OWS: Disruptive Citibank protester was undercover cop

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

One reason things went wrong: The demonstrators weren’t the only ones in the bank branch.

Spread the word! Share this on: Facebook | Twitter | Reddit | Stumbleupon (or use the buttons at the bottom of the page)

Garrett says:

But what was unknown to us and to a lot of people that day, including those in Times Square, was that there were undercover cops already there, paid to be disruptive and to be loud. One undercover cop present [at Citi] was louder than the entire group.

How did Garrett know this guy was an undercover cop? Because he was the guy you see in the video arresting the nice-dressed woman.

As for that woman… she had closed her account, and when the bank employee asked them to leave, she followed their order, which is why she and her boyfriend were outside. Carroll picks up the story:

Suddenly I see the boyfriend of the woman in the video, pressed up against the second doorway (still not inside, but not the doorway that meets the sidewalk) by four cops, clearly in massive pain. His face was all cringed up and they were pushing him and pressing him into the glass. After some commotion, he was placed sitting on the ground, in the front of the bank and some officers stood around him. It looked terrible, changed the vibe of the whole situation. His girlfriend later told me that he’d gotten upset when the plain-clothes officer tried to arrest her, which, as you can see in the video, was obviously was not a very graceful arrest.

Garrett says they also saw the undercover cop later, when they were being processed:

We all saw him at the precinct with us. He was laughing with the fellow white shirt cops, telling them about what we’d been saying, basically. It was a bit startling how inside their information was – how they were being paid to go to these protests and put us in situations where we’d be arrested…

In his post-release tweets, Bhattacharyya adds:

None of us were planning on getting arrested. We all thought it was absurd to get nicked for something as trivial as that too…
some of us are contesting the charges, others (including me) accepted a deal lowering the offence to disorderly conduct (a “violation”) #ows
so we got locked up for 30 hrs and charged with criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor. Citibank v keen to press charges apparently. #ows

Not to belabor the obvious, but the police could have simply told them, “Okay kids, time to shut up and leave”. At a similar action that happened that morning at a Chase bank branch, the employees simply rolled with it, accounts were closed, the protesters did their preaching thing and left, and everyone got on with their business (see: Citibank was stupid. Chase bank was smart.)

And since it will probably come up in comments again, YES, Citibank, as the private-property owner, had the legal right to charge them all for trespassing – although if they only asked them once to leave they might be on thin ice when this all comes up in court.

But it was a dumb-ass move from a number of perspectives, not the least of which is financial – the arrests shut down the branch for a while, and now Citibank employees will need to take paid time off work to go and testify in court (since most of the arrestees plan to challenge).

And Citibank just bought itself about a billion dollars’ worth of negative publicity. It was, as the folks in tennis and baseball call it, “an unforced error.”

Also, to dispel one other non-issue: No, this does not “debunk” the original story. While it’s true that some of the kids in the bank were non-customers and non-account-closers, it is indisputably true that the nice-dressed lady seen in the video WAS a customer, DID close her account, and WAS arrested… even though she had clearly followed the banks instructions to leave since she was outside the bank.

She was not arrested for being disruptive, she was not arrested for refusing to leave… the only thing she had done was close her account, and she was arrested.

One other fun little bit: the Gawker article points out that Citibank had taken down a portion of their original public statement – one that seemed to cast blame on the NYPD for the whole thing!

To be clear: no one was arrested for closing an account; we didn’t lock people in our branch – the police decided to close the branch; and we didn’t ask for anyone to be arrested – that is a police decision.

As you may by now be aware, there are a bunch of untruths in that. This was Citibank’s responsibility, Citibank’s decision… and now it’s Citibank’s choice to press charges, and they are doing so.

As for Bhattacharyya, His last tweet and twitpic on the subject:

treating myself in the bar at JFK yfrog.com/mf18oisj

Oh, dear. He sure sounds like a radical hippie socialist…

Read our two previous posts for photos, video, and analysis:

What can you do?

