Occupy Wall Street

[Stardreamer]

Then please explain the CUSTOMER that was OUTSIDE that had just closed her bank account being FORCEFULLY DRAGGED BACK INSIDE.

If you want me to speculate, I suspect the reasoning is she was still on bank property and part of the disturbance. She is clearly with the group and interacting with them through the window.

Again, I can't say if arresting the group was the right action or not but the group clearly intended to cause a disturbance and this video tells us nothing about what went on inside the bank once they were asked to leave.

We not talking about a group of customers peacefully going about their business here but a protest action intended to cause a disruption. As far as we know getting arrested may have been their intention.

 

[White Eagle]

My bank is a Texas bank. Get away from national banks!!

 

[IokuA47]

If you want me to speculate, I suspect the reasoning is she was still on bank property and part of the disturbance. She is clearly with the group and interacting with them through the window.

Again, I can't say if arresting the group was the right action or not but the group clearly intended to cause a disturbance and this video tells us nothing about what went on inside the bank once they were asked to leave.

We not talking about a group of customers peacefully going about their business here but a protest action intended to cause a disruption. As far as we know getting arrested may have been their intention.

Seriously? These people were acting as customers going to close their bank accounts. By your claim that she was on bank property, should not the four other people with her be dragged in to? So now, any time I am in a bank parking lot, I can be arrested for causing a disturbance?

Why won't you wake up and realize, this country is not run for the people, by the people anymore... instead it's run for the corporations, by the corporations.

 

[Stardreamer]

Seriously? These people were acting as customers going to close their bank accounts. By your claim that she was on bank property, should not the four other people with her be dragged in to? So now, any time I am in a bank parking lot, I can be arrested for causing a disturbance?

Why won't you wake up and realize, this country is not run for the people, by the people anymore... instead it's run for the corporations, by the corporations.

If you enter a private business, start causing a disturbance, are asked to leave and refuse you are guilty from that moment on of trespassing. The fact that you did a transaction before then does not change that.

I think the woman outside was actually charged with creating a public disturbance (civil misdemeanor) and resisting arrest. Why the others with her were not arrested (they may have been and we just didn't see it) I can't say.

 

[IokuA47]

were all 20+ people there to close their accounts?

the couple articles that I read only mentioned 2 (and implied that the rest were just there tagging along)

Well if as you suggested then:

1) They would have already given their numbers to people on the outside (names/birth dates) so when they got arrested legal would get them out (instead, no one planned on getting arrested).

2) Then why are they arresting the CUSTOMER who already was outside?

3) The doors were locked. They COULD NOT LEAVE. Security and police wouldn't let them.

Have any more "suggestions" as to what really happened? Or perhaps, you can watch the video and see for yourself and go to the source and see what people are saying, and not the media who are owned by the 1%

Next.

 

[IokuA47]

If you enter a private business, start causing a disturbance, are asked to leave and refuse you are guilty from that moment on of trespassing. The fact that you did a transaction before then does not change that.

I think the woman outside was actually charged with creating a public disturbance (civil misdemeanor) and resisting arrest. Why the others with her were not arrested (they may have been and we just didn't see it) I can't say.

Public disturbance = talking to someone...

Resisting arrest = she wasn't even told she was being arrested.

OK GOT IT.

 

[White Eagle]

Well if as you suggested then:

1) They would have already given their numbers to people on the outside (names/birth dates) so when they got arrested legal would get them out (instead, no one planned on getting arrested).

2) Then why are they arresting the CUSTOMER who already was outside?

3) The doors were locked. They COULD NOT LEAVE. Security and police wouldn't let them.

Have any more "suggestions" as to what really happened? Or perhaps, you can watch the video and see for yourself and go to the source and see what people are saying, and not the media who are owned by the 1%

Next.

Aren't you glad we have people on the forum that knows everything?

 

[Stardreamer]

Well if as you suggested then:

1) They would have already given their numbers to people on the outside (names/birth dates) so when they got arrested legal would get them out (instead, no one planned on getting arrested).

2) Then why are they arresting the CUSTOMER who already was outside?

