Protesters Arrested At Citibank For Making A Scene, Closing Their Accounts

Video shot around the ‘net this weekend of a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters at a New York City Citibank who were arrested after they entered the bank with placards, began holding an open forum inside the bank where they talked about how they were saddled with debt, and then tried to close their accounts. At one point a woman wearing a suit is forcibly arrested after telling the police several times, “I’m a customer.”

In a statement, Citibank said, “A large number of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place around 2:00 PM 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.”

Looks like it’s another one of those cases where the bank says you can’t be both a protester and a customer at the same time. While you have the right to public assembly in a public place, the same doesn’t hold true for a private business. It seems that as a tactical approach, the protesters are going to keep seeking non-violent ways to draw a circle around those who have the authority and those who don’t as a way to keep the interest high, and keep generating viral video footage.

The first video is the popular one showing the woman being arrested. The second one hasn’t gotten as many views and is of the speeches the protesters were making inside the bank before they were locked inside and arrested.

(Thanks to Mark!)

RELATED
Bank Of America: You Can’t Be A Protestor & Customer At Same Time

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. gatewaytoheaven says:

    Stop making a show of things. Close your accounts online. Avoid arrest.

    • gatewaytoheaven says:

      I should end it with: closing an account online for Citibank requires a document with your signature. Needs to be mailed. I tried faxing it, but they wouldn’t accept it.

      • cyberpenguin says:

        Since you can’t close it online or over the phone without a signature just go to the bank in person and close it… oh, wait…

        • atthec44 says:

          Believe it or not, this can be done without causing a disruption.

          Enter the bank and wait in line like everyone else. When it is your turn, explain to the teller that you would like to close your account. You can even explain why if it makes you feel better about doing something that doesn’t really matter to the teller anyways. Wait as the transaction is processed. Walk out of the bank when the transaction is complete.

          There’s no need to be a jackass about it.

          • PsychoRaven says:

            Exactly. Making a show about it does nothing but make you look like the idiot you are. If you don’t like it then act like a damn adult and close it and be done. Then go back to your protesting outside.

          • FrugalFreak says:

            But citibank doesn’t care if a handful closes accounts, the customers they have may if persuaded with a “community” message.. They want it done silently to keep public opinion in their favor. Doing it online doesn’t help protesters beat that strategy.

            This is to drive support more than just removing money.

            #occupiers are in the right IMO!

            • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

              You seem to miss the point. After you are done closing the account, then make all the noise you want. But being a jerk about it will likely not get the goal of what you went in there to do. Citibank can’t “silence you” after you close your account. You can stand out on the street with your cash in your hand and tell people how you just emptied your account out to your hearts content.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Or giving a check for the amount of your account to your new bank to open that account. As we have learned here on Consumerist, even when you close your account the right way, it’s never closed.

    • El_Fez says:

      Not making a show of it kind of undermines the whole protest thing, doesn’t it?

      • sirwired says:

        You can protest outside using the public sidewalk. If you want to protest inside a business, you are going to expect to be asked to leave, which is their right. If you don’t leave, you can certainly expect to be arrested.

        If a religious nut shows up on my doorstep screaming about what an evil person I am and I ask him to leave and he doesn’t, he’s going to get arrested too.

        • El_Fez says:

          Yeah, but if you have that religious nut’s property, and if he gets it back from you – and he’ll leave straight away once he DOES get it – then you should give it back to him, regardless of your personal feelings for that nut.

          • Legit Crypt says:

            Yea, I don’t think that analogy works. I don’t know if the bank “has” anything of the protestors besides wanting to get paid back for the money it loaned. I’m on the side of the protestors but that argument you just made doesn’t hold up.

          • SteveZim1017 says:

            unless the religious nut says he will only take his stuff back AFTER he is allowed to march around your home all night screaming at the top of his lungs about how evil you are.

    • Telekinesis123 says:

      The whole point of having a protest *is* to make as scene, doing at home is a sure fire way that no one notices. Sorry but I can’t help but say ….duh.

      • Jawaka says:

        Well then you pretty much just admitted that the entire point of what they’re doing is more so to cause a disruption than to simply close their accounts. They deserve to be arrested if they refuse to leave when asked IMO. Go protest on the sidewalk out front or whatever the legal boundary is.

    • TasteyCat says:

      I think I missed the part where people closed their accounts. All I saw was somebody get arrested and a bunch of people whining about how much money they were stupid enough to spend on college (which is Citibank’s fault, apparently).

