• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can't be a protestor and customer at the same time

I would think that the bank has the right to kick out protestors who are being disruptive on private property. That said, this is certainly problematic:

The bank manager actually said that: You cannot be a protester and a customer at the same time. She then locked in the protesters and threatened to call the police.
Click to expand...

As noted at C&L, there was another incident of that happening at a Citibank branch in NYC. I don't know on what authority the bank managers or security staff think they can detain people by locking them inside the building. That certainly strikes my not-a-lawyer mind as false imprisonment.
 
Strangely enough, people have gone to BOA branches without carrying signs and video cameras and putting on a show and were allowed to close their accounts without incident.

Come on, there's all kinds of ways this was wrong. You can't have random strangers coming and and filming transactions - whether it's an account closing or not.
 
Very true. A customer closing when protesting may regret in the morning.

So close your account when the morning comes.

But don't forget tomorrow it opens 30 minutes later for staff training.
 
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

 
Checkmite said:
Strangely enough, people have gone to BOA branches without carrying signs and video cameras and putting on a show and were allowed to close their accounts without incident.

Come on, there's all kinds of ways this was wrong. You can't have random strangers coming and and filming transactions - whether it's an account closing or not.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the proper way to handle it is to kick them out, not lock them in.
 
I closed my account with those ****sticks last week.

By mail.

Hand written letter.

No drama required.
 
Brainster said:
I agree, but the proper way to handle it is to kick them out, not lock them in.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, and those actions puzzle me as well. The only two scenarios I can think of are

1. Some states allow private citizen arrests for cases of "breach of peace" (such citizens are liable for any improper arrests under those states' statutes) when the single purpose is to wait for police to arrive, or

2. The managers were actually locking the doors to keep more protesters from coming in, and the protesters already in the bank upon seeing the manager locking the doors simply assumed they had been locked inside - which may not have been true, as I believe most doors of businesses can be opened from inside even when locked, for fire safety reasons.
 
Checkmite said:
I tend to agree, and those actions puzzle me as well. The only two scenarios I can think of are

1. Some states allow private citizen arrests for cases of "breach of peace" (such citizens are liable for any improper arrests under those states' statutes) when the single purpose is to wait for police to arrive, or

2. The managers were actually locking the doors to keep more protesters from coming in, and the protesters already in the bank upon seeing the manager locking the doors simply assumed they had been locked inside - which may not have been true, as I believe most doors of businesses can be opened from inside even when locked, for fire safety reasons.
Click to expand...

All states allow some form of citizens arrest or detention, and it is not unusual for banks to "lock down" a building when a disruption occurs. So far as I know, the practice does not subject the bank to penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom