If she touches a cop, absolutely he can use force.
Totally agree. Force in the way of suppressing her to the ground, enlisting the help of other officers to apprehend her, what not. Punching her in the face? Give me a break.
The Following User Says Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Hahahaha, really? Are you saying that because we don't know the circumstances it may have been ok that the police officer punched someone in the face in response? Haha, neat. Thanks for sharing!
He's not saying that, but that we, without knowing the full story, can't judge whether it was a fair reaction by the cop. If he was getting wailed on, he has full right to slug the person back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
Totally agree. Force in the way of suppressing her to the ground, enlisting the help of other officers to apprehend her, what not. Punching her in the face? Give me a break.
It's all a matter of the situation. If he was getting pushed back and the unit in disarray, getting such help may be difficult and may compromise other tasks the unit has (such as holding other areas around them in check. By the looks of things, the police were a little undermanned in that section).
Why are we nit-picking at this? The protest was peaceful thus force was not necessary. A woman should not be punched in the face for standing on the road! End of story.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Canuck-Hater For This Useful Post:
Once again. Regardless of the situation, punching in the face is an unacceptable response. It's fairly evident in the video that the protesters are not being violent. Yes, she may have touched him, perhaps even stricken him, but police officers are trained for that kind of thing and the response should be to suppress, apprehend, what not. Punching a citizen in the face in response is not an acceptable action.
The Following User Says Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
CitiBank now arresting its customers for trying to close their accounts. I believe they will be charging them with inciting a run on a bank, which may very well stick in court, even if it's an archaic and rarely used charge. Trespassing certainly won't stick since they were customers when they walked in.
The Following User Says Thank You to Stumptown For This Useful Post:
I did a little more research on the law, and I've changed my mind - the bank run laws shouldn't stick. They're worded such that they only apply if it's implied that the bank may be insolvent. That is not the case here, it's an organized boycott based on bank policy. I think Citi are digging themselves into a deep hole with this action. What I worry about most at this point is so many people pulling their funds out of the "too big to fail" banks might be paving the way for yet another round of tax-payer funded bailouts, and we'll all be paying, yet again.
Why are we nit-picking at this? The protest was peaceful thus force was not necessary. A woman should not be punched in the face for standing on the road! End of story.
The protest may be, but she may not have been and the crowd may have been less than civil. Notice the video cuts into their struggle very shortly before she gets punched. We have little idea what the area was like. I agree, for the most part, the people seem fine...but police were short of hands and she seemed to be somewhat opposing them (note that she was constantly hugging as close to the motorcycles as they were letting her). I can't speak for the police or for the woman...it doesn't look clear cut why it happened, just that it happened (and we really don't know where the other police are here or what she was doing, if anything, to get punched. I agree with you, if there were readily available cops nearby and she wasn't doing anything to endanger anyone, the cop deserves to be punished. If she was about to lay one on the cop though or if she was making a run at the motorcycle, unlikely given the other cop's reaction, then instincts kick in and it's reasonable as a reaction).
Long story short: We don't have the full story here and learning it may incriminate the cop or give him more reason. There's too many variables to state definitely that "she didn't deserved it".
Quote:
Once again. Regardless of the situation, punching in the face is an unacceptable response. It's fairly evident in the video that the protesters are not being violent. Yes, she may have touched him, perhaps even stricken him, but police officers are trained for that kind of thing and the response should be to suppress, apprehend, what not. Punching a citizen in the face in response is not an acceptable action.
I'm not a cop, but from my discussions with my uncle's friends, they imply they are trained less so with hand to hand, and more so with weapons (batons, tasers, side arms). In cases of one on one fighting, they're less trained and often resort to moves as a team to keep each individual safe. Does it excuse them? No, but when most options are exhausted, I would be fine seeing them punch someone in the face.
That cop looks like he had a small baton on him, but it took a while to get it out and usable. It is entirely possible and reasonably plausible that he didn't have the time to reach for it and, when threatened with the same result,
If I had to put a definite on the case, I'd likely agree with you. It seems more reasonable that the cop was going overboard. However, we just don't have any proof or context for the situation.
Quote:
CitiBank now arresting its customers for trying to close their accounts. I believe they will be charging them with inciting a run on a bank, which may very well stick in court, even if it's an archaic and rarely used charge. Trespassing certainly won't stick since they were customers when they walked in.
CitiBank now arresting its customers for trying to close their accounts. I believe they will be charging them with inciting a run on a bank, which may very well stick in court, even if it's an archaic and rarely used charge. Trespassing certainly won't stick since they were customers when they walked in.
"We got mentioned on social media. We're effective!"
Strange way to measure success. Plug into the real world for a while!
I did a little more research on the law, and I've changed my mind - the bank run laws shouldn't stick. They're worded such that they only apply if it's implied that the bank may be insolvent. That is not the case here, it's an organized boycott based on bank policy. I think Citi are digging themselves into a deep hole with this action. What I worry about most at this point is so many people pulling their funds out of the "too big to fail" banks might be paving the way for yet another round of tax-payer funded bailouts, and we'll all be paying, yet again.
I'm sure Citibank is shaking in its boots.
Citi doesn't care about the $10 each of these "customers" had to withdraw. I'm betting they were more concerned about the gong show the protestors brought into the branch. Perfect diversion for a robbery?
Citi doesn't care about the $10 each of these "customers" had to withdraw.
$10 x the 30 people at this boycott won't amount to much, granted. But multiply that by several million, 90% of whom will probably be withdrawing a hell of a lot more than that, and the banks will start to hurt. I've personally pulled over $200K out of a for-profit bank into a credit union. You make the poor assumption that so many are making that the people who are fed up with being taken advantage of by the big banks are all poor. It should be pretty clear by now that that's not true at all. The ones with more money in the banks are the ones that have the most at stake.
CitiBank now arresting its customers for trying to close their accounts. I believe they will be charging them with inciting a run on a bank, which may very well stick in court, even if it's an archaic and rarely used charge. Trespassing certainly won't stick since they were customers when they walked in.
Huh? Simply being a customer doesn't make you immune from being a trespasser. Having a Citi account doesn't grant you a license to come into a branch and do as you please and then hang around when you're asked to leave. That's called trespassing.
Huh? Simply being a customer doesn't make you immune from being a trespasser. Having a Citi account doesn't grant you a license to come into a branch and do as you please and then hang around when you're asked to leave. That's called trespassing.
If you watch the video in the link you can clearly see that they were locked in the building as soon as they declared they were there to close their accounts. They had no choice to leave. They walked in there to do regular business with the bank and were arrested for it.
As long as they aren't triggering the right groups against them (/b/ for example), they should be fine
What I meant is it's much more potentially disruptive to have people closing accounts and withdrawing all their money from the bank go viral as a form of protest than it is to just have people on the street.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
If you watch the video in the link you can clearly see that they were locked in the building as soon as they declared they were there to close their accounts. They had no choice to leave. They walked in there to do regular business with the bank and were arrested for it.
What I meant is it's much more potentially disruptive to have people closing accounts and withdrawing all their money from the bank go viral as a form of protest than it is to just have people on the street.
Ah. Thought you meant viral as in spreading via social media and people closing accounts themselves.
Huh? Simply being a customer doesn't make you immune from being a trespasser. Having a Citi account doesn't grant you a license to come into a branch and do as you please and then hang around when you're asked to leave. That's called trespassing.
