reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I need to interview you voluntarily at the police station regarding a Facebook incident. The allegation is malicious communications. The speaker denies malicious intent and is willing to discuss it further during the interview. The speaker expresses no hate in their heart and is open to clarifying their comments. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's pets.

Speaker 0 questions why a swastika is not immediately considered anti-Semitic, while Speaker 1 explains the need for context. Speaker 0 expresses confusion and frustration, emphasizing the symbol's association with anti-Semitism. Speaker 1 mentions their role as a police officer and the need for distress to take action. Speaker 0 is dissatisfied with the response and seeks clarity on when a swastika is not anti-Semitic. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 reiterating their role and responsibilities.

Responsible behaviors are expected from everyone in the community. Legal gun possession within a locked home does not preclude authorities from entering to ensure responsible and safe conduct.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 refuses to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

A creator states they went to the police station because a prominent creator incited mob violence against them, their property, and family due to differing views on pesticide use. The speaker claims their phone and social media accounts were flooded, and they received death threats, which have been reported to the police. The speaker alleges the other creator is targeting them for posting about not using pesticides like glyphosate on their Facebook page. They claim the creator wants the posts removed and has threatened to continue doxxing them and ruining their life and business if they don't comply. The speaker says the creator commented on their appearance in a video. They state they are now working with the police and attorneys and that people are sending them screenshots and emails expressing fear for their safety due to the mob violence allegedly encouraged in the creator's Facebook group.

An individual questions whether an action is due to a security concern or an intimidation tactic. The response indicates it is a security matter. Later, the individual asks why they are not being arrested and demands to see video footage. They express distress, stating "That is not okay." Another person urges calm. The individual mentions "FinCEO" and claims they will be arrested despite knowing nothing. They thank someone for their support and ask why another person isn't being arrested, claiming to have witnessed them slap someone. They deny anyone said "stab him." They state that even asking an impolite question could lead to arrest.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

The speaker records a conversation with law enforcement officers regarding online threats they have received. They clarify that they do not advocate violence and are only using words to express their opinions. They mention receiving death threats and express concern for their family's safety. The officers advise them to report the threats and offer to make their house a lookout. The speaker emphasizes that they have no criminal record and do not possess any weapons. They believe that criticism should be allowed for all groups and advocate for peaceful dialogue. They express frustration with being labeled as hateful for expressing their views.

Speaker 1 recounts an incident where “eleven police officers” arrived at their house, which they describe as completely ridiculous. The speaker explains they had left the front door open and were waiting for their dad, actually being in the bath at the time the officers entered. They recall hearing their name called, noticing one female officer among the group of ten male officers. They initially thought the name might belong to their sister because they were upstairs in the bath. The officers then came up the stairs without giving them any privacy, and the speaker confirms they were naked. The speaker describes feeling disgusted and very upset, crying their eyes out. They asked that the female officer stay downstairs and that the male officers be the ones to handle the situation, expressing that they were upset about the lack of privacy and the presence of officers while exposed. Despite this, the males were sent downstairs, and the female officer sat with the speaker, who was crying and very distressed. When asked what the officers were there for, the speaker says they asked for clarification. The female officer explained that the police were there for “malicious communications. Hate crime and malicious communications.” The speaker pressed for more information about the reason behind the visit, and the officer indicated they would discuss the details “when we get to the police station” or “to the” authorities, but the exact phrasing in the transcript cuts off here.

I have a 20-gauge shotgun for hunting. You're not allowed to own any weapons, but I'm not taking your gun away. You need 100 rounds, and we’re discussing a veto. There’s misinformation circulating; I never said I would take your gun. That’s a viral video spreading lies. You just claimed I said I would take your AR. Let’s clarify what was actually said.

The speaker accuses someone of trying to ruin their life by involving the police and claims to have damaging information about them. They mention a previous incident where someone's dog was killed. The other speaker admits to calling the police on the first speaker, claiming they have knowledge of illegal firearms, alt-right involvement, and drugs. They express hope that the police will visit the first speaker soon. The conversation then shifts to discussing doxxing and swatting, with one speaker supporting the posting of personal information but opposing swatting due to its potential for violence. They mention a case where someone was killed as a result of swatting and highlight its illegality in many places.

Speaker 1 took down a post due to harassment and potential misinterpretation. The post included a picture of Mr. Grosskreutz with a firearm. Speaker 0 questioned if Speaker 1 intentionally tried to hurt Mr. Grosskreutz by misrepresenting his words. Speaker 1 admitted to poor judgment and acting out of anger to defend a friend with a firearm.

Speaker 1 admits that mentioning being armed was to deter threats. They regret their choice of words and clarified their friend never said that. They received threats and harassment online even 14 months later, with a recent influx after a court subpoena.

The FBI agents visit a person to discuss social media posts flagged by Facebook. The person refuses to engage without their lawyer present, citing freedom of speech. The agents assure they are not there to arrest but to ensure safety. The person questions why their opinions are being scrutinized, pointing out it's a right as an American. The agents leave contact information for further discussion. The person asserts their rights and identity, emphasizing they live in America.

I came to your house expecting to find a gun because you're a license holder. We're required to wear weapons when dealing with guns as a police protocol. I find this unacceptable because I haven't broken any laws and you barged into my house without a warrant, fully armed. This was a warrantless search under section 18 of the search and study act. We did this because we expected you to have a firearm. If you had cooperated, it would have been easier. I did cooperate, and I have it on video. You put my hands behind my back because you were getting angry and aggressive. I was angry because I have four officers at my house not obeying the law. Just explain it to me, so we can move on.

Responsible behaviors are expected from everyone in the community. Legal gun possession within a locked home does not preclude authorities from entering the home to ensure responsible and safe conduct.

We’re here to discuss some comments related to civil war recruitment that raised concerns. I’m not sure where the report originated, but it seems there’s been some misinformation circulating on social media. We monitor both far-right and far-left activities, and we just want to ensure there’s no intent to harm yourself or others. It’s important to clarify that the comments in question were not related to the recent election. If you have any tweets or information, sharing them could help clear things up. We’re not here to overwhelm you; we just want to check in and ensure everything is okay. If you notice anything suspicious in the future, please reach out. We can also meet regularly to discuss any concerns.

You agree that using deadly force to protect property is not allowed. However, you mentioned wanting your AR 15 to protect someone's property in the past. Let's revisit this topic briefly.

The speaker is frustrated with repeated false reports to the police, fearing for his safety. He mentions receiving support from online followers and expresses concern about the lack of recourse against these malicious actions. The police assure him of ongoing support and mention escalating the investigation to higher levels. The speaker describes how the false reports are made using fake numbers and tactics to deceive authorities. The police acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and promise to work towards a solution.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Hey guys, can I pause for a moment? Are there any armed individuals here? Yes, the police. Law enforcement. Can you please provide your credentials? Okay. What was the reason for your call? You need to do...

An individual questions whether an action is due to security concerns or intimidation. The response indicates it is a security matter. Another person is told to stay away from someone. An individual asks why they aren't being arrested and demands to see video footage. Someone is told to calm down. An individual states "They will arrest me. I know nothing." Another person is asked if they would arrest someone else, claiming to have seen that person slap someone. It is asserted that no one said "stab him." Someone states they are on the side of another person.

Responsible behaviors are expected from everyone in the community. Legal gun possession within a locked home does not preclude authorities from entering to ensure responsible and safe conduct.

The speaker wants the police to publicly state that the current situation is incorrect and that they will not enforce it. They believe that citizens have the right to bear arms and should not be arrested for it. They mention having seen this happen multiple times before.