    • Big Dave says:

      Go to the bank. Borrow some money. Use the money to buy a clue.

      The point IS to cause a commotion. The point IS to disrupt things. The point IS to get arrested, as this draws more attention to your protest.

  2. Cat says:

    “Neither a Protester or Customer Be”

  3. Unicorn-Chaser says:

    In before the My freedom of speach trumps your private property rights people.

  4. Firevine says:

    How about don’t make a scene, and just go close your account. You can protest without being a mob mentality attention whore.

    • umbriago says:

      I doubt video of people closing their bank accounts is going to go viral, but if they walked in with burning tires….well, maybe.

    • MeowMaximus says:

      Umm no. They had every right to make a scene. The BoA manager responsible needs to be prosecuted for false arrest and/or making false charges, and BoA needs to be sued for this ridiculous sutuation.

      • Jawaka says:

        The BoA associate didn’t arrest anyone, nor does he have the right to. It was the local police that arrested these attention whores. The BoA associate only called the police which was well within his right.

  5. Darrone says:

    The reason this one was so odd is that the protesters tried to exit peacefully and the police locked them in to make arrests, which seems counter productive to me. You’re arresting people for not leaving, and when they try to leave you prevent them from leaving so you can arrest them for not leaving? wait, what?

    • Scuba Steve says:

      The police don’t care if they were making a scene or not. They are on edge and aren’t putting up with anything that even remotely resembles disturbing the peace. These people were going to be arrested the moment they stepped inside the bank.

      The travesty is that the police don’t care if the cases get thrown out or not. You might be the rap, but you wont beat the ride. Police get kudos for doing something, and meet their monthly numbers.

      • oldwiz65 says:

        Most of the New York City cops are out and out thugs anyway. They just look for an opportunity to arrest people, and hope they resist so they have a good excuse for beating the crap out of them. And of course you can’t film it either – you get arrested for that too.

    • George4478 says:

      Why does that seem odd? They were trespassing and decided to stop trespassing when the cops arrived.

      “I was committing a crime and now that the police are here to arrest me, I’ll just leave.”

      It doesn’t work that way.

      • baltimoron says:

        Tresspassing? Really? Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think they got arrested for tresspassing.

        • eccsame says:

          yep, you’re wrong.

        • George4478 says:

          They were repeatedly asked to leave and repeatedly refused. That’s trespassing.

          From a local paper: “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.”

      • Darrone says:

        I’m sorry, are you under the mistaken impression that these “charges” will stick? They will be dismissed… Why? Because cops don’t understand the law. It’s going to be impossible to get Trespassing charges on a BANK CUSTOMER trespassing at their own bank, to stick, regardless of whether they were part of a protest. This is all a giant bureaucratic circle jerk that is just going to waste Police time and resources.

        • George4478 says:

          And you seem to be under the impression that the cops should have just opened the doors and let them out. “And you better not do this again, after learning this harsh lesson.”

          Trespassing charges can’t be brought against a disruptive person if they happen to be a customer? Really? If the cops don’t understand the law, as you claim, then the law must have this written somewhere. You have a citation for this legal loophole?

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            They can only say that in a strong Irish brogue.

            “Now scamper along home you kids you’re mudders probably worried herself sick over ya. And don’t let me see you protesting here ‘gain!”

          • Darrone says:

            I think you’re overlooking that fact that arresting these people, and booking them, is a giant waste of time and police resources, and if it went to a court, and a trial, it would be an even bigger waste of resources. This is why the DA will decline to prosecute, the same as 95% of the police “disorderly conduct” charges, which is the Police catchall for anyone that looks at them funny. The smart thing here would have been for the police to let them leave, instead of using 6 to 8 cops to give them a ride to booking, let them make bail, clog up up the police precinct, and waste everyones time.

        • eccsame says:

          When you are asked to leave private property and you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing – whether or not you’re a customer. There’s the law.

          If it wasn’t, I would never leave my favorite bar after last call.

          • humphrmi says:

            But that wasn’t Darrone’s point. Yes, the police can make arrests in this case, but the charges won’t stick. No judge is going to bother allowing a trial to go forward where the defendant was (1) a customer, and (2) trying to leave. They may have violated the law, but judges have heavy case loads and a pre-trial or bail judge will simply dismiss the charges so as to save the time of the trial judges for real problems.