3) The doors were locked. They COULD NOT LEAVE. Security and police wouldn't let them.

Have any more "suggestions" as to what really happened? Or perhaps, you can watch the video and see for yourself and go to the source and see what people are saying, and not the media who are owned by the 1%

Next.

The Wall Street Journal says that the people outside not just the one woman were arrested, they were charged with Disorderly Conduct and resisting arrest.

None of the stories mentioned the doors being locked but once the police detains someone not being able to leave is a consequence.

Some counter questions:
1. If the protesters were not expecting trouble why were they filming the event? 20 people closing a bank account is not exactly high drama and the action could have been easily covered in a press release from the OWC folks.

I would say from the immediate action from the woman outside, that arrest was not the primary intention but was a planned for eventuality. They meant to cause a disturbance at the bank with the intent of sending a message, so its rather simplistic to say they were simply customers minding their own business. AGAIN we have no idea what went on inside the bank. The video shows us nothing but the arrest, not what occurred before hand.

I'm not for or against the protestors, the bank or the police here, I'm simply trying to keep a honest perspective on the situation. If the main stream new sources in NY and nationally are not reliable sources then what should I be going by?

 

[IokuA47]

OK... so you question the fact that there were 20 citi customers... do you not realize this was a planned event? This has been in planning for weeks to close your bank accounts today.

Also, do you not realize there are 50,000 people protesting in NY alone right now?

And finally, to deny the fact that this is clearly abuses of power, is to take the side of the corruption that is running this country.

Oh, the reason for the videos? There are how many already video documented cases from the protests of police brutality? Please, wake up and smell the roses... stop remaining blind.

 

[Stardreamer]

OK... so you question the fact that there were 20 citi customers... do you not realize this was a planned event? This has been in planning for weeks to close your bank accounts today.

Question? it is my point. This was not JUST 20 customers engaged in a simple transaction. You seem to be the one who doesn't realize it was a planned event and that sometimes such events get out of hand.

Also, do you not realize there are 50,000 people protesting in NY alone right now?

I realize that, the question is do you?

And finally, to deny the fact that this is clearly abuses of power, is to take the side of the corruption that is running this country.

Oh, the reason for the videos? There are how many already video documented cases from the protests of police brutality? Please, wake up and smell the roses... stop remaining blind.

I would not call being aware that there is TWO sides to every story being blind. I would call assuming that one side's version of the story is automatically correct simply because you favor their cause being blind.

I have done nothing more or less than point out that the police MAY have had a perfectly legitimate reason for arresting these people and that the persons involved MAY have provoked the situation. Until we know more about what actually happened in the bank we can't say for sure.

 

[Stardreamer]

Criminal Trespass: A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person.

So the first question we need answered is were they asked to leave and did they refuse to do so. Whether they were customers of the bank is irrelevant to that point.

Second many reports indicate that police were monitoring this and other groups who left the main group, did they interfere and provoke the situation?

Why were they asked to leave? I rather imagine standing in line at the teller window was not the reason.

Until we have the answer to these and few other questions, we can't say for sure if this was a legitimate arrest or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you want me to speculate, I suspect the reasoning is she was still on bank property and part of the disturbance. She is clearly with the group and interacting with them through the window.

What disturbance? This is pure speculation!

Again, I can't say if arresting the group was the right action or not but the group clearly intended to cause a disturbance and this video tells us nothing about what went on inside the bank once they were asked to leave.

What disturbance?

We not talking about a group of customers peacefully going about their business here but a protest action intended to cause a disruption. As far as we know getting arrested may have been their intention.

What disruption?

So far you're making stuff up. I haven't seen any evidence that there was any disturbance. Withdrawing funds and closing their accounts WAS the protest.

If you enter a private business, start causing a disturbance, are asked to leave and refuse you are guilty from that moment on of trespassing. The fact that you did a transaction before then does not change that.

I think the woman outside was actually charged with creating a public disturbance (civil misdemeanor) and resisting arrest. Why the others with her were not arrested (they may have been and we just didn't see it) I can't say.

Again -- what disturbance?

