reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 is questioning someone about their father, but they don't seem to care. The speaker tells them to leave and mentions that their first name doesn't matter. The conversation abruptly ends.

The speaker repeatedly tells someone to sit down and states that they were not called.

A person is told to grab whatever they need, like their phone or purse. They ask if their husband is coming with them. They are told he is taking his phone number down and that they are staying in touch with him. They are also told that they are just going down the road, about ten minutes away. The person says they would prefer their husband be with them. They ask if they are in trouble and state they are lost. They are offered a tissue and a bag because they feel like they are going to throw up.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are discussing discharge rights at a hospital. The core issue is that there is no doctor’s order allowing the baby to go home, while the mother believes she can leave without such an order. Key points: - The mother argues “the mommy can go without doctor’s order, but not the baby,” and asks why the baby cannot accompany the mom. - Speaker 1 insists “there’s nothing wrong with the baby” and asks to “get the doctor up here so we can be discharged.” - Speaker 0 repeats: “There is no order for the baby to go home.” Speaker 1 counters, “There doesn’t have to be one.” - They have been "going through this for, like, the last hour," and they want to leave. Speaker 1 asks, “How long is it gonna be before the doctor gets up here?” and they say “We are calling the doctor right now. It depends on how when you get a callback.” - A hospital staff member (Speaker 2) asks to speak outside with Speaker 1, saying, “Sir, can I talk to you outside real quick?” and then notes a need for discretion regarding victims. - The routine difficulty is clarified: “There is no doctor's order for the baby to go home.” Yet Speaker 1 states, “There’s not,” and they reiterate their desire to leave: “We wanna leave.” - They discuss the process: Speaker 0 says, “Yes. We are [calling],” and Speaker 1 says, “Get the order… so we can leave.” Speaker 1 adds, “And so we can leave.” - Regarding consequences or external involvement, Speaker 1 asks about CPS: “CPS? No. They didn't? No. Nothing about CPS. Nothing.” - The dialogue emphasizes that the mother believes she should be allowed to discharge, and the baby’s discharge requires a doctor’s order, which they are not obtaining at the moment. Overall, the conversation centers on the discrepancy between the mother’s belief that she can discharge without a doctor’s order and the hospital’s apparent requirement for a formal order for the baby to be discharged. They are actively attempting to contact the doctor to issue the necessary order, while expressing frustration at the delay. CPS is mentioned but not involved, with reassurance that there has been no CPS involvement. The mother asserts that the mother can leave, but the baby cannot without the doctor’s order, and Speaker 1 keeps pressing to obtain that order so they can discharge.

The speaker states they are getting kicked off due to their shirt. The speaker then addresses someone named Wendy, apparently responsible for the situation, and calls her "stupid ass."

Speaker 0 asks if someone is at their door, while Speaker 1 suggests leaving and says it's not possible to do what Speaker 0 is asking. Speaker 0 repeats their question about someone being at their door.

The speaker and another person are having a conversation about not being able to take a video. The speaker asks why they can't take a video and the other person tells them they are not allowed. The speaker insists they are already there and asks again why they can't take a video. The conversation becomes heated and the other person asks the speaker to leave, accusing them of forcing their way in. The speaker is then asked to leave again and the conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to keep going for safety. Speaker 1 disagrees and is asked to leave. Speaker 1 mentions harm caused. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 they don't have to stay for the recording.

Speaker 1 is confused about why they are being asked to leave a presidential campaign event. Speaker 0 explains that it is because they are on private property. Speaker 1 questions why they are being kicked out if they work for Nikki's campaign and were told to sign up for the event. Speaker 0 refuses to answer questions and asks Speaker 1 to leave. Speaker 1 insists that they received an email and text instructing them to sign up for the event. Speaker 2 also asks Speaker 1 to leave, but Speaker 1 argues that they are asking nicely too. Speaker 0 reiterates that they don't have answers and that Speaker 1 must leave the premises.

