"He has a right to speak," said the cop to the banker

I like this story. Although I find myself leaning towards the radical side of things often, I think dressing well, quietly handing out fliers, and being polite will be how things move forward. We also can't keep demonizing the police, there are some bad apples, but for the most part they just do what they have to. If we respect them instead of fight them, we probably will get a lot further with the message. As is The Plan created by Anon members, education is the first step and many many people aren't educated. You can't begin to take revolutionary action until people really know whats it's about, and some people are certainly getting ahead of themselves. Much respect to the police officer and protester!

S+F

Fantastic example of how to legally exercise your free speech right. I am impressed at his candor and fortitude, but when you feel wronged and you have a good idea like this there is no stopping you. There are plenty of people on this site and others who were cringing just like that red faced banker thinking about this happening at their bank.

Just watch as the agents of dis-info come out of the woodwork to find fault with what this guy is doing. Keep track of them since they will appear on every thread supporting the occupy movement. They have a real stake in keeping the status quo since that is how they make their money.

Heck yes! This is what i like to see. Now i don't think that this would have gone over as well in my town but as we can see here this guys got it good, and the bank knows it. And the cops know it. And so do the people on the street. interesting approach to protesting, i love it and hope this guy and more people continue to do this.

Fighting the war with intelligence....

S+F

Us: +1
Them: 0

Awesome. It's good to see the cops looking out for the guy who's doing nothing wrong, and not protecting the corrupted crooks.

We have something going on on November 5th at occupykc, credit union day, and we've been spreading the word abotu credit unions vs. big banks. I think the thing on the 5th is nationwide too, so the occupy protesters are doing more than just standing around with signs.

Isn't it funny that everybody's flocking to congratulate and compliment these cops for.....doing their jobs?

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Outside the bank was an armed private security guard. His name is George. I know this because I first introduced myself, gave him a flyer and told him I would cause him no trouble. George is one of the 99% and he had no beef in the banks game.

He will have beef with the banks if he's their security guard on this protester's side, against his employer, if not BoA directly then his security company's account that is BoA.

No sir, that's not the way that gig works. If he's at BoA, then he's working for Wackenhut, which has the national BoA acount, but they all work about the same. As long as the protestor stays on the sidewalk and doesn't trespass on bank property, his job is to do nothing but observe. The security firm doesn't need nor want a suit for false arrest, and in any event CAN NOT enforce bank rules off bank property. The security guard will get in much more trouble from the security firm if he breaks that rule and opens them up to a liability.

That's a termination offense.

He can observe anything within his eye sight, and report on it to whomever asks whether Wackenhut, Bank, or police, but he can't interfere unless it comes on to bank property, at which time he MUST interfere, regardless of his personal convictions.

Off1: "They say you are trespassing. Did you go into the bank?"
MB: "No Sir, I did not enter the premises at any time. I have been walking along the sidewalk, not blocking traffic or their business and I have been handing out flyers. If you ask George here he will tell you that I'm not bothering anyone, he's watched me for almost an hour". George nods, and says "this guy, no problem".

If George is the bank's private security and just sided with the protester over the BoA boss, then George will be joining the 99s, not percent, the 99 week'ers collecting unemployment.

Not a bad story overall of the difference one person can make.

No, he won't. He's expected to be truthful in his report, and if caught in a lie, THEN will be terminated. The theory is that if he'll lie about that, he'll lie about other things, too. No one needs a guard who they can't trust to be honest.

Now, BoA may take issue with that, and may have him moved from that site, but he won't be terminated, he'll be assigned a new work site. If that happens much, then BoA will get a reputation among the guards as an unreliable site, and before they know it, they'll have trouble finding guards to fill that site.

I know this because I worked for Wackenhut for nearly 14 years, including several of the BoA sites and some "bodyguard" work for a couple of employees under threat at the HQ in Charlotte, NC.

Anyone know who was President when the Sedition Act of 1918 was passed? Why, it was Wilson, the first Progressive President of the US.

