reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 is concerned about feeding the whole town. Speaker 1 is not allowed to cross the bridge and suggests going through CSRD. Speaker 3 mentions liability on their property. Speaker 1 questions why resources are being wasted on this situation. Speaker 2 explains that nobody is allowed to cross the bridge due to an order. Speaker 1 asks for the reason behind the order, but Speaker 2 only mentions following instructions. Speaker 3 emphasizes the urgency of the situation and the need to save houses from the fire.

Speaker 0 is upset because they are being denied entry. They threaten to call the police and challenge the other person's legal status. Speaker 0 mentions having a citywide water certificate, but it is not applicable to the current location. They suggest talking outside and mention having multiple certificates. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking the other person to read a line that states the certificate is valid everywhere.

A 911 call was placed, but police were allegedly not allowed to enter the premises. The speaker questions why police responding to a 911 call must wait for a supervisor to grant them access. The speaker finds it strange that police are restricted from entering after a 911 call and expresses a need to relocate.

Protocol: "If I ask you to turn off the body cam, you have to turn it off." They discuss leaving: "They want you guys to leave? Yes. Move out. Let's just leave." They claim not trespassing: "We're not trespassing. You haven't notified us that we're trespassing." They push for removal: "'Trespass? Get him out.' 'No. You're not gonna arrest us.' 'Number two is We gotta go.' An AG asserts authority: "I'm an AG." "She's a lawyer, so she knows." They prepare to depart: "We gotta go. We're leaving." A partner pleads: "'Please take my hands up. Please take the power handcuffs.' 'No. You're overreacting.' 'I'm not being arrested.' 'You're putting me in handcuffs?' 'Babe. Babe. Please. I'm scared.' 'I'm right here.'"

Two groups clash over who may be in the building and who is authorized to act as the governing authority of the institute. - The conflict centers on who is recognized as the president of the institute. Speaker 0 says, “The president of the first day is the right to be in the building,” and insists they have seen paperwork that supports Mister Jackson as president. Speaker 1 counters that he is “the president of this institute” and asks for the other side’s credentials and documents, signaling a challenge to Speaker 0’s claim. - The outside counselors (not employed by USIP) state they are there to address issues and note they do not work for the agency or institute being discussed. They say, “Are you all work for USIP? We are the outside counselors. You do not work for USIP.” This creates tension about authority and whose procedures apply. - The group inside, including Speaker 1, questions the motives and legality of the intruders, framing the situation as unauthorized access. Speaker 1 emphasizes control of the scene, saying, “I’m the president of this institute. I’m asking the questions, not you.” They propose to proceed with a judge’s decision regarding who has rightful access, noting, “According to news, sir. And how do we decide? You wanna talk about the second law and how the board goes off? No. We’re go over. It hasn’t been decided. It’s gonna be decided by a judge.” - There is a clear conflict about process and authority: the outsiders say they are present to facilitate a meeting but are unsure how long their involvement lasts and emphasize the need to identify who is authorized to be in the building. The outsiders insist on conducting a meeting inside first and indicate that certain individuals will not be allowed to come back in, stating, “You’re not allowed. I don’t know what I’m gonna have to let anyone pass you. So please don’t walk this way. Four of you are not coming back in today.” - Access to personal property and documents becomes a point of negotiation. The outsiders request to retrieve personal items, while inside personnel want to conduct their meeting inside first and control access, saying, “We need to have our meeting inside first. Thank you.” They offer to allow retrieval of personal belongings after the meeting but prioritize internal access. - The exchange ends with continued insistence on controlling entry and a directive to move toward a meeting inside, with the outsiders escorted away from certain areas and told to wait while the internal decision-making progresses.

Speaker 0 tells someone to shut up, calls them names, and asks if they got a video. Speaker 1 confirms they got a video of them being a ring without a warrant. Speaker 0 asks if they came inside, and Speaker 1 confirms they went inside with that warrant.

Why are they moving the cameras? They’re acting strange, even breaking a window with what looks like a gun. It's crazy! One vest says "ice" on it. We're filming this for my TikTok; it already has 13,000 followers. This is insane – they're breaking into someone's house! It looks like a criminal act, not legitimate police work. They're not reporting this. What's the point of breaking the window when there's a perfectly good door? We're scared they might shoot. Stay back!

