reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 says, “We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later,” and adds, “US citizen, former fucking country,” followed by, “You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Speaker 2 then yells, “Out of car. The Get out of the fucking car.” Speaker 0 responds, “Get out of the car. I took it to my car. Woah. Fucking bitch.”

In the exchange, Speaker 0 speaks in a confrontational, defensive manner, attempting to project calm while signaling readiness to confront the other party. They begin by downplaying any anger: “That's That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at Show your face. I'm not mad at okay.” The speaker then references the notion of routine or consistency, saying, “We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know. It'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” This line establishes a threat of persistence or continuity in the encounter, suggesting that the speaker intends to maintain the same approach or stance in future contact. Following this, Speaker 0 reinforces a nonchalant attitude with, “That's fine. US citizen, former fucking.” The exact meaning of that fragment is unclear from the transcript, but it is presented as a declaration intended to bolster their position or persona in the confrontation. The speaker then challenges the other party directly: “You wanna come at us? Wanna come at us?,” framing the interaction as a test of strength or resolve. They further compound the pressure by ordering a practical action: “I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” The directive to eat is delivered in a blunt, taunting tone, perhaps aiming to assert superiority or distract the other person. Speaker 0 follows with a brief, unambiguous command: “Go ahead.” This short directive serves as a green light for the other party, even as the tension remains high. The scene then shifts to Speaker 1, who interjects with a forceful demand: “Get out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.” The imperative is repeated in urgent, aggressive language, underscoring the escalation or enforcement of authority within the confrontation. In response, Speaker 0 doubling down repeats the same demand: “Get out of the car.” They then exit with a possessive, almost defensive remark about the vehicle: “I'm taking my car.” The exchange culminates in a crude exclamation: “Woah. Fucking bitch.” The language conveys hostility and a sense of personal affront, marking a heated, potentially volatile moment between the participants.

The exchange opens with Speaker 0 insisting that everything is fine and stating, “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you. Show your face. I’m not mad.” Speaker 1 responds with a similar nonconfrontational stance, saying, “That’s okay. We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That’s fine.” A fragment, “US citizen,” appears, attributed to the moment but not clearly labeled as a speaking line beyond its placement, followed by Speaker 0 challenging the others with, “You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us?” Speaker 1 counters with a calmer directive: “I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Speaker 0 then says, “Go ahead.” The dynamics shift as Speaker 2 interjects with an order, “Out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.” Speaker 0 repeats the directive, “Get out of the car. I’m taking my car. Woah.”

The speaker confronts law enforcement, demanding their name and badge number. They mention FirstNet and whistleblowers inside the facility. They express their intention to obtain and publish body cam footage. They point out a bus filled with illegal immigrants and question the officer's knowledge. The officer responds that they are unsure. The speaker accuses the officer of lying and insists they know about the bus. The officer ends the conversation, stating they will leave it at that. The speaker expresses disbelief at the situation.

Speaker 0 is questioning if the person in front of them is a police officer and threatens to call the police. They mention someone trying to help them and ask the person to stop.

Speaker 0 asks whether you need to show ID, questions if that has a warrant, and asks if you don’t have an ID.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 for driving in the wrong direction. Speaker 1 explains that they recently moved and got confused. Speaker 0 asks about alcohol consumption and conducts tests. Speaker 1 mentions social anxiety and being non-binary. Speaker 0 tries to be respectful but struggles with the correct pronouns. Speaker 1 mentions mental health issues and generational trauma. Speaker 0 attempts a sobriety test, but Speaker 1 feels triggered. Speaker 0 tries to arrest Speaker 1, who resists and accuses Speaker 0 of being intimidating and scary due to their indigenous background. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 expressing fear.

A speaker confronts police, calling their actions 'There’s absolutely no nobility in what you're doing. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. It's called fascism. It's called fucking fascism.' He asks, 'Did he commit a crime? Is he free to go? Is he being charged with anything?' and, 'Why was he pulled over? What are the charges?' He accuses profiling: 'Are you just pulling over all the brown people who drive by because you arrested another man for what? Was he charged with anything?' He demands accountability: 'What’s your name? Okay. Why don’t you show your fucking faces, you coward?' He notes unmarked cars: 'Unmarked cars. No faces.' 'Yeah. Just says police. Police is awfully generic. So you have a badge number?' The encounter ends with insults: 'Yeah. You'll fuck yourself. You're not welcome here. Get the fuck out of our neighborhood. Jesus Christ.'