            • jessjj347 says:

              It’s possible, though, that at some point charges will “stick” against one of these people just so that they can be made a scape goat. Basically to send a message to the rest of the people that are protesting…

            • stevenpdx says:

              More likely that the DA will decline to prosecute and will drop all charges before the arraignment is scheduled.

            • Derek Balling says:

              Why would a judge want to set a precedent that you can’t kick someone out of your place of business for being disruptive? Just because they decided to stop being disruptive when the po-po showed up?

              Nuh-uh, that’s not how it works, and no judge is going to let them skate on it either.

              The only way those punk-ass morons get off is if the DA decides it’s not worth their time to prosecute.

              • humphrmi says:

                I’m afraid that is how it works. I’ve spent plenty of time in courtrooms, judges don’t have time for these kinds of things.

        • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

          It remains to be seen how many were actually Citibank account holders.

      • poco says:

        So if I enter my bank to close my account and I’m told to leave, I just have to go and not close it? I’m stuck being a permanent customer of an institution I no longer want to do business with? Are you sure you want to support that position? I know Rush and O’Reilly told you that’s the way to see this, but I think you might want to reconsider.

        • wackydan says:

          You enter the bank to be intentionally disruptive, then you will be asked to leave. You are disrupting other legitimate business transactions, and other customers that are there to be serviced.

          You would deserve to be locked up. Get over it. This BS about wanting to close your accounts and having a right to regardless of your disruptive behavior while in the bank is nonsense.

          • Difdi says:

            There’s the potential for quite a scam here.

            What if the bank requires presenting ID in person to close an account? If they stop accepting mail or telephone communications? They could, citing security reasons. You could empty the account remotely, but then there’s the maintenance fees and overdrafts, collection agencies, lawsuits, etc.

            So you go into the bank, and discover they define quietly and politely closing an account as being disruptive to their business. And technically it is, since not having your money has an impact on their ability to do business.

            Suddenly, you have a choice. You can continue to do business with them no matter what they set their fees to…or you can get arrested and STILL have to do business with them.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      You’ve never seen A Bronx Tale, have you?

      Branch Manager: Now youse can’t leave.

      Teller: “I will never forget the look on their faces. All thirty of them. Their faces dropped. All their courage and strength was drained right from their thin vegan bodies. They had reputation for breaking up the establishment, but they knew that instant, they’d made a fatal mistake. This time they protested in the wrong bank.”

      • Round-Eye 外人はコンスマリッストが好きです。 says:

        I. LOVE. THIS. Thank you for making my morning.

    • Actionable Mango says:

      If I’m committing a crime and the police are called, the police have to let me go if I change my mind once they arrive?

      So I can try to rob a bank, but if the police show up, I just say “never mind” and it’s all good, they have to let me leave?

  6. TheHighlightGuy says:

    Is this the same camera person recording as yesterday? “THIS IS WRONG! THIS IS WRONG!!@#@!#$@” Jesus, stfu. Is it that difficult for people to be civil? Maybe I’m missing the point, but this seems immature (although I don’t agree with the officer grabbing and forcing that woman into the bank, that was a no-no).

    • SeattleSeven says:

      Agreed. I’m in full support of the protesters here.

      BUT! These videos would be so much more compelling if the camera-person and others weren’t screaming all the time.

      The police arresting a bunch of people in line at a bank because they were closing their accounts would be FANTASTIC footage. Whereas, the police arresting some people in the middle of what seems like an angry mob is not nearly as outrageous.

    • LandruBek says:

      Right, because “civil” has worked sooooooo well over the last eleven years.

      • Buckus says:

        Try “ever since Reagan introduced Reagaonomics aka ‘Trickle-Down’”

        • atthec44 says:

          How has Obama’s plan worked so far?

          • Philosoraptor says:

            Yeah, plus Obamanomics is so much more catchy than Reaganomics.

          • Kuri says:

            I dunno, how are the tax breaks for all those “job creators” working out?

          • LanMan04 says:

            Why don’t you read the CBO report and find out? The stimulus saved millions of jobs.

            http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/115631-cbo-stimulus-boosted-economy-by-up-to-45-percent-last-quarter

            “The Democrats’ stimulus raised economic growth by as much as 4.5 percent in the last quarter and may have increased the number of people with jobs by more than 3 million, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released Tuesday.”

            “It found that the stimulus package cut the jobless rate by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million last quarter. The stimulus also increased gross domestic product somewhere between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent for that period. “

            • RvLeshrac says:

              Don’t forget the part where Reaganomics doubled the national debt, and the Bush/Cheney tax cuts helped triple it.