Years of a new grooming threat hiding in plain sight on our high streets. We have complaints that vapes and all illegal goods are perhaps given free on some occasions to children in return for sexual favors. We've had those complaints before. You're worried you're worried that there's some sort of child exploitation thing going on here as well? I do. I think it's an epidemic. Yeah. The authorization has come through for the closure notice. The team at Dudley Trading Standards may seem like unlikely foot soldiers in the battle against child exploitation. Khaldeep and Richard spend their days shutting down rogue vape shops and mini marts, not least for illegally selling vapes to kids. I had one the other day, a child as young as 11, purchasing, vapes from a shop. It's just disgusting. They could be offered drugs, vapes, cigarettes. That is a danger. Their work has led them to believe that even with all that's known about child grooming, they've uncovered a new hidden front line. We get the people behind the counter to empty their pockets. We've been in situations where they empty their pockets, and they've got reams of condoms. I once came across a book, and it was basically wrote written in Kurdish, and, basically, they were learning English words for, like, you're pretty. I love your hair. You know, you're young and beautiful. The team performs a kind of unofficial child protection service. They prioritize the potential grooming threat among the shops they shut down. Our priority is, number one, we stop that shop first. So we'll focus all our efforts on a particular shop, get that closed down. Last summer, they took action against the shop after intelligence men involved were driving 12 year old customers in cars to an unknown location. Let's rock and roll. The shop they're going to shut down today is not one they suspect of grooming, but they do suspect it has worrying links to organized crime. We've already had a tip-off that they're trading at the moment. Right now? Right now. They believe the last but one owner is still involved in the business, and he is a man charged with rape and strangulation. So we won't probably see the big bosses today. We will just see them Indians today operating the shop on their behalf. The shop has already been caught selling vapes to children in an undercover sting. We sent a 15 year old volunteer in to buy a vape. So you gotta be 18 to buy vapes, and, no questions asked. They just sold. Right. My name is Richard Timmins. I'm from, Trading Standards. We're going to be closing down the shop in its entirety. The team drill through the shutters to stop them being reopened. The people behind these shops try anything to avoid being closed, including repeatedly changing owners. They have tried to shut this shop down twice before. It just keeps reopening to the point where the person running this place took the door off so they could stay open twenty four seven, and there's literally no door here. It's just a shutter.

An individual warns a group that they have been given ample time and this is a warning. They state they don't know what the group has been doing, but if they have to return, jail is processing. One of the group members asks if they are going to jail for trying to get their stuff off their property so "crackheads" don't get it. Another individual states that they are packing up to leave. The first individual repeats that they are giving a warning that if they have to come back, they will escalate the situation. A group member responds, "I guess they gotta escalate it then."

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

Speaker 0 and the property manager engage over a search attempt. Speaker 0 asks who they are looking for and whether they have a judicial search warrant, noting they’re not going to get access and that “This is not private property.” The conversation repeats that this is not private property, and Speaker 0 asserts they won’t be able to open the door. The property manager confirms they are the manager but refuses to open the door and declines to disclose whether the person is present, saying, “I can’t tell you,” and “Don’t tell me that yet? Nope. I can’t.” Speaker 0 presses for information and whether the person is in the building, while the manager maintains they cannot reveal anything. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 saying, “Have a nice day,” and the property manager replying, “Have a great day,” and expressing a concern to “keep my residents safe.”

I haven't been able to access my house since January 7th, and it's now January 25th. President Trump mentioned we could go back, so what's the situation? Unfortunately, we coordinate with LAPD, and they dictate our actions. LAPD requires that you have a police escort to reach your house. How long will that take? It could take an hour or two because many people are trying to get in. Why can't I just drive there? There's a hard closure in place. It's not that I'm preventing you from going; you just need to arrange for a police escort. So, you are preventing me from going to my house. You can go, but only with the escort. I'm not saying you can't go at all.

The speaker discusses the importance of opening a building for inspection due to potential fraudulent evidence. They mention the possibility of personal prosecution or attention. The speaker asks for confirmation on whether they will be informed about the decision. The conversation then shifts to the warrant, which allows inspection inside buildings. The speaker requests the building to be opened, but the other person questions the requirement to open the door. The speaker mentions following their attorney's advice and not allowing entry. The conversation ends with the speaker stating that they will inform the judge about the situation. The other person offers to have a private conversation, but it is unclear if it takes place.

Speaker 0 mentions having friends with trucks nearby to pick up some equipment. Speaker 1 agrees and says they need the equipment for the car. Speaker 0 expresses concern about wasting time and not wanting to be rude. Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 0 and suggests discussing the situation. Speaker 0 asks if they can walk across a bridge and questions the possibility of being arrested. Speaker 1 says they can't walk across and explains that someone had previously said it was allowed. Speaker 0 expresses frustration about wasting resources. Speaker 1 acknowledges the situation and says it is just the way it is.

