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.

The transcript documents a tense encounter between Speaker 0 and individuals who appear to be accompanying or representing law enforcement or a compliance team. Speaker 0 begins by challenging a prior online statement about the Jewish community, asserting a belief in freedom of speech. The responders acknowledge the claim but insist they must ensure there is no warrant and that they are within rights to proceed. The conversation shifts to a sign reading “no soliciting,” with Speaker 0 being told that what he is doing is basically soliciting and that he is not welcomed there. He is told to “stay off the lawn” and to leave, as the others indicate the property line and how to proceed. Speaker 0 presses back on the idea of warrants and the legality of their actions, insisting, “No. That’s why we’re,” and then highlighting the sign as evidence of their lack of welcome. The discourse reveals a confrontation over freedom of speech: Speaker 0 declares, “This is freedom of speech,” while the others respond by asserting boundaries and the illegitimacy of the intrusion in light of the no-soliciting sign. The scene is described as an example of consequences for online comments about the Jewish community, with the on-site visitors asserting that comments lead to an in-person response. Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the situation as a defense of free expression, repeatedly stating, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Mhmm.” and “This is freedom of speech.” The others counter with procedural cautions about warrants and property rights, and they emphasize that the sign does not authorize the visitors to disregard the property boundaries, noting, “Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage.” The exchange escalates into a back-and-forth about authority, with Speaker 0 disparaging the perceived influence of Israel, saying, “This is how much control Israel has over our country,” and claiming that the response he’s facing is a direct consequence of exercising online freedom of speech. The interaction culminates with the visitors continuing their stance on non-solicitation, and Speaker 0 signaling a ready exit, saying “Bye bye,” and reiterating the boundary with, “Freedom of speech.” The overall dynamics depict a confrontation where online remarks about a minority community are met with a door-to-door response framed as protecting boundaries under a no-soliciting rule, while the speaker asserts constitutional rights and critiques the legitimacy of the encounter.

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.

Two individuals are at a doorstep where one of them comments on a doorbell camera and notices a dog, then the other asks about a confrontation that follows. Speaker 1 arrives to address statements made online about the Jewish community. The person at the door asserts, “You So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude,” signaling a belief in freedom of speech. The other party acknowledges they understand the point but then questions the situation, indicating they are there because of online remarks about Jews. The conversation shifts toward legal processes. Speaker 1 asks if they have a warrant, to which Speaker 0 responds, “get a warrant?” and then clarifies, “No. That’s why we’re…,” implying something about the lack of a warrant. They reference a “no soliciting” sign, noting that what the person is doing amounts to soliciting and is not welcomed on the property. The resident agrees to leave and asks them to stay off the lawn, signaling a boundary. The exchange continues with the group emphasizing that online comments about Jews can lead to a doorstep response. The person outside asserts, “This is freedom of speech,” and claims the situation demonstrates how much control “Israel has over our country,” describing the response to expressing online opinions as a “response for exercising my freedom of speech online” and labeling it “a joke.” They threaten future actions: “Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys.” The door sign is reiterated: “Sign says no soliciting.” The person outside questions the others’ actions, asking, “What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant.” They reiterate that a sign that says “no soliciting” does not grant a right to the property’s curtilage and insist, “Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” The scene ends with the insistence on leaving and the declaration of exercising freedom of speech, contrasting legal door-to-door presence with the boundary marked by the sign.

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 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.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 are filmed at a door where a confrontation unfolds after online remarks about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 begins by stating they’re there because of comments made online about the Jewish community, and asks, “You So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 responds, “Yeah. No. We we we get that. We get that.” Speaker 1 adds, “We just we gotta make sure that you’re not Do have a” and continues, “get a warrant?” The officers stress their authority by noting the presence of a “no soliciting” sign and explain, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Mhmm.” Speaker 0 acknowledges, “Yeah.” Speaker 1 reiterates the sign’s meaning and says, “Sign says no soliciting. What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant. Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage. Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” The conversation escalates with the officers enforcing a boundary around the property. Speaker 0 challenges the encounter, while Speaker 1 insists on the illegality of soliciting without a warrant, pointing to the no-soliciting sign as justification for their presence. Throughout, Speaker 1 frames the interaction as a matter of free speech, while Speaker 0 and the recording voice push back on the idea that signs or government authority justify intrusion. In a series of inflammatory statements, the discussion broadens from the individual doorstep visit to a broader political claim: “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door.” Speaker 0 adds, “This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the impact of online comments and the response they’ve triggered, saying, “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” The exchange culminates with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 exchanging final declarations: “What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys. Bye bye,” and reiterating the sign’s message, “Sign says no soliciting.” Overall, the dialogue centers on a door-step confrontation triggered by online comments about the Jewish community, framed as a debate over freedom of speech versus property rights and the boundaries implied by a no-soliciting sign and curtilage, ending with an unresolved assertion of jurisdiction and mutual dismissal.