Speaker 0 says: "Hey. We just wanna make sure that you guys are good. You're driving like a complete maniac. And the way that you're acting, we gotta verify if you're good and then we'll be out of here. You understand?" The other replies: "No."

Speaker 0 notices the trailer lights are off and asks Speaker 1 to find them, emphasizing that driving in the dark is unsafe. Speaker 1 repeats that he doesn’t know where the lights are and has been trying to locate them. Speaker 0 questions how long Speaker 1 has had his CDL, and Speaker 1 responds two months. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief that someone with a two-month CDL doesn’t know where the lights are, noting that he has been driving in the dark and stressing that it’s not acceptable. Speaker 1 reiterates that he’s trying to find the lights but cannot. Speaker 0 scolds him for driving in the dark and asks if he truly has a CDL, stating that he doesn’t want to be rude but implies that Speaker 1 may be causing an accident. Speaker 1 acknowledges awareness of the potential danger but continues to say he’s trying to locate the light. Speaker 0 asks to see Speaker 1’s CDL and then abruptly dismisses the request, muttering that perhaps Speaker 1 doesn’t have it. He repeats the question about the CDL and asks where it is, suggesting that the two-month CDL might not be valid or real. Speaker 1 confirms again that he has had the CDL for two months. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is from here or from America, indicating a language or origin line of questioning, and then hands the CDL back to Speaker 1, telling him to take it back and that he’s good to go but reiterates that he doesn’t think Speaker 1 should be driving. In closing, Speaker 0 reiterates his concern and lets Speaker 1 leave, acknowledging that he is not going to stop him but making it clear that he does not believe Speaker 1 should be driving. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 warning again that driving in the present condition is unsafe and implying that Speaker 1 may be unfit to operate a vehicle.

The transcript captures a single speaker, identified as Speaker 0, directing a torrent of explicit hostility toward police or masked police officers during what appears to be a chaotic or dangerous scene. The speaker repeatedly uses profanity and targets authority figures with anger and contempt, demanding action and accountability in a heated moment. The sequence begins with Speaker 0 shouting, "Fuck you. He's Siri. Call 911." The phrase "He's Siri" is followed by a directive to summon emergency help, "Call 911." The speaker then challenges the authority or competence of the officers by declaring, "You're not a traffic cop. Clear it out." Immediately after, the speaker reiterates disdain for the presence of masked police, saying, "You're not a traffic cop. Masked police, fuck you." The speaker directs the offensive demand, "Take your fucking mask off," and accuses the officers of jeopardizing their colleagues by their actions: "You almost hit your own guy, you motherfuckers." The confrontation escalates as the speaker comments on the officers’ conduct, observing a reaction or consequence, "Yep. And look at that." The speaker notes the officers’ subsequent departure from the scene with the phrase, "Then they get out of Dodge." The profanity intensifies as the speaker repeats, "Fuck y'all. Fuck you," intensifying the denouncement of the officers’ behavior or actions. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the outcome of the officers’ behavior with a blunt judgment about the aftermath: "Yep. And then just leave the carnage." The expletive-laden closing line, "Fucking assholes," serves as a final, emphatic condemnation of the masked police involved. Overall, the transcript presents a highly charged, swear-laden vent by Speaker 0 directed at masked police, criticizing their conduct, mask-wearing, and departure from a chaotic scene, while insisting on emergency response and denouncing the officers as negligent or inappropriate in their handling of the situation. The content focuses on anger toward law enforcement presence and action, without offering any evaluative commentary on its truthfulness or legitimacy.

Speaker 0 states that they want to ensure the others are okay, accusing them of driving like a complete maniac. They say they need to verify that they’re good, and once verified they will be out of there. They ask, “You understand?” The response is “No.”