Join in Bank Transfer Day on November 5th. Organizers are encouraging everyone to close out their accounts at the too-big-to-fail behemoths and voting with their feet by taking their deposits to local credit unions. “Remember, remember, the 5th of November…”
Call Citibank President Vikram Pandit and tell him to stop arresting his customers. He told Fortune magazine he’d be happy to talk to Occupy Wall Street! His office line is (212) 793-1201, and his email address is vikram.pandit@citi.com, or on Twitter @askCiti
Take the pledge – tell us in comments if you’re going to close your Citibank (or Bank of American) account on Today! Take your business to a good local credit union or bank. Find a local credit union.
Find out about your local Occupy events happening today via Occupy Together

Like what you just read? Like us on Facebook for more updates!

Comments

MykeTheVet says:

October 19, 2011 at 1:14 pm

Um, did someone say WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT? The banks CANNOT lock the doors with customers inside unless the police (badge wearing only, no security) think every customer inside that bank is a suspect in an ongoing bank robbery.

END THE FED

- brett2k07 says:
  
  October 23, 2011 at 10:26 am
  
  Quite the contrary, it is private property and all protesters were asked to leave as evidenced by the accounts above. When they refused, all protesters were then engaging in a criminal act. If you commit a crime, and leave the scene, you are still responsible for that crime. Police have a right (and a duty) to pursue you and bring you to justice for your crime. By locking the door, the staff were aiding in a police investigation and the apprehension of those engaging in criminal acts. This is similar to being detained by security at a mall or retail store for attempting to steal items. After engaging in criminal activity, you cannot simply leave the scene and have your slate wiped clean. I also work for a credit union and we are told to get the robber out of there as soon as possible. After he leaves, we are to lock the doors and not allow anybody in or out (staff or customers) until police arrive and give them the “okay”. At no point in time would we ever want to lock a robber inside with us.
  
  - Jeremy Bloom says:
    
    October 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm
    
    Police do not have an obligation to pursue every violation of every regulation that everyone in this country commits.
    If they did, we would ALL be behind bars, or spending half our time fighting lawsuits in court.
    Police, with limited resources, instead selectively enforce those laws and regulations that they think are most important.
    And as should be clear, so far in this society people who steal billions through financial fraud, destroy peoples’ jobs and take their homes, go scott free.
    People who object to that, and are asked to leave by a bank manager, get the full weight of the law brought down on their heads.
    THAT is why people are protesting.
    
  - jpcreptilian says:
    
    October 24, 2011 at 6:34 pm
    
    Had the woman who made it outside actually committed a crime I would agree, but since her “crime” was “not leaving when asked to” and they locked the doors to keep people from leaving, there is a hole in this argument: From the accounts given there was no time limit or punishment specified. Therefore, we can assume that the time limit was however long the left the doors unlocked (from the accounts given, this was just long enough for the people inside to be satisfied that they were going to be able to finish their speeches and leave safely, which stinks of entrapment). Since the woman was outside, she clearly left before the doors were locked. In other words, before the time limit. Therefore she committed no crime. If she did, then everyone better start using the drive-through window because apparently just walking into a bank to conduct business is a crime.
    
Anindya Bhattacharyya says:

October 20, 2011 at 9:12 am

Hi, I’m the British journalist you mention in the article. Thanks for rounding up all these accounts and for your commentary.

I pretty much agree with your take on events. However, I don’t think these bank protests are “foolish” — on the contrary, I think they play a valuable role as propaganda stunts in getting the message about debt and the economic crisis out there.

The protesters explicitly modelled their action on similar ones in Britain pioneered by the UK Uncut network. These have been very successful in highlighting how companies like Vodafone and Top Shop avoid paying their taxes.

So to be clear: the absurdity lay in the fact that we were arrested for this, not in the action itself. And as you point out, there were plenty of similar bank actions that day elsewhere in the city. Goodness knows why we were singled out for arrest.