An individual is confronted on a property and told to leave because it is military property. The individual claims to be a citizen journalist investigating who is staying on the property. They state that the gate is open to the public and that they drove in without issue. They also mention concern for women and children allegedly harmed by unvetted men. The other individual repeatedly demands they leave and threatens arrest, telling them to call the station for information but refusing to provide details themselves. They ask who the journalist represents and who they signed a non-disclosure agreement with.

Speaker 0: "Hey. You're private property. You're on private property. Hey. You're on private property. Get the fuck out. Yeah. I told you. You're on private property."

Officer Lamont Metro and Officer Leonard respond to a private parking lot where Speaker 1 is parked in a Jeep that Metro says is unusual for the area. Metro explains this is his area and zone, and he’s there often; seeing the Jeep raises questions about what Speaker 1 is doing. Speaker 1 refuses to answer questions, stating she has a right not to answer. Metro reiterates that if she’s not doing anything wrong, there should be no worry. Speaker 1 says she is obligated to help with no cooperation and that she has the right to refuse to answer questions. Metro says he has the right to ask simple questions and asks what Speaker 1 is doing. She again refuses to answer, stating she’s not breaking a law and will not aid the investigation. Metro asserts there is a right to ask for identification if she’s refusing to cooperate. Speaker 1 asks if Metro is going to punish her for not complying; Metro denies this and emphasizes his goal is to figure out who she is. She claims it’s on video that he would punish her for not cooperating, which he denies. He suggests the situation would go easier if they were polite, while she asks him to leave her alone and reiterates she’s not doing anything wrong. Metro asks if she works in the area, to which Speaker 1 responds it’s none of his business. He explains he has the right to detain on private property, though Speaker 1 challenges the concept of detention, insisting he has no crime. She questions what she would be detained for, as she refuses to cooperate or communicate. Metro presses, asking for her driver’s license, and she asks for a cause, noting a private parking lot and harassment is not what he’s doing. He counters that it is reasonable suspicion given the parking lot context and her presence there. Speaker 1 insists the situation is exactly what Metro is doing: harassing her. She refuses to step out of the car, even though Metro says she is detained and asks her to exit for a conversation. She requests a supervisor and repeats she does not care about his investigation, stating she simply wants to be in the parking lot. Metro calls for a supervisor and says he will contact one once she provides her ID. She again requests a supervisor. Speaker 0 (Metro) and Speaker 2 (Officer Leonard) describe the exchange as Speaker 1 being extremely difficult and insist they have a legitimate interest in knowing who she is. Metro clarifies that he’s here to speak with her and determine why she’s there; Speaker 1 remains non-cooperative, asserting she’s not obligated to tell him anything, while he maintains the authority to ask for identification and to request her to step out. The conversation ends with Metro asking again for Speaker 1’s ID, underscoring his need to know who she is.

Speaker 0 questions why someone is being asked to leave, stating that the conversation is between them and the lady. They argue that they are not trespassing as it is a public facility they have paid for. The speaker asks why the lady is being arrested, but the reason is not given. The officer explains that it is under the Trespass Property Act, while the speaker insists they are within their rights. The officer provides their name and asks for the speaker's identification. The conversation ends with a request to contact someone for clarification on the rules.

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.

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 repeatedly asks the person if they have more information about trespassing and being asked to leave the secured side. The person denies refusing to leave and asks for the statute to be cited so they can understand it better. The speaker tells them to look it up themselves.

Get your hand off my camera right now! I apologize, but I need to follow protocol. Don't cover my camera! What do you want? There's no need for that. I have a warrant. Get off my property! Are you home to talk? Yes, I'm hiding from you. Show me the warrant! You're losing connection. Get off my property! I don't care who's with you. No one is welcome here. You can stand on the curb and show me the warrant. Get all your friends off my property! No need for that language. You pointed guns at me! Get the hell out!

