inside the bank - all illegal. Only a few seemed to have been there to close accounts and most were not there to close accounts.


Open, you have been duped by the authors of this article.

I didn't know that walking in a bank with painted face and/or signs was cause for arrest.
I didn't know that coming to close your account with some friends in tow was cause for arrest.
I didn't know that keeping people from leaving your bank until the police came was a normal way to encourage them to leave.

Hufftington post:

Update 4:45 p.m.: The NYPD has announced that 24 people altogether were arrested at the Citibank incident earlier today. They were all charged with criminal trespass, while one was also charged with resisting arrest. Many of those protesters had gone to the bank to close their accounts.

Citibank official statement:

Citibank Statement Regarding Protester Arrests www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2011/111015a.htmYou +1'd this publicly. Undo
10 hours ago – Citibank Statement Regarding Protester Arrests. A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place, New York City, ...

QUOTE]

I would say that, at the least, this action was an overreach!

 

[BigRob]

I didn't know that walking in a bank with painted face and/or signs was cause for arrest.
I didn't know that coming to close your account with some friends in tow was cause for arrest.
I didn't know that keeping people from leaving your bank until the police came was a normal way to encourage them to leave.

From the Citi quote, that is hardly what actually occurred.

I would say that, at the least, this action was an overreach!

The Citi quote:
A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place, New York City, around 2 p.m. today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated.

Who is overreaching? Citi? For doing what the police told them to apparently?

 

[Openmind]

The Citi quote:
A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place, New York City, around 2 p.m. today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated.

Thank you for sharing, except that. ..I had provided a link to that exact "official statement" in my post also.

I do not "play games" with picking and choosing my sources. I offered both sources.

And I still think this was an overreach both by the bank and by the police.

What is amazing is the way protesters have managed to avoid violent confrontations all along (except for minor and isolated squabbles, which seem to have been provoked by some over zealous police officers)

 

[BigRob]

Thank you for sharing, except that. ..I had provided a link to that exact "official statement" in my post also.

I do not "play games" with picking and choosing my sources. I offered both sources.

You did provide the link...it didn't work however...which is why I posted the text.

And I still think this was an overreach both by the bank and by the police.

What is amazing is the way protesters have managed to avoid violent confrontations all along (except for minor and isolated squabbles, which seem to have been provoked by some over zealous police officers)

Why is that amazing? Is their default to rage in violent protest?

 

[Openmind]

You did provide the link...it didn't work however...which is why I posted the text.



Why is that amazing? Is their default to rage in violent protest?

Sorry about the link. When I post from my I-Pad, or when I try to copy and paste links from my I Pad, I often mess up.

But. ..

What "violent" protests?

In Italy, maybe. . .

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you for sharing, except that. ..I had provided a link to that exact "official statement" in my post also.

I do not "play games" with picking and choosing my sources. I offered both sources.

And I still think this was an overreach both by the bank and by the police.

What is amazing is the way protesters have managed to avoid violent confrontations all along (except for minor and isolated squabbles, which seem to have been provoked by some over zealous police officers)

You "played a game" in failing to quote anything from Citi that described the events in the branch.

 

[Openmind]

Another interesting development on this story.

Apparently, Citibank may have been following a "policy" that all major banks agreed upon (could be an "emergency plan" put in place specifically for this OWS occasion). Why do I think this might be the case?

I found this incident that happened in a MUCH smaller city with BANK of AMERICA as early as October 9th.

Two female customers went to their BofA branch in Santa Cruz, CA with ONE sign to close their account (no big crowd, no big noise, no painted faces).
They entered the bank with one other person who was filming them. They sat peacefully in the chair provided, and waited to see the manager. The manager arrived and ordered them to leave because, even after they stated they were there to close their account. The manager stated " you can't be both protesters and customers, and if you don't live right now, I'll call the police." After some (very mild) protests, and the offer to abandon the ONE sign they were carrying, (which was refused by the manager), they left the bank and called the police themselves. The policemen came back out of the bank and explained to the two women protesters that the bank had this new policy that they couldn't be served as customers if they were protesters. . .

Does that sound right to ANYONE? Is someone allowed to withdraw their money or close their account ONLY if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

I know that you, Doctor, do not like video. . .however, if you do not watch this one, do not come back with the argument that these customers were probably "disturbing the peace," because they were OBVIOUSLY not!

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

 

[dogtowner]

Another interesting development on this story.

Apparently, Citibank may have been following a "policy" that all major banks agreed upon (could be an "emergency plan" put in place specifically for this OWS occasion). Why do I think this might be the case?

I found this incident that happened in a MUCH smaller city with BANK of AMERICA as early as October 9th.

Two female customers went to their BofA branch in Santa Cruz, CA with ONE sign to close their account (no big crowd, no big noise, no painted faces).
They entered the bank with one other person who was filming them. They sat peacefully in the chair provided, and waited to see the manager. The manager arrived and ordered them to leave because, even after they stated they were there to close their account. The manager stated " you can't be both protesters and customers, and if you don't live right now, I'll call the police." After some (very mild) protests, and the offer to abandon the ONE sign they were carrying, (which was refused by the manager), they left the bank and called the police themselves. The policemen came back out of the bank and explained to the two women protesters that the bank had this new policy that they couldn't be served as customers if they were protesters. . .

Does that sound right to ANYONE? Is someone allowed to withdraw their money or close their account ONLY if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

I know that you, Doctor, do not like video. . .however, if you do not watch this one, do not come back with the argument that these customers were probably "disturbing the peace," because they were OBVIOUSLY not!

Had the account holder left the protestor and videographer out on the pubic sidewalk while she closed her account, no problem. But you do not get to protest or film on private property without prior permission. The video alone was grounds for arrest as its suspicious activity (think robbery).