I don’t understand the question.
Their Supreme Court ordered the banks to seize the protestors asserts which would mean their accounts are at either zero or frozen and the bank tellers can’t do anything even if they wanted to.
If the money was still in their accounts or not frozen and the tellers were just not giving it to these protestors because “they were just following orders” they’d be just as guilty as their Supreme Court and bank executives.
You can’t cooperate with tyranny and then not be guilty.
I don’t understand the question.
Their Supreme Court ordered the banks to seize the protestors asserts which would mean their accounts are at either zero or frozen and the bank tellers can’t do anything even if they wanted to.
If the money was still in their accounts or not frozen and the tellers were just not giving it to these protestors because “they were just following orders” they’d be just as guilty as their Supreme Court and bank executives.
You can’t cooperate with tyranny and then not be guilty.
Well said.
Well said.
(post is archived)