              The last time we had a balanced budget was when Clinton refused to sign the budget until it was balanced. Funny how it takes a liberal to make the conservatives do what they supposedly stand for.

              This is much like the way they enjoy putting on their little flag lapel pins, standing in front of burning buildings, and talking about how America takes care of our own while refusing to authorise the necessary funds for first responders and disaster relief.

    • benson304 says:

      SHAME SHAME!!!!

      What do these people think yelling is going to accomplish? They aren’t going to embarrass the bank manager and police to change their minds.

      • rmorin says:

        More so, look at the people you are actually effecting. No, not the multi-millionaire bank president, but the manager/tellers that I’m sure would be considered “the 99%”.

        Step 1. Make your constituents day harder, turning people off to your cause
        Step 2. ???
        Step 3. Have everyone love OWS?

  7. Upthewazzu says:

    The only thing these people are accomplishing is making themselves out to be immature buffoons. Grow up and maybe we’ll allow you to sit at the adult table.

    • savvy9999 says:

      wait, are we talking about Wall Street Occupiers or Tea Partiers?

      although the latter seemed to have fallen off the radar, both at some point needed a time-out in the corner.

      • Upthewazzu says:

        Both make themselves look stupid, but the Occupiers seem to have a voyeuristic fetish. They put EVERYTHING on YouTube.

    • djudd says:

      Yes. Because defending 10 cops arresting a single female while being condescending is exactly how adults should act.

  8. Max Headroom says:

    Remember remember the 5th of November…

  9. Iroc says:

    The fact that so many people are upset, disgusted and critical of these protesters actions, tells me that what they are doing is working.

    • PHRoG says:

      Ding! All of these, “Do it quietly.” posts are hilarious. Uhm, helllooooo?

      That’s the point folks, to bring it to the attention of the masses. They’ve done a fantastic job thus far, even spurring movements in my itty bitty town.

      Keep it up folks!

      • dolemite says:

        I agree. Corporations and government need to know we aren’t happy, and we aren’t going to take it anymore. And if these companies fail again due to their ineptitude, just SEE what happens if you try and bail them out again with our tax dollars.

        • eccsame says:

          Just curious, what will happen next time?
          I imagine that the American people will complain and vote for the other corporate controlled party and then rinse repeat.

          Or is there some other “plan” that I haven’t heard about?

          • dolemite says:

            Nah, you aren’t quite following the vibe of our country. These protests are spreading. We are wise to the game now. Sure, they are peaceful now, but I’m actually amazed and proud the American people are standing up to big government and the status quo. Just look at how companies are laying off people, cutting wages, cutting benefits while reporting big profits and CEO and corporate pay goes up. Look at how they are raiding retirement funds for their investments, then reporting to employees “sorry, no money in the retirement fund now”. Look at unlimited campaign contributions to candidates…Boehner handing out contribution checks from tobacco on the floor right before a vote on tobacco…special interests and subsidies for profit making companies. Americans are learning. True, they’ve been willing to believe the whole “American Dream” spiel for the last 50 years. We are a country known for throwing out government and corruption. It’s just taken a bit longer this time.

            • eccsame says:

              Yeah, that’s what I thought. Not much of a plan.

              Let’s see who the American people elect in the 2012 election. I’m betting it’ll be another corporate puppet. Maybe even Ron Paul. He takes money from corporations like BP, after all.

              • dolemite says:

                That’s just it. The election won’t matter. We need to scrap the electoral college, scrap the 2 party system, scrap campaign contributions, corporate lobbying, etc. Honestly, I don’t care who wins the elections. Americans will suffer either way. One party will cut taxes on the rich, the other will increase spending for the poor…deficit will go up either way. Americans are going to have to totally reform their political system for any change. That’s why I am happy there are protestors. They realize merely going home and “voting for the next guy” isn’t cutting it anymore.

            • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

              When it comes down to it, virtually every incumbent will win reelection in 2012, and corporate-owned Obama may be replaced by corporate-owned Romney. The GOP will likely win a slightly larger majority in the House and potentially retake the Senate.

              Nothing will change. I’ve seen the exact same thing happen (sometimes with parties reversed) at least 6 times during my adult life. The long, steady decline continues along and Joe Schmo is just on the end of a very long human centipede.

              In the past week, Obama signed three new free trade pacts that will eliminate even more domestic manufacturing and middle class jobs. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

        I disagree. They’re getting attention, but it’s bad attention. Bad attention is very bad for protesters who have to rely on public support to survive. If the overall public view of them is negative, people won’t care when they’re forced out of whichever park they’re sitting in.

