reSee.it - Related Video Feed

People should exercise their right to protest peacefully, but chaos in Los Angeles is provoked by the administration. Raiding Home Depot and workplaces, separating families, and deploying armored caravans cause fear and panic. Deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation, and this is about another agenda, not public safety. There is no plan or policy. Los Angeles stands with all Angelenos, and the first amendment right does not give anyone the right to be violent, create chaos, or vandalize property. Angelenos should continue expressing their anger peacefully. Workplace raids took place Friday. The administration claimed they were looking for dangerous felons, but raids at workplaces and a Home Depot parking lot instill fear, reminiscent of the fear during the last administration when kids were afraid to go to school and parents to work. This impacts the entire city.

"Can you clarify what kind of protest, president Trump does support or find acceptable?" "President absolutely supports peaceful protest." "He supports the first amendment." "He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard." "He does not support violence of any kind." "He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their job." "It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not." "Unfortunately, for Democrats, that line has not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest and this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in." "What question?" "So if there were peaceful protests on Saturday for the militant parade, president Trump would allow that?" "Of course, the president supports peaceful protests." "What a stupid question. Raquel."

The speaker states that the majority of protests have been violent, not peaceful. They cite nearly 400 arrests of illegal aliens alone since the protests began in June. The speaker claims that hundreds of people have assaulted law enforcement officers. They assert that the Democrat governor and mayor of Los Angeles have failed their citizens. According to the speaker, most Americans and Californians do not want to see law enforcement officers being assaulted. They thank the president for taking action to protect federal law enforcement agents, federal buildings, and the federal mission of deporting illegal criminals. The speaker says this mission will continue.

Do not interfere with the police during arrests. If you do, you may be arrested. Please move away to ensure a safe working environment for the officers. We encourage you to film, but give them space while they perform their duties. Our goal is to maintain a peaceful First Amendment event without criminal activity. We will only intervene if criminal acts occur or if you obstruct the police. We want to return to a safe, lawful event, so please respect the officers and allow them to do their jobs.

That violates our First Amendment rights. Have have life share. We have the right to protest. We have the right to bear witness to this crime scene. You are aiding and abetting the crimes that the federal agents have committed. Two federal judges have found that their conduct was illegal and unconstitutional. If you don't step back and stand down, you're subject to a citizen's arrest for aiding and abetting. You can step back and stand down. I'm giving you a lawful order. Move back now. The power of the people. This motherfucker is happy as hell. Should be a shame. Fuck you, bitches. I gotta get I gotta take out my so I could run because I almost tripped with the I had on. Fuckers. Guys.

The speaker argues that the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege, but with restrictions that include having an ID and a permit on hand. He notes that current reports claim Alex Pretty did not have either on, implying he was not carrying legally. Beyond legality, the speaker emphasizes a responsibility to carry a firearm with foresight and understanding of the situation, recommending that someone who carries take a training class for their state, and even suggesting taxpayers fund it if possible because it’s a right. Regarding the shooting incident, the speaker states that only one person could have absolutely prevented Alex Pretty from being shot that day: Alex Pretty himself. He asserts he does not think the shooting was necessary to save a life, but he watched the incident from behind Pretty and not as an arresting officer or as the person who might have fired. He questions why Pretty had 10 rounds, arguing that if someone is shot, the shooter should have aimed to kill because they are trying to kill you; he attributes this to police training and the reasonableness doctrine. The speaker references the Supreme Court’s reasonableness doctrine, explaining that a police officer may protect themselves when someone has resisted arrest, disobeyed orders, and shown the means to harm. He concedes Pretty should not have been shot, noting there were ten minutes prior to the event with alternative actions that could have been taken, but he did not see those ten minutes. He describes Pretty as a protester versus an agitator, noting Pretty arrived with a cell phone and stood in the middle of a street during an operation, which the speaker labels as common sense. He asserts that carrying a weapon and entering the middle of a police operation is lawful, but suggests another prevention: a police cordon by the Minneapolis Police Department to prevent people like Pretty from entering the middle of the operation, instead of standing 100 feet away with a sign. The speaker acknowledges potential liability for any federal agent who acted prematurely or shot when they shouldn’t have, but reiterates that Pretty had no business where he was at that moment and did resist arrest. He states that in Minnesota, a carry permit is revoked at the moment of resisting arrest. Finally, the speaker blames politicians for letting the event happen, naming Donald Trump and Tim Walz as figures discussed. He calls for Border Patrol agents to secure the border and for the Minneapolis Police Department to be present to manage crowds. He mentions Jose Huerta Chuma, describing a violent rap sheet including domestic assault, and argues that sympathy for someone who is willing to risk the safety of others should diminish. He emphasizes a desire for no one to get hurt and urges people to use common sense, especially when carrying a weapon.