Speaker 0 asks for an ID from Speaker 1, insisting, “Do you have an ID on you, ma'am?” Speaker 1 replies, “I don't need a ID to walk around in in my city.” Speaker 0 presses for IDs, warning, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” Speaker 1 refuses, saying, “I don't need to take out you take out your ID.” Speaker 0 presses again: “Hey, ma'am.” Speaker 1 asserts, “It's ma'am. Am US citizen. I am US citizen.” Speaker 0 asks, “Alright. Can we see an ID, please?” Speaker 1 repeats, “I am US citizen. I don't need to carry around an ID in my home. Well, where were born?” Speaker 0 questions, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “This is my home,” and then, “Minneapolis is my home.” Speaker 0 clarifies, “Ma'am, that's not that's we're doing an immigration check. We're doing a citizen check. We're asking you where you were born.” Speaker 1 insists, “This is where I belong. This is my home.” Speaker 0 pushes, “Ma'am, can belong here, but where were you born? Not gonna give you a ID.” Speaker 1 repeats, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” Speaker 0 presses, “Ma'am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” Speaker 1 protests, “You're making me a skirt. You're making me a Do you have an ID?” Speaker 0 again asks for an ID, and Speaker 1 repeats, “This is my home.” Speaker 0 states, “Ma'am, where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “I am US citizen. I am US citizen. I don't think so. You have a right to picture me while I am in my home or walking around in my home. This is not acceptable.” Speaker 0 continues, “You guys, you terrorizing people.” Speaker 1 emphasizes, “Ma'am And it's not.” Speaker 0 asks again, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 states, “It doesn't matter where I was born. Belong here. I am US citizen.” She adds, “What else can I say? I am citizen. This is my home.” Speaker 0 warns, “Menia realize that if… [you] lie,” and Speaker 1 reiterates, “Menia, but this is my home.” Eventually Speaker 1 declares, “I am US citizen. I am not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?”

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.

A heated exchange unfolds between Speaker 0, who identifies as part of a community protection group, and Speaker 1, who represents ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Speaker 0 confronts the ICE team as they arrive in the neighborhood, insisting on seeing a warrant and demanding identification. The dialogue centers on whether the agents have a warrant signed by a judge and whether they should reveal badge numbers or other identifying information. Speaker 0 repeatedly presses for documentation: “Could you show me it, please?” and asks, “Do you have a warrant signed by a judge?” He questions the legitimacy of the officers’ presence, asking, “What’s your badge number, sir? Do you have a badge number? Can you identify yourself, please?” He emphasizes that “you’re coming into my city” and challenges why they would be in the area. Speaker 1 responds briefly and evasively, asserting identity as ICE and insisting that Speaker 0 has no business being present: “I’m ICE. Immigration. Immigration. Immigration. Customs enforcement. Okay. That’s all I am.” He adds, “You don’t have business when we get out of here, sir,” and later, “We’re looking for somebody,” though Speaker 0 pushes to know the name of the person they are pursuing: “Do you know his name? Do you have his name or her their name? What is their name?” Speaker 0 emphasizes community scrutiny and accountability, stating, “These are one of my neighbors, so I just wanna,” and challenges the officers’ transparency, asking for their identifications and accusing them of hiding their faces: “Why are you covering your face? Why don’t you take your mask down?” He taunts them with a threat to publish the encounter: “I’m gonna get this on the Internet. Your family is gonna be ashamed of you when they learn what you’re doing.” As the exchange escalates, Speaker 1 asserts authority and tries to disengage: “You don’t have business when we get out of here,” and “Okay. That’s all I am.” The confrontation intensifies with Speaker 0 inviting an on-the-record discussion and challenging the officers to converse “down” with him instead of remaining in their vehicle. The dialogue culminates with a physical and verbal standoff as Speaker 0 steps back and the officers retreat, while Speaker 0 continues to voice distrust, calling the actions “Gestapo”-like and insisting that the officers come talk to him in the street rather than remaining behind a door or in a car.

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.

Speaker 0 dismisses a medical-related claim, noting they don’t change their plates every morning and that the plate will stay the same when they return for a later conversation. They taunt the other person by saying, “US citizen, former fucking country. You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Speaker 1 orders, “Get out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.” Speaker 0 attempts to respond, exclaiming, “I can’t get my car. Woah.” Speaker 1 escalates, calling Speaker 0 a “fucking bitch.”

Speaker 0 describes a tense encounter, asserting safety concerns and clarifying they were visiting parents in Spencer and live there. They refuse to provide a requested detail: “What’s your dad’s name?” and answer “You don’t gotta get the information.” The other party orders, “Hands where I can see them. Don’t move around. Be nice,” followed by statements that they are not detained: “We’re not detained.” The speaker notes, “I have that too on recording already, and you are not allowed to do this,” and is told to “Turn the phone off.” There are repeated directives to relax and stop moving, with insistence that they are not in a traffic stop: “You’re not in the fucking traffic stop.” The confrontation escalates with commands to come up, culminating in “Come on up. Come up. Come on up. You got the right one.”