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. One historian of American civil liberties has called it "the nation's most extreme antispeech legislation."[1]

It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.[2] The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."[3] It was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4]

While much of the debate focused on the law's precise language, there was considerable opposition in the Senate, almost entirely from Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge and Hiram Johnson, the former speaking in defense of free speech and the latter assailing the administration for failing to use the laws already in place.[8] Former president Theodore Roosevelt voiced opposition as well.[9] President Wilson and his Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory viewed the bill as a political compromise. They hoped to avoid hearings that would embarrass the administration for its failure to prosecute offensive speech.

In June 1918, the Socialist Party figure Eugene V. Debs of Indiana was arrested for violating the Sedition Act by undermining the government's conscription efforts. He was sentenced to ten years in prison.

en.wikipedia.org...

5 Stars for George! What a boss!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus




Was that really necessary?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus



Nevermind, I see where you are going with that.

I've been on the fence about closing my BofA account, mostly because I like to pay my bills online and everything is already set up and working nicely. I'm in my comfort zone. However, after reading marvinborg's article, I guess I've had an epiphany of sorts... if I'm not part of the solution, then I'm absolutely part of the problem. He's so right about the big bankers being crooks and those fat-cats at BofA are some of the worst. I just made a call to a local credit union (one that also provides online bill pay) and have started the transition.

It's time to take a stand... even if it's a small one. My money is going to an institution that is local and that is run by people that live in my community. Here's to hoping that others who are on the fence, take a few minutes and check out a local community bank or credit union. The Move Your Money Project website is a great place to start!

Go to the site and imediatly get bombarded with spam......... score here ZERO !!!

Credit to the police for the way the situation was dealt with. Its a big contrast to the way the NYC police forced the crowd into a arrest situation on the Brooklyn bridge. It's also a pity that the other security guards tried to intimidate. They are the ones, along with the bank manager who should be censured, or maybe charged themselves if there is a law against intimidation. It's a pity that they didn't have the wit to just ignore the man, but I'll put that down to them being arrogant enough to think that the law would move the man on, no matter what.

reply to post by stigup


nice statement..."move to another country" loved it.

This is obviously PsyOps. After all the # they've already done they are trying to sway public opinion back in their favor.

reply to post by TinFoilChapeau


all banks have bill pay, pretty weak excuse.

Originally posted by smurfy
Credit to the police for the way the situation was dealt with. Its a big contrast to the way the NYC police forced the crowd into a arrest situation on the Brooklyn bridge. It's also a pity that the other security guards tried to intimidate. They are the ones, along with the bank manager who should be censured, or maybe charged themselves if there is a law against intimidation. It's a pity that they didn't have the wit to just ignore the man, but I'll put that down to them being arrogant enough to think that the law would move the man on, no matter what.

Who could blame them for acting so arrogant since they have been coddled by every other administration they own through lobby money and outright bribery?

I would love to see them arrested for intimidation, but that will never happen.

I would love to see Homeland security used to arrest bankers or anyone else who has found a way around the law and used illegal tactics against the citizens of our nation. I can see them as terrorists so it would seem fitting that Homeland security be used to imprison them in Gitmo and maybe torture them, well waterboarding is not really torture, until they gave up all of their bribes and the people in government who have taken them.

A little accountability would go a long way toward getting this occupy movement stopped. Anything less will just result in more support for the movement.

well done to the Police officer and security guard.

you may not think the demonstrations are doing much.
but you are wrung!

they are focusing peoples attention on the BIG problem.
that every one wants to ignore.
and the banks are trying to hide the problems.
The protesters are making people think about what is happening.

what happens next I have no idea.

But I think more capable people will get involved in their own way.
the snowball has started to roll down the hill.
I just hope the bankers don't stop it.
swap w for b...

Originally posted by Enemyc0mbatant
This is obviously PsyOps. After all the # they've already done they are trying to sway public opinion back in their favor.

Yes, they've done so much bad things and you have done nothing but browse threads and allow the other bad things to happen. Yes they are the problem and we need to weed them out! sacrcasm