The speaker asserts the right to peaceful protest, cautioning against actions that could be exploited by the administration. They claim the chaos in Los Angeles is provoked by the administration's actions, such as raiding workplaces, separating families, and deploying armored vehicles, which they say cause fear and panic. The speaker believes deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation driven by a hidden agenda unrelated to public safety, evidenced by the lack of a clear plan or policy. They emphasize solidarity with all Los Angeles residents, regardless of their birthplace. While affirming the right to protest, the speaker condemns violence, chaos, and vandalism, stating such actions will not be tolerated. They urge Angelenos to express their anger and outrage peacefully, referencing workplace raids that occurred on Friday.

The speaker asks if there is an organizer among the group blocking the roadway. They refuse to move and are warned that they could be arrested. The speaker explains that people need to use the roadway to get to work, the airport, and hospitals. They suggest moving people out of the roadway to allow traffic to flow and have a discussion later. The group mentions their goal of Biden declaring a climate emergency. The speaker says they cannot facilitate that and suggests finding a proper avenue. The group refuses to move, and the speaker warns that they will be arrested. The speaker questions the effectiveness of blocking traffic for their cause.

There is nothing wrong with protesting, but burning cars, looting, and throwing bricks at law enforcement officers loses the message. Kylie Perkins is making uneducated videos about compassion, probably to save brand deals. Compassion should be for those who come here the right way, law enforcement officers, and people who can't get ambulances due to blocked freeways. There is no problem with people coming to America, but they need to do it the right way. The claim that we're on stolen land is false; people need to research the difference between a settler and an immigrant. The speaker anticipates losing brand deals and followers for these statements but is not sorry.

Do not interfere with police during arrests; doing so may lead to your arrest. Please keep a safe distance to allow officers to work effectively. We encourage you to film the event but prioritize the safety of the officers. Our goal is to maintain a peaceful First Amendment event without criminal activity. We will only intervene if criminal acts occur or if you obstruct police operations. Let's work together to ensure a safe environment and return to a lawful event. Thank you for your cooperation.

The New York City Police Department is instructing pedestrians to disperse and clear the way for safe traffic flow. Those who comply will not face charges, but those who refuse will be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

President Trump supports peaceful protest and the right of Americans to make their voices heard. He does not support violence or assaulting law enforcement officers. The speaker claims the president has made his position clear, unlike the Democrats, who have allowed unrest and violence to continue, requiring the president to intervene. When asked if President Trump would allow peaceful protests on Saturday for the militant parade, the speaker affirmed the president supports peaceful protests, calling the question stupid.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

- Speaker 0 explains that there is a delicate balance between First Amendment rights and allowing cars to move through; protesters are not a one-way situation, and there are corridors to move traffic. As of now, theyare not enacting measures to prevent people from being in the roadway while practicing their First Amendment right, and they are asking protesters to avoid the street if possible. This could change, but currently protesters are allowed to occupy street space because they are exercising their personal right to protest, and there are ways for people to get around them. - Speaker 1 asks about past policies, recalling that during 2020 riots and after Trump’s 2016 election there were hard-line arrests for stepping off sidewalks. Speaker 0 responds that people could not be arrested for being in the street at present, and if arrests were to occur they would make an announcement; anyone who wants to leave the street can leave without arrest. This is not considered a major roadway, and there are corridors protesters provide to move traffic. - Speaker 1 asks who is making the day-to-day decisions; Speaker 2 clarifies that the decisions are made day by day, minute by minute, by our CMIC (incident commander). Speaker 1 asks for the name; Speaker 0 does not know the person by name but confirms the CMIC is in charge on site and relays information to the chief. - Speaker 1 asks whether Bob Day is involved; Speaker 0 confirms that everyone answers to the chief (Bob Day) at the end of the day, since the chief is the head of the city. Speaker 2 confirms that the mayor is at the top of the hierarchy for decisions. - Speaker 2 and Speaker 1 discuss whether if the mayor ordered protesters not to be in the street at all, the responders would carry that out and arrest accordingly, with Speaker 0 indicating they would figure out the most equitable way to do so. - Speaker 1 recalls a prior incident in Portland involving a women’s rights free speech event and expensive permits/insurance, and asks whether Antifa has a permit or insurance; Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t call these people Antifa and that they have not identified themselves. - A subsequent speaker (Speaker 3) interjects with a rant; the group continues with a chaotic exchange about evaluating arrests and jaywalking, with Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 discussing arrest priorities and past enforcement patterns, including reference to "jaywalking" as a focus. - Overall, the discussion centers on current policy allowing street occupation by protesters, day-to-day decision-making by the CMIC under the mayor and chief, and the potential for changing enforcement depending on instructions from city leadership.

Speaker 0 argues that what was described is that he went there to try to stop the law enforcement operation, and that all the video shows him doing is documenting it with his cell phone, which is lawful. The only time he appeared to interact with law enforcement was when they went after him as he was trying to help an individual who law enforcement pushed down. Speaker 0 asks where the evidence is to show that he was trying to impede the operation, noting that he was filming, which he says is legal in the United States of America. Speaker 1 responds that Dana was there in the scene and was actively impeding and assaulting law enforcement to the point, but adds that this is not illegal. Speaker 0 counters that Dana wasn’t impeding it; he was filming, which is legal. Speaker 1 asks not to freeze-frame adjudicate the moment and insists that Dana was there for a reason, and that reason was to impede law enforcement. Speaker 1 further argues that de-escalation techniques were utilized during this action, including physically trying to remove those from the law enforcement scene and the use of pepper spray, which is described as another de-escalation technique. He states that those techniques did not work.