The speaker notices a state-run bus that resembles border patrol. They point out an emblem on the officer's sleeve and suggest looking into it. The speaker asks the officer about the people present, and the officer confirms they are illegal immigrants. The speaker then gets interrupted by someone asking for their ID. The speaker denies needing an ID, leading to an argument with the officer. The speaker insists they are not resisting and is asked to turn around.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a heated argument. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being intoxicated and making false accusations. Speaker 1 asserts their right to record in public and questions why the police are present when no crime has occurred. Speaker 0 insists on knowing Speaker 1's identity and asks for identification. Speaker 1 refuses to provide it and argues that it is the police officer's duty to identify themselves. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 urging Speaker 1 to stop talking and Speaker 1 questioning the use of tax dollars. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 providing their name and badge number.

The exchange appears to be a tense traffic-stop interaction. One speaker asserts they are not detained and mentions having it on recording, while questioning the legitimacy of the stop. They indicate they were visiting parents and that they live in Spencer, and they are asked for their father’s name, though they decline giving that information. Throughout the confrontation, the other party demands that the speaker keep their hands visible and not move around, insisting they are not detained and that nothing about a detention has been said. The speaker is told to turn the phone off and to stop recording, with repeated instructions to relax and not to move excessively. There is a back-and-forth about recording and legality: the speaker states they have it on recording already and asserts a prohibition on certain actions, while the other party continues to instruct the speaker to put the phone away and to calm down. The dialogue includes commands to approach or come up, culminating in repeated insistence that the speaker "come up," with multiple repetitions of "Come up" and "You got the right one," suggesting the speaker is being asked to move toward the officer or another location. Overall, the moment captures a confrontation where one participant emphasizes not being detained and references recording, while the other enforces compliance through visible-hand and proximity directives, culminating in persistent urging to advance.

A tense confrontation unfolds as Speaker 0 challenges officers over authority and a clash centered on treason, ownership, and custody of a vehicle. "What is treason? You're gonna find out when he gets sent to arrest you." He demands accountability, shouting "Harassing private citizens" and "Your whole police department for harassment, treason, dereliction of duty." The dispute centers on the vehicle and the keys; "I cannot produce the agreement." Officer orders: "Don't touch me." and "You don't have the right to touch me." Arrest proceeds; the detainee warns, "I will break your arm." The struggle continues as he asserts ownership and again says, "I cannot produce the agreement." Cuffs become tight; "These cuffs are way too tight." The scene ends with protests that "The cuffs are hurting me" and calls to stand up.

An individual confronts people in unmarked cars, accusing them of kidnapping someone off the street. The individual claims they were trying to help the person and get their family's phone number. They demand to see an arrest warrant, which is refused. The individual accuses the people of being liars and cowards, telling them to take off their masks and show their faces. They express outrage at the use of unmarked cars and accuse them of almost running people over. The individual demands they leave the city and find a job they can be proud of.

The speaker confronts a law enforcement officer, demanding their name and badge number. They discuss the presence of illegal immigrants and whistleblowers in a facility, with the speaker threatening to obtain body cam footage. The officer warns that trespassing will result in arrest. The speaker questions if the officer is blindly following orders and accuses them of lying about a bus filled with illegal immigrants. The officer denies knowledge of the bus and the conversation ends.

Speaker 0 expresses intense anger toward the Trump administration, saying: "I give a fuck about any fucking person in the Trump administration being upset with giving them oh, how dare you?" They claim others have "no fucking idea to list the bodies that we have" and suggest that if they were serial killers, it would be like "Mal or something." They urge everyone to become emotionally detached from their online personas and to create burner accounts to "unmask all of these traders" and to impose the "threat of IRL consequences" because people use anonymity to act behind privilege. They state that Twitter should no longer be a safe place for these individuals and propose that someone should interrupt leadership by saying, "yeah, boss. I I can't do this anymore." They argue the government should consider the impact on families: "My kids and my address just fucking wound up on this platform. How the fuck did they find out who I am?" They insist that every time those people log in, they need to have "second fucking thoughts" and be terrified. They assert that "Security clearances don't mean a goddamn thing to me" and declare, "I guarantee you I'm 10 times smarter than you and your fucking best bet." Speaker 1 interjects: "Back the up, juicy." Speaker 2 responds with distress: "I'm not a Spit on me again." They request to be kept away from the person and say, "This guy's intimidating me. He's pushing me." They ask, "Where's your vehicle?" and answer, "It's in the garage." They further ask, "Hey. What is your name? Are you working for the hotel?" and Speaker 0 says, "I'm working. Tell me. Are" before the scene cuts off. Overall, the excerpt presents a heated monologue urging aggressive online accountability and real-world consequences for certain individuals operating under anonymity, followed by interruptions that reveal a tense confrontation involving intimidation, personal threat concerns, and questions about a vehicle and employment.