        • Darrone says:

          The overall public opinion of them as NOT turned negative. The majority of NYCers according to Quinn polls are showing support… So, something they are doing is working.

          • FrugalFreak says:

            Only negative from republicans and tea party people, They don’t want to share the outrage.

            They are the only ones that can be right /s

    • atthec44 says:

      ISure, they’re drawing attention to whatever their message is but they aren’t garnering any sympathy because of their boorish behavior.

    • Unicorn-Chaser says:

      By that logic the very people they are protesting would be doing something correct too.

    • rmorin says:

      No, no. Listening to that second video is down-right outrageous. She is 21 and in 120,000K worth of student loan debt?!?!? WTF!

      YOU decided to go to an insanely expensive private school (no instate public is coming anywhere close to her numbers). You are over 18 and in turn an adult, if you decide to take on that huge of a loan you better have great job prospects lined up, it is a risk you are taking. Do not blame this on the economy, no degree went from being in such epic high demand (enough warranting 120,000k in debt) to nothing in the past five years.

      You decided to take someone else’s money, make a very expensive and risky gamble with it, and now want someone else to pay for it?!? HOLY CRAP THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE PROTESTING AGAINST!

  10. AustinTXProgrammer says:

    So had the lady who claimed to just be a customer been protesting or not? If not, I really hope there is a wrongful arrest lawsuit.

    On the other hand, these occupy protests don’t really interest me.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      As long as the police were told she was a protester and they had no credible evidence to the contrary, then there would not be a wrongful arrest suit. But since some of the camera people in the 2nd video were wearing suits, I wonder if this lady was part and had the “I’m just a customer” as a back-up/cover story.

      • Difdi says:

        True, the police wouldn’t be liable. But the bank would be, as filing a false police report is defamation.

    • JennQPublic says:

      I want to know who the guy in the sweatshirt who grabs her is.

      If anyone besides a policeman puts his hands on me like that, I’ll rip his arm off and beat him to death with it. Security guards and bankers do not have a right to touch me.

  11. dourdan says:

    yesterday , out of nowhere i got a call from citibank asking the usual “do you still like us?” questions. ending with “on a scale of 1-10 how likely are you to continue using citibank.”

    i have had my accounts for over 12 years, i still like citibank, but i guess they were worried.

  12. KidRey says:

    C’mon, people jump to conclusions much? Being obnoxious certainly isn’t a crime. Would it have been so difficult for the police and security to announce; Anyone disturbing business while closing their accounts will be arrested? Full story needed to justify either side, but remember that we do live in America.

  13. Earl Butz says:

    Just be quiet, don’t cause a scene, be polite and don’t say anything. You’ll get the rights you deserve that way, every time.

  14. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    Be quiet. Consume. Move along. Obey.

  15. eosphotog says:

    In New York (as well as many other places) if you’re asked to leave, and refuse, you’re then criminally trespassing. The store owner (or property owner) can then detain you until you are arrested by police. They can even do so with force (short of deadly) which is what was seen in the video.

    Once you’ve crossed the line you can’t just leave and pretend it didn’t happen. Think of it as being detained because you were shoplifting. You don’t get to just hand the goods over and walk away!

    • Difdi says:

      This is a bit different than asking a shoplifter to leave.

      This would be more like a landlord demanding a tenant with a signed lease leave the building and not come back, all the while continuing to charge rent. Then calling the cops if the tenant comes into the building.

      The customers of a bank have the right to terminate their business relationship with the bank. They have the right to withdraw their money and close their accounts. Are they being noisy? Then let them close their accounts, at which time they will no longer have a legitimate reason to be present, and can be kicked out. Kicking out a customer for wanting to close an account, without allowing them to close their account is very likely a tort if not an actual crime.

  16. eccsame says:

    Arrested for trespassing. You can’t be arrested for closing a bank account.

    • Difdi says:

      If the bank decides to define peacefully and quietly trying to close an account as disruptive, and demands you leave the premises? Or cease contacting them if you did it by mail or over the phone?

      Yes, you really could be arrested for closing an account.

      • eccsame says:

        Sorry, what I meant to say was – these people were arrested for trespassing, not for closing their accounts.

  17. Graymalkin56 says:

    Here’s a tip for innocent bystanders: If you want to go to a bank, but there’s some sort of noisy protest going on outside or inside — find another branch.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Yeah because their rights to be emo douchebags outweigh your rights to go about your life. Really?