The speaker states that Rowan Abdulry, an illegal immigrant, burned down a building on 03/28/2025 and was moved to the Bell Hotel, which he then also set fire to. He is now facing two arson charges. An individual questions the speaker's presence on the property, alleging illegal trespassing. The speaker says they were invited to assess the damage. The individual insists they entered illegally and should have used the main entrance after making an appointment. The individual asks how long the speaker has been there but then says they are not supposed to say. The speaker says they are free to go, but the individual tries to direct them away from the main entrance. Police arrive and are told the speakers entered the property illegally and were taking pictures and videos of the building. The police confirm they did not enter the building or do anything wrong. The speakers state they wanted to leave out the main entrance to get refreshments at the farm shop, but the individual wouldn't let them. The police say they have not committed any criminal offenses.

The speaker expresses concern about the police lines and Antifa presence. They discuss breaking into a location and the potential consequences. They mention losing someone named Rico and speculate on his ability to walk. The speaker emphasizes respecting the police and mentions tear gas. They discuss which direction to go and express frustration. The conversation ends with a mention of letting everyone in and the possibility of being trapped.

Speaker 0 warns against entering a certain location. Speaker 1 discusses a video clip showing a broken window and the departure of the police. Speaker 0 clarifies that they heard the radio communication ordering the police to leave. Speaker 1 mentions an individual with red hair being confronted and identifies them as an undercover FBI agent. Speaker 0 confirms this and describes another clip where a crowd tries to enter the Capitol building. They mention being pushed and sprayed with pepper spray. Speaker 0 captures footage of an individual leaning against a doorpost. The transcript ends.

There's a squatter in someone's backyard. What are you doing here? You're not supposed to be here. Show me your ID. No, I don’t need to show you anything. I'll call the cops. Go ahead. I want my lock back. You’re wasting your time. If you cut it, I’ll let the police handle it. You’re breaking and entering; you could get arrested. Get a place to live. Why am I crazy? You’re living in someone’s backyard. Just leave. I can call you an Uber to a shelter if you want. The police are on their way.

A person asks if they can conduct business in the Tesla store. The response is no, it is closed. The person questions why the NYPD is allowed to disassemble in front of a business, closing it down, and claims that this is not the first amendment. They express that it is ridiculous that this is allowed.

Two individuals are attempting to speak with someone named Destiny at a residence. The person answering the door claims not to be Destiny and refuses to confirm if Destiny is present. They express discomfort and ask if the individuals have a warrant. The individuals insist the person is Destiny and ask them to step outside to talk. They allow the person to retrieve their phone, provided the door remains open. The person mentions their mother is at work and can hear the conversation.

Speaker 0 warns speakers 1 and 2 that they have already had ample time and that further action may escalate. Speaker 1 is upset and claims they are trying to retrieve their belongings to prevent others from taking them. Speaker 1 accuses speaker 0 of threatening jail. Speaker 2 confirms with someone over the phone that speakers 1 and 2 are packing up and leaving. Speaker 0 reiterates the warning, stating that further action may escalate if they return. Speaker 1 responds that they will have to escalate then.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration about the lack of intervention despite calling for hours. They mention that the same thing happened last night and no one came. Speaker 1 confirms that they spoke to the boys and it didn't go well. Speaker 0 insists that they need to resolve the situation and asks if they have the courage to do so. They mention that elderly people have been disturbed at night. Speaker 1 agrees and adds that they can't take it anymore. They express disappointment in the authorities for not responding and call it shameful. Speaker 0 mentions that if they can't work in safety, they will stop. Speaker 1 ends the conversation by saying goodnight.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the speed of the wind and suggests leaving. Speaker 1 introduces Fish, a well-known and respected person. Speaker 0 recounts walking from Safeway to the chart house and noticing that the cars were not moving due to a police blockade. Speaker 0 tries to convince the police to let the cars leave, but they refuse. Speaker 0 continues walking and hears explosions and people screaming. Speaker 1 is shocked to learn about the blockade. Speaker 0 eventually reaches their destination and stays there for the night.

No trespassing signs were missed, and a person is aggressively kicking everyone out of a building. There's a sense of urgency as people are advised to get down and hide behind a tree. A commotion occurs, with someone mentioning a large clump of hair being seen in the air. The situation is chaotic, and someone expresses disbelief at capturing it all on camera. There’s a report of one person seriously injured, confirmed by someone on the roof. A brief interaction with law enforcement occurs, with a request for names.

Speaker 0 warns Speakers 1, 2, and 3 that they have been given ample time and that further action may be escalated. Speaker 1 states they are trying to get their stuff off their property so "crackheads don't get it." Speaker 2 mentions that people are packing up the leaves. Speaker 3 says that as long as they are in the running, they can go out to the parts, and if another officer is needed, they will get one out there on the next shift. Speaker 1 says they heard Speaker 2. Speaker 0 repeats the warning, stating that if they have to come back, they will probably have to escalate the situation. Speaker 1 responds, "I guess they gotta escalate it then," and says they are trying to get their chips.