:confused: Please excuse my overwhelming ignorance, but I don't get it. What the hell is going on? Why are people being arrested, and who cares if there are 25 people in the bank? :right: I'm completely lost. Sorry.
Interesting. As you may or may not know, I don't watch or read the news, so this whole protest thing is an unknown thing to moi. :shrug:Anyway, thank you for clarification. I think I'll just continue to remain in the dark from now on. 😀
Part of the Occupy Wall Street… protest, Karen. Those people were being arrested for closing their bank accounts with Citibank.
What confused me is that those uniformed men do not appear to be NYPD, which suggests that they were merely security guards. If that's the case, then surely their actions are totally illegal? :confused: .Further more, the way that man grabbed that woman and dragged her into the building cannot be legal in any democratic country! :insane: . She wasn't resisting, so he had no legal right to touch her. If he was a security guard, then he was obliged to leave that to a female security guard in the event that such action became necessary. A make security male security guard is not even allowed to search a female's bags and vice-versa, let alone man handle her that way. :irked: .
Even if those civilians are police officers, they would need to show the ID before doing anything :left:
I'm pretty sure they're bank guards. That entire arrest scenerio was illegal. But this is exactly what the protestors wanted. To get on the news. These f*cking banks were bailed out at taxpayer expense. Now they won't loan and keep raising fees and totaling screwing over people. All while the wall street investors profit margins keep increasing.Now, they're arresting people for closing their own bank accounts. They might want to say this is merely a recession. But i've never seen a recession last for 10 years.No, histories going to remember this as the second great depression! :furious:
Nope, badkitty, history's going to remember this as one of two scenarios:1) The day the banks took over officially and enslaved the people.or2) The day (well, time, really) the banks attempted to take the government and the people hostage and failed. I very much support OWS.Ya'll may want to check out I'm not moving. Either on youtube (first link) or on my blog.I think it's ridiculous the banks were bailed out; they failed as a business and should have been allowed to fall as any other business. It would've hurt, but perhaps someone would've learnt something. But hey, Goldman Sachs already ruled the world.
Yep, thats free market economy. Sink or swim! It would of hurt like hell if the banks went down. But i bet we would have pulled out of it and be back on our feet by now. Instead we keep putting bandaids on an apputation and hoping the bleeding will stop!:mad:
Yep, better to put the amputation on glowing hot coals for 20 minutes… :)OUCH!Gone.
Detectives and upper echelon police have been doing more than their fair share of detentions and arrests, for what reason I do not know. Probably because a suit blends in better. So any one of those 'suits' could have been policemen. If a man occosted you on the street and id'd himself as a police officer, told you you were under arrest for trying to liberate your own money from a bank, wouldn't you react the same way that woman did?
Ah! Here's the story in print: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/17-1
Originally posted by Furie:
After all, events like this are when the idiots come out and take advantage of the chaos to cause trouble.
You have a fair point there.
Without showing anything that was actually going on in the bank during the protest, we've only got their word that they were closing their bank account and not doing anything disruptive (the news story says they refused to leave). It's obvious that whatever happened there was pretty much over by the time they started filming and that the police had been called and were on there way (the news story indicates that the bank was told to close the bank). For that news story to put that video up as evidence nothing had happened is simply attempting to skew public opinion.They were over-zealous in trying to take the protesters outside inside as well, but we simply don't know what happened before that video started up and to assume she was innocent of anything is naive until we've seen the security cameras from inside the building. For all we know she committed a real crime in there and the security were scared they'd lose her in the crowd. After all, events like this are when the idiots come out and take advantage of the chaos to cause trouble.
To bad its usually the guys in uniform that are the idiots!
The protestors were wrong in how they handled this. There is footage on YouTube showing the protestors lecturing the bank staff. Various other reports about this incident indicate that the doors were locked preventing the protestors from leaving. (there are plenty of articles covering this story on the Internet)Regardless though, security guards do not have the authority to 'arrest' people off the streets nor does the bank have the legal right to detain people and prevent them from leaving the premises when the only 'crime' they've committed is trespassing. (a charge that won't stick since the people being charged for 'trespassing' were prevented from leaving any way)And a male security guard is not legaly entitled to touch a female member of the public, even if she is a suspect.)
Originally posted by badkitty1967:
A biased point of view there. It's not usually any one sort of person that is an idiot. I've seen grandmas vandalising phoneboxes and guys in suits leaving dirty needles in toilets that kids use. On the contrary I've seen a homeless guy give a crying girl twenty pence for a phone call and a small, leather-bound brick wall help an elderly woman across the road. I've met coppers who would beat the living hell out someone for kicks and others who would help anyone they could, on or off duty, no matter the cost to their own well being.Judging people and putting them into behavioural groups based on their vocation or look reflects more on you than it does on them, in the long run as people are individuals and no-one will ever fit those groups.
:up: .Well said Mik. (and thanks for reminding us of that. 😮 )
Of course, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover…
Yes to both questions. I've known people from that area and the accent is that thick but he's blatantly drunk and trying desperately to remember why he's been told to hate as well.That lot were on a march against pretty much everything that wasn't a racist asshole and the police blocked their march and directed them into a place away from the people they were out to attack. They ended up fighting each other in the end, showing what they were after.
MIK was he drunk? Or was his accent really that thick? I had to listen to it twice to make sure i understood what he was saying.
Yeah, just stewing for a fight. I quess asshole is universal.
Then there's instant assholes, just add alcohol… :whistle: Though, I don't think he'd sound much more coherent if he was sober. *hic* :drunk: :p
Originally posted by qlue:
And a male security guard is not legaly entitled to touch a female member of the public, even if she is a suspect.)
Here there have been many male security guards touching females to arrest them. They just can't "pat" them down.
A security guard has the same powers of arrest as any other member of the public.So, inside the bank, the security guard has the same authority to arrest a suspect as the bank manager has. And outside the bank, the security guard has the power to arrest a suspect that is leaving the bank only if there is reasonably suspicion that the suspect has just committed a crime. (like when a shoplifter walks out without paying for example)The most he was entitled to do was to put his hand on her arm or shoulder and say, "I'm arresting you for xyz."Only if she resisted or became violent would he have been entitled to take further action. :left: .Of course, he'd better be damned sure that whatever "xyz" is, that he;a. Has reasonable suspicion that she is guilty.b. That it is within his authority to arrest someone for it.In the case of 'trespassing', things are a bit complicated when the premises are publicly accessible. (virtually any business)He must first ask her to leave. Should she refuse, he must then contact the Police, and they must come and execute the arrest. The moment he prevents her from leaving, the charge of trespassing is no longer valid. If there is no other charge against her, then he is guilty of 'wrongfull arrest'. However, since he is not a police officer, the charge becomes kidnapping, which is a Federal offence in America.Of course, there might be some differences in American law, but to my knowledge the right to freedom of movement is included in the American constitution. And any good lawyer can make the argument for kidnapping based on that. 🙄 .
That's new to me.
Aidil thats abit of a stretch. But a case could be made for it. I'm praying for the Iraq war veteran who had his skull cracked by a over zealous police officer in an Occupy Protest elsewhere. He was a member of a group protesting the Iraq war.:mad:
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.