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!
It is difficult to conclude anything from a video without some credible explanation as to what is happening in it and why.
I share Dr. Who's aversion to videos.