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 arrive at a residence after online comments about the Jewish community. Speaker 0 asks about a doorbell camera and notes a dog in the house, saying “Wrong one.” Speaker 1 asks for another attempt. Speaker 0 states they are there because of comments made online about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 responds, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 acknowledges the right to free speech but says they need to determine whether they have a warrant. Speaker 1 asserts there is no warrant. Speaker 0 points to a sign that says “no soliciting” and tells Speaker 1 that what they’re doing is basically soliciting and that they are not welcomed there. Speaker 1 says, “That sign says no soliciting,” and Speaker 0 agrees, indicating they will leave, and asks that they stay off the lawn. The scene shifts to a broader confrontation. Speaker 0 states, “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door.” Speaker 1 counters with, “This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 0 responds again, emphasizing the perceived power of the response they’re witnessing to exercising free speech online and questions the control claimed by Israel over the country, adding, “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” Speaker 0 calls the situation “a fucking joke,” and says, “What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys.” The interaction ends with Speaker 0 reiterating the “no soliciting” sign and stating that it does not grant a right to their curtilage, and both parties depart with brief exchanges of “Bye bye” and “Freedom of speech.” Key points conveyed: - The visit is prompted by online comments about the Jewish community. - A tension between freedom of speech and perceived harassment or intimidation at someone’s residence. - A no-soliciting sign is cited as indicating they are not welcome, with a claim that the sign does not grant permission to be on the property’s curtilage. - Assertions about a lack of warrant are made during the encounter. - The exchange includes strong language and a rhetorical claim about Israel’s influence, as well as a provocative statement about auditing the visitors.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a tense exchange at a doorstep. Speaker 0 asks about a doorbell camera and notes “the dog the wrong one” and then asks, “Are you … you,” referring to online comments about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 responds, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 acknowledges that point but says, “We just we gotta make sure that you're not” and asks about a warrant. Speaker 1 counters, “No. That's why we're here. You see that sign? Yeah. See how it says no soliciting? What you're doing is basically soliciting. You understand that.” Speaker 0 acknowledges and the interaction continues with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stay off the lawn and noting that “this is what they're doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they'll fucking show up at your door. This is what they do. This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 1 asserts, “This is freedom of speech.” The conversation includes a denunciation of Israel’s influence, with Speaker 0 stating, “This is how much control Israel has over our country.” Speaker 0 mocks the response to exercising freedom of speech online: “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” Speaker 1 asks for compliance with the no soliciting sign and the situation escalates to a dismissal: “Bye bye.” There is a repeated emphasis on the sign that says no soliciting and the belief that a sign does not grant a right to the property’s curtilage, as Speaker 0 says, “Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage.” The dialogue concludes with Speaker 0 again asserting “Freedom of speech” and Speaker 1 leaving, with an implied insistence that the visitors had no warrant and trespass concerns. The interaction highlights the clash between claimed freedom of speech and a homeowner’s boundary, framed by accusations about comments toward the Jewish community and broader geopolitical insinuations.

Open the door. What's going on? We're not doing anything. Open the door now! Okay, police open the door. Is everything alright? What's happening? What did we do? Open the door. I'm not scared. We're scared. What did we do? I'm scared. We're not doing anything. We're not doing anything. What did we do? I'm scared, they're pointing at us and we don't have any weapons or anything.

The speaker confronts someone filming in front of a building and tells them they don't have the right to film there. The person being filmed asks who the speaker is and why they can't film. The speaker insists that they don't have the right and threatens to knock them out. The person being filmed asks for the speaker's name and badge number, and the speaker provides it. The person being filmed tells the speaker to leave them alone and not give them orders on the sidewalk. The speaker tells them to go back inside and not bother them.

Two speakers engage in a tense confrontation on private property, captured on video. Speaker 1 says, "There's no problem with that," while Speaker 0 accuses, "Not showing respect to the rules of" and, "Because of the just after you are not serving me. Really? Please leave, sir. Please leave. Because I'll make sure you go out of business." Speaker 1 replies, "Don't worry. I'm sorry. I got to call the police as best as you want. But I'm sure you're gonna go out of business." They add, "We will wait for them outside." "You can get out of my property. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. We will leave." The exchange ends with, "Good luck. Idiot." and, "Definitely, he's going out of business, this guy."

An individual is inside another person's home, asserting they now own the house because they are inside. The homeowner demands the person leave and threatens that their dog will bite if instructed. The homeowner repeatedly asks the person to call their supervisor and accuses them of having no right to be there, even if the door was opened by minors. The homeowner states they are the adult. The person inside refuses to leave. The homeowner asks if they touched the person. Someone off-screen says the interaction is being recorded. The homeowner demands the supervisor be called. The person inside is told not to go further inside the house.

The speakers engage in a conversation about whether the property is private or public. The person recording claims to be a member of the media and is doing a story on the police trespassing another media member. They argue about the property being public and the police lying about it being private. The person recording asserts their right to film and gather information for the public. The police mention a secure area and the person recording denies filming personal cars. They discuss complaint forms and freedom of information requests. The conversation ends with the person recording saying they were going to take a picture of the gate.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave a private property, but Speaker 1 insists on using the restroom. Speaker 0 suggests using a restroom next door, but Speaker 1 refuses. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being afraid of being photographed and brings up Zionism. Speaker 0 mentions the history of Palestine and thanks Speaker 1 sarcastically. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing support for Palestine.