      • Difdi says:

        Your rights don’t trump theirs, just like theirs don’t trump yours. You consider them douchebags for exercising their rights as they see fit, but they’re hardly infringing on yours. After all, what right are you claiming they’re denying you? Care to cite a law or the Constitution where it’s listed?

        Of course, if the police have a tendency to grab everybody near a protest and rough them up, I’d say your complaint is against the cops, not their victims.

  18. vastrightwing says:

    Citi: Hello, how can I help you today?
    Me: I’d like to close my account.
    Citi: I’m sorry sir, but you are trespassing. Please leave before I call the police.

    • powdered beefmeat says:

      The right to refuse service is every business owner’s right.

      • Talmonis says:

        If said business owner is holding all of my money hostage, he’d better damn site give it to me before I do my absolute utmost to cause a bank run.

        • eccsame says:

          Then go home and close your account. Every bank has options for closing an account that don’t involve stepping foot in a bank.

      • alstein says:

        They have a right to refuse service, but you have a right to withdraw your funds that’s equally important. If they are refusing service due to this, call the police and ask the store manager to be arrested for theft.

        • atthec44 says:

          I’m not being sarcastic here, it’s a genuine question.

          What trumps what in this case? The law or the agreement between the bank and customer?

          • Round-Eye 外人はコンスマリッストが好きです。 says:

            In this instance, the law trumps as Citibank had already asked the protesters to leave – which the protesters refused to do – thus creating the trespassing infraction. The protesters” desire to close their accounts after the fact becomes a moot point as they were already trespassing by then. This isn’t a case of “I came in peacefully to close my account, Citibank said no and accused me of trespassing” even though some commenters here seem to think that’s what happened. It’s more like, “I came here to protest, then when they told me to GTFO, I said I was really here to close my account.”

      • El_Fez says:

        That’s fine – dont give me a loan, let me use the bathroom or talk to a teller – but you have my stuff. I’m not a customer – that’s my shit that you’re holding onto and I want it back.

      • LandruBek says:
    • Derek Balling says:

      Except, of course, that’s not how it went down – AT ALL – even according to the protestor’s own stories on the topic.

      They marched in, with signs, and shouting, and were asked to be quiet, and refused, and told to leave and they didn’t and THEN one of them decided to speak up about canceling their account.

      But once they were told to “leave”, any pretense they might’ve made for staying is largely irrelevant. The property holder has told you to leave, so you get the hell off their property or be subject to criminal trespass.

  19. Mike says:

    Is that Parker Posey?

  20. coren says:

    Ok,so maybe they have the people inside for trespassing (although I wonder if keeping them there is legal? No idea), but were any of the people dragging the girl inside police, or were they bank security and such? If the latter, I think they committed the more serious crime.

  21. Kestris says:

    Dear protesters- If you’re going to make a scene on privately owned property, you’re going to be arrested.
    Here’s a tip- close your accounts first, then make a scene out on the public sidewalk.

  22. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    I saw nothing on the inside video where anyone was trying to close an account.

  23. DustingWhale says:

    Boo-hoo. I’m pro OWS, but completely anti-wipe-out-student-debt. I went to state college, because it was the best my Family could afford. If you chose to rack up $120k debt, good for you, I hope you’re a doctor/lawyer/computer science major. If you chose to rack up that much debt for a liberal arts major, you’re an idiot.

    Singed a Communication major with zero college debt, because I went to state schools I could afford.

    I am all for increasing monies for state schools, so that in state students can pay ~5k a year (ie… cheap enough they can work part time and not leave with $20k of student debt).

    • smo0 says:

      Yeah but what kind of job do you have now?
      More prestigious college or university – better job.
      Its been drilled in for DECADES…. basically being an ivy league grad gets doors held open for you.

  24. Ashman says:

    I have a better Idea… Use closing your accounts as a form of protest…

  25. martyrd0m says:

    do these dumbasses realize how far in debt they are putting the city of new york? the overtime for the police? i mean jesus maybe if they all went to work instead of spending the last month protesting most of them wouldnt be in debt.

  26. Das G says:

    I find it amusing that they wouldn’t leave, but the moment the bank locked the doors they sure wanted to.

  27. Big Dave says:

    OK, so they got arrested, so you’re happy now, right?
    And, getting arrested got them more publicity for their cause, so they’re happy now, right?
    So it was win-win.
    I love America.