The speakers discuss street occupancy by protesters and city responses: - Protests are currently allowed to take up street space as part of First Amendment rights. There is no immediate plan to prevent people from being in the roadway, though they are asked “to not be in the street if they can.” This stance may change, but as of now, protesters may occupy the street because it is not a major roadway and there are corridors to move traffic. If action were to be taken, an announcement would be made stating that arrests would occur for people in the street; leaving the street would not result in arrest. - Traffic management is handled with the help of protesters who guide traffic and create corridors to move vehicles around the protest. - Decision-making is on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis. The CMIC (incident commander) makes the on-scene decisions and relays information to the chief, while the chief oversees overall operations. The chief (Bob Day) ultimately answers to the mayor. - The hierarchy: the mayor is at the top of the city decision-making. If the mayor directs that people should not be in the street at all, the responders would carry that out in the most equitable way. - The past policy reference mentions 2020 riots and a hard line about stepping off the sidewalk leading to arrest, but the current stance is that people could be in the street without arrest, with announcements if arrests would begin. - On permits or insurance: a question is raised about whether the demonstrators have a permit or insurance (compared to a past demand for thousands of dollars for permits and insurance). The response: the individuals are not identified as Antifa, and it’s unclear who they are; the speakers have not been told who they are, and no permit/insurance status is confirmed. - There are comments about how the local government has handled the situation, with some hostile interruptions, including expressions of frustration and insults directed at authorities. The operational point retained is that arrests would be considered for those in the street only if the policy requires it, otherwise leaving the street is allowed. - The speakers emphasize that there are workers to guide traffic and that the current approach balances First Amendment rights with traffic flow, adjusting as needed on a day-to-day basis.

The people committing violence are not the same ones peacefully protesting immigration enforcement. The violent individuals wear hoodies and face masks, using similar tactics across different civil unrest situations. They are connected, and some might call them anarchists. Many of these individuals come from other places specifically to hurt people and cause havoc.

If you resist lawful orders, you're going to jail. Blocking an intersection or roadway in Brevard County results in jail time. Fleeing arrest will lead to being run down and jailed. Mobbing a car will likely result in being run over. Spitting on an officer leads to the hospital and jail. Hitting an officer leads to the hospital, jail, and potentially being bitten by a police dog. Throwing a brick, firebomb, or pointing a gun at a deputy will result in death. The speaker states they will not tolerate attacks on police officers or ICE agents and condemns those obstructing law and order.

It's okay to have different opinions in a democracy, but it's not right to disrupt others by yelling in public places. Peaceful protests are American and supported, but causing harm to people is not. Everyone should be able to live their lives without being disrupted.

The speaker addresses the severity of threats and the dangers of vigilantism. They note that someone has been arrested for threatening them with terrorist threats, underscoring that it is no joke to be in the DOJ at this time. In discussing aggressive actions against law enforcement, the speaker highlights a scenario where someone breaks into a car of a law enforcement official and then uses information found inside to dox people and publish their home addresses. They emphasize that this action is not limited to targeting the ICE agent alone; it extends to the agent’s family, including the children, the wife, and the husband, highlighting the broader, more serious impact of such conduct. The speaker characterizes this behavior as a very serious matter. They warn that if someone believes they can operate as a renegade militia to police ICE, that person may spend many years in prison for doing so, labeling such a stance as a bad idea. The message clearly rejects vigilantism as a method of protest. The speaker asserts that protest is legitimate and notes their own history of protesting, framing protests as acceptable when conducted through proper channels. However, they insist that breaking into cars, doxxing individuals, and publishing home addresses are not acceptable forms of protest. The conclusion of the statement urges consideration of different, lawful approaches to expression and dissent. The speaker urges others to think of other ways to protest, emphasizing that the approach described—vigilante actions against ICE and doxxing—does not constitute an appropriate form of protest. The overall message is a strong warning against taking the law into one’s own hands and a call to pursue protests through lawful, nonviolent, and constructive means.

A man states he is on a public sidewalk at the steps of City Hall, saying "God bless homeless veterans." An officer says there have been complaints about him begging for food and money, which he denies. The officer asks for his ID and states it is required. The officer says he will go to jail if he doesn't provide it. The man claims he is standing on a public sidewalk engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, safeguarded by the First Amendment: freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The officer says he doesn't care and instructs him to leave, stating that this is how it is in the state of Mississippi.

People are pepper spraying and throwing things in the streets. They are blocking ICE and the FBI from coming through.

The National Guard and Marines are being stationed at federal buildings across the country where riots are taking place, not deployed against US citizens. They remain on federal property to provide security for those buildings. If people do not storm the federal building or attack the National Guard, they will not be attacked. As an investigative journalist who covers protests, the speaker says they stood two inches from the National Guard, who did nothing. The National Guard is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity because the cities will not allow it.