Public disturbance = talking to someone...

Resisting arrest = she wasn't even told she was being arrested.

OK GOT IT.

Yeah. She was dragged back inside by some goons who didn't even identify themselves as police. They should be charged with assault.

Some counter questions:
1. If the protesters were not expecting trouble why were they filming the event? 20 people closing a bank account is not exactly high drama and the action could have been easily covered in a press release from the OWC folks.

They were filming it to record it. What's so hard to understand? People filmed Tea Party rallies-- were they expecting trouble? People film picnics in the park -- are they expecting trouble?

I would say from the immediate action from the woman outside, that arrest was not the primary intention but was a planned for eventuality. They meant to cause a disturbance at the bank with the intent of sending a message, so its rather simplistic to say they were simply customers minding their own business. AGAIN we have no idea what went on inside the bank. The video shows us nothing but the arrest, not what occurred before hand.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

 

[Stardreamer]

What disturbance? This is pure speculation!

So far you're making stuff up. I haven't seen any evidence that there was any disturbance. Withdrawing funds and closing their accounts WAS the protest.

Of course its speculation if I knew the answer to the questions there wouldn't be the doubt but the news accounts all agree that the protestors were asked to leave and failing to do so opened the door for them to be arrested for trespass. What may have happened that resulted in the manager asking them to leave hasn't been reported so we don't know that that is. I rather doubt is because they were quietly standing in line. The police were monitoring them so harassment is a distinct possibility and I'm NOT ignoring that but something prompted the request to leave. What was it?

They were filming it to record it. What's so hard to understand? People filmed Tea Party rallies-- were they expecting trouble? People film picnics in the park -- are they expecting trouble?

Do you often film going to the bank? From outside the bank?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with any of the sentiments here about the police's actions, I am generally libertarian in my viewpoint and support free speech. But before I just ASSUME that these folks were just quietly standing in line and the police started rounding them up, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. This was one of many of these bank protests done on the same day according to the news story why did just this one result in a mass arrest? Did the police over react or did the protestors do something that caused a problem? It all boils down to why were they asked to leave?

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you often film going to the bank? From outside the bank?

If I were with a group of people all closing accounts to make a statement and set an example for the world, absolutely I would.

I suspect that the "disturbance" was that each person announced to the teller why he or she was closing out his or her accounts.

 

[Stardreamer]

If I were with a group of people all closing accounts to make a statement and set an example for the world, absolutely I would.

I suspect that the "disturbance" was that each person announced to the teller why he or she was closing out his or her accounts.

That could be all it was and the manager not wanting a 'protest' in his bank asked them to leave.

 

[Stardreamer]

That could be all it was and the manager not wanting a 'protest' in his bank asked them to leave.

In fact on reflection that probably makes sense, the police who were already following the group arrived far faster than any one anticipated and the situation escalated from there.

 

[Knucklehead]

I don't believe he even went down to the park where the protesters were. He just made it up.

Of course he didn't.That's just some more of the lies being spread by right wingers..

I,however did go to Zuccotti park and found the area to be pretty well maintained,especially considering how many people are there.Hell,the kitchen alone serves over 2,000 meals a day..

 

[Kulindahr]

In fact on reflection that probably makes sense, the police who were already following the group arrived far faster than any one anticipated and the situation escalated from there.

Considering that cops get points for making arrests....

 

[Stardreamer]

Staff at Citibank near Washington Square Park called police "very disruptive" protesters "refused to leave after being repeatedly asked," the bank said.

"The police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed."

BBC News

The protestors were apparently asked to leave, more than once. So they were open to trespass charges.

 

[JB3]

No, they don't -- it's part of the code under which they built the adjoining development. The city requires every developer to include a certain amount of green space, and it has to be completely open to the public 24/7.

It's like a situation here in Oregon: all the beaches were made public, except three stretches which were owned by NfP outfits. They own that beach, and they can set certain rules, but the public has to have access 24/7.

They do, as a matter of fact. The only stipulation is that the park has to be open, but the owners can write and enforce any regulations they choose. That includes removing people they don't want in the park.