But talking to other non-protesters inmates in the cells with us, it became clear that getting banged up for entirely trivial reasons is an everyday occupational hazard for many ordinary New Yorkers, especially if you’re Black or Hispanic.

A cardboard placard I saw at Occupy Wall Street quotes Frank Zappa’s dictum that the US is a nation of laws “badly written and randomly enforced”. Seems appropriate.

Oh, and since you ask — the martini was delicious.

Dave says:

October 30, 2011 at 8:14 pm

For all you arm chair lawyers,

Thinking because you are above the law because you are protesting is entirely wrong. When you enter private property to conduct the business at hand you are welcome to do so. When you turn it into a propoganda stunt you are no longer welcome at the discretion of the business. When asked to leave this private property you must do so as prudently as possible no matter your agenda immedietely. If you thin you need to finish your education session then you are in violation and therefore subject to arrest.

Your primary intention wasn’t to close your account. Your primary intention was for propoganda to draw attention to your cause. You can enter any branch individually and respectfully close your account and deposit your money in any institution you deem fit which I support and recommend – vote with your dollars.

Did Citibank double deal some clients with mortgage backed securities knowing they were junk? Absolutely! Should the people involved be put on trial? Absolutely! Should Citibank pay fines for these actions from their general fund? No! Should the legal fees be paid out of the general fund? No! These hurt the ordinary folks who have 401Ks invested with Citibank and the good employees of Citibank. These fines should be levied against the individuals who made the decision to double deal. How else will dishonest CEO’s learn not to do dishonest things? If they are motivated by money you can demotivate them by taking it away if they are dishonest.

So the above paragraph describes an action that was dishonest right? Posting on your websites and facebooking and tweeting that people are getting arrested for trying to close their accounts at BOA or Citibank is also dishonest. They are being arrested for trespassing.

The ends do not justify the means. You do not have my support OWS and will not have my support until you conduct yourselves in a civil manner, behave honestly, obey the laws and quit trying to provoke the police. I know you believe it will ignite your cause to have dust ups with the police, but they have a job to do, some have been injured. They didn’t cause the ongoing problems. They are taxpayers. Stop provoking them.

As long as were talking about honesty… no one gets a pass if they are doing what you are against. If you want money out of politics go after the unions, Democrats and even Obama for accepting money. Why is billionare George Soros off limits? He is part of the so called one percent.

In conclusion, be intellectually honest. We have some common ground.

- Justin says:
  
  November 1, 2011 at 9:49 pm
  
  I think the particular situation is pretty unclear as to whether the individuals were violating the law, but you could argue either way.
  
  Beyond that, you seem to think that OWS is part of the democratic party, which contrary to what the MSM would have you believe, it isn’t. A lot of people involved in the movement are equally pissed at both parties, (like me). Also, I personally can’t stand unions as they tend to do nothing to actually protect workers’ rights. Both parties are guilty of catering to Wall Street. We have more than common ground, I think we have pretty much the same view.
  
- Matthew Consensus says:
  
  November 4, 2011 at 10:58 pm
  
  Dave, you claim that a minority of Citibank employees are bad/ double dealt. And you are right.
  I claim that OWS is not giving unions, Democrats, Obama, or Soros a free pass. I claim that most OWS participants conduct themselves in a civil manner, behave honestly, obey the laws and don’t provoke police officers. And I’m right.
  
  The most authoritative statements about what OWS is about come from the founders of the movement, and the !votes at General Assemblies.
  The founders only expressed goal for the movement is to end the corrupting influence of money in Washington (well exemplified by the financial industry, which is the biggest donor, and for which Wall Street is its symbolic center). If you support that, then you are welcome to not only support, but be a part of OWS.
  To the extent that OWS has policy, it is set at GAs, where violence gets little support.
  Bank management actions, on the other hand, were that those who raised concerns about mortgages were dismissed, while double-dealers were rewarded.