In West Saint Paul, a tense exchange unfolds involving a confrontation over identification and vehicle ownership. One person questions why they are being allowed in or out, insisting that the vehicle being driven is registered to an illegal immigrant and asks, “Is it your vehicle?” The situation escalates with exasperation and swearing, including directives to “Go in here” and expressions of frustration about the others’ conduct. Another participant tells a woman to “stay back over there” and states, “Ma’am, can you do me a favor? Just stay back over there.” A request is made for identification and badge information: “I have the right to know his badge number. What is your badge number?” The exchange centers on accountability, vehicle ownership, and the acknowledgement of badge identification, set within a high-tension environment.

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.

The speaker tells someone to return to their car and assures them that they will be attended to shortly. They mention that they will be checking the registration of a specific license plate. The speaker then bids farewell to someone, addressing them as "judge."

The speaker is involved in a confrontation with someone, repeatedly telling them to step back and not touch them. Another person intervenes, trying to calm the situation and saying they have it under control. The speaker continues to argue, demanding not to be touched and insisting they have the right to be there. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker cursing and expressing frustration. The second person asks the speaker to back up, but the speaker refuses, claiming they have the right to be there. The transcript ends with the speaker angrily telling the second person to back up.

Door closed. Where's Viv? Get over there. You good? Get out.

Someone is being confronted on a bus and told to get off immediately. If they refuse, they will be forcibly removed. The person is instructed to back up and leave the bus.

The speaker confirms that she needs an ID, agrees that this is correct, asks the other person to hold on, mentions having their brother’s question, and then hands over whatever was being requested.

Speaker 0 asks for the person's name and questions their reason for being there. They accuse the person of texting a 15-year-old, which the person denies. Speaker 0 threatens to call the police and demands to see the person's phone. The person tries to leave but is stopped and urged to stay and talk.

Where's the leader? Who's in charge here? You’re treating us like criminals. This is unacceptable. That’s my father inside, and my wife is in there too. Can you please back up? I’m already backed up; I haven’t moved.

Look at me. What's your name? Give me your ID. I gave you my ID upstairs. So? I showed you my ID. Let me see it again. He won't show me. You didn't see it either. I need to see it. I see it.

Speaker 0 describes their doula team’s situation during a birth: the husband has left with the baby because the baby, Lisa, was asked to leave, leaving the mother to give birth alone in the room. Speaker 1 confirms they are supporting a doula client who desires their presence. Speaker 2 then informs them that the nurses are asking them to leave, citing visitation privilege and requesting the policy on visitation. Speaker 0 asks whether this decision is being made before considering the impact on care. Speaker 2 reiterates that visitation privileges could conflict with care, and implies that once competing with care arises, the nurses’ concern becomes an issue. Speaker 1 questions how their presence impedes care. Speaker 2 declines to elaborate, stating that it’s about visitation grounds. Speaker 0 notes that the mother will be alone in the room as a result, since the husband left with the baby. Speaker 1 expresses confusion over the nurse’s stance, stating they have made no medical interference and are simply present to support and assist with hip squeezes, not to intervene medically. Speaker 0 says they have been making their own consent and decisions, and that the mother has no one else with her. Speaker 1 asserts that the nurses’ grounds to remove them are unfounded, and emphasizes that the mother can speak for herself; they are not speaking for her. The overall tension centers on whether the doulas’ presence constitutes medical interference or is a permissible support under visitation policies, with the mother at risk of being alone during childbirth.

The speaker repeatedly says "exit" and urges someone to leave. They mention not wanting to be grabbed and ask someone named James to stop touching them. The speaker also mentions staying in one place and not wanting to leave. The transcript ends abruptly with a question about why someone doesn't want to leave.

A person is requesting that an individual named "mister Patel" obtain the identification of a woman before she leaves. The speaker claims the woman assaulted them and expresses concern that she will disappear into the crowd, making it impossible to find her later.

The speaker instructs someone to remove a blanket and asks who is going for a place. The speaker questions if someone is choosing to be noncompliant. The speaker then instructs someone to squeeze something to see if it goes and to double up. The speaker states they will see someone later and will lift someone up, asking if they want to be lifted to their knees or carried. The speaker then acknowledges carrying someone.

Someone is being told to leave. A directive is given to a group identified as "yellow" to stick together.