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.

Protocol: "If I ask you to turn off the body cam, you have to turn it off." They discuss leaving: "They want you guys to leave? Yes. Move out. Let's just leave." They claim not trespassing: "We're not trespassing. You haven't notified us that we're trespassing." They push for removal: "'Trespass? Get him out.' 'No. You're not gonna arrest us.' 'Number two is We gotta go.' An AG asserts authority: "I'm an AG." "She's a lawyer, so she knows." They prepare to depart: "We gotta go. We're leaving." A partner pleads: "'Please take my hands up. Please take the power handcuffs.' 'No. You're overreacting.' 'I'm not being arrested.' 'You're putting me in handcuffs?' 'Babe. Babe. Please. I'm scared.' 'I'm right here.'"

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 that they need to leave immediately. Speaker 1 asks if they can reply, but Speaker 0 reiterates that they must leave within 24 hours. Speaker 1 argues that the press has the right to report and protest without intimidation. Speaker 0 instructs Speaker 1 to go to Hayborne Train Station. Speaker 1 questions if their presence is causing alarm, and accuses the officers of following orders from Sadiq Khan and Mark Rowley, whom they claim are apologists for Hamas and Jihad. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1 is not a journalist and presents them with a dispersal notice.

The transcript shows an argument in which one person repeatedly tells another to “get out of here” and repeatedly orders them to put their hand behind their back and not let go. The speaker says they are “gonna put handcuffs on you” and asks if the other person understands. The other person responds with “Alright” and says they want to be taken off the queue while insisting, “I didn’t do anything.”

During a tense exchange, participants discuss leaving due to trespass and reference "The protocol is you're trespassing, we gotta leave now." They insist the body cam should be turned off if asked: "the protocol is and your protocol is if I ask you to turn off the body cam, you have to turn it off." A speaker notes, "She's a lawyer, so she knows," while another responds, "Well, that's lawyer stuff, so that's not true." The group asserts they are not being arrested and that the other party will not arrest them: "No. I'm not. I'm not being arrested." The presence of an AG is acknowledged with lines like "I'm an AG" and "You're arresting your AG." Tensions peak as safety concerns are voiced: "Please don't put your hands off. Can you get your children out of here?" They finally indicate they will leave, seeking to comply with protocol.

Speaker 0 informs the individual they are being detained for violating conditions they did not break. The individual questions the reason for their detention. Speaker 0 asks if the individual understands the seriousness of the situation, to which they respond negatively. The individual requests identification from the officers, expressing confusion about where they are being taken. They question the officers' actions and ask for identification again. The individual seeks reassurance that they will not be harmed. The situation revolves around alleged violation of suspension conditions despite the individual's absence from social media platforms.

An individual warns a group that they have been given ample time and this is a warning. They state they don't know what the group has been doing, but if they have to return, jail is processing. One of the group members asks if they are going to jail for trying to get their stuff off their property so "crackheads" don't get it. Another individual states that they are packing up to leave. The first individual repeats that they are giving a warning that if they have to come back, they will escalate the situation. A group member responds, "I guess they gotta escalate it then."

The speaker expresses concern about illegal immigrants at Houston International Airport, emphasizing the need for awareness and change. They engage in a discussion with airport security about recording in a secure area, highlighting their rights as a US citizen and military member. Security explains the prohibition on video due to national security concerns, regardless of citizenship status. The speaker questions the legality of the immigrants and their documentation. The conversation revolves around the importance of following rules and maintaining security protocols.

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.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 said she has been trespassing on the Capitol. Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says that if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence in forgetting the request, but that she denied the sergeant at arms from supplying the request.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 stated, "I've been trespassing on the capitol." Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny the sergeant at arms from supplying Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence, but that she denied the request.

During a tense encounter, the speakers reference protocol: "Protocol is that you turn it off as a citizen request." They want to leave: "They want you guys to leave? Yes. Move out. Let's just leave. Let's just make it easy." They discuss trespass: "Trespass? Get him out." "You're trespassing, we gotta leave now." One person notes: "No. She's a lawyer." "She's a lawyer, so she knows." An authority retorts: "I'm an AG." They insist they're not being arrested: "No. I'm not being arrested." They request not to be handcuffed: "Please don't put your hands on us." The partner pleads: "I'm scared. I'm right here." They decide to leave: "We're leaving." They also say: "Please take my hands up. Please take the handcuffs." The exchange centers on protocol, the threat of removal, and fear during the departure.

Speaker 0 wants to know if they are being detained, stating they did nothing wrong. Speaker 1 says they were just standing and talking, and they don't know Speaker 0's name. Speaker 0 also doesn't know Speaker 1's name. Speaker 0 observes a perimeter, questioning if they did something wrong and suggesting it's like a crime scene. Speaker 0 asks if the situation involves them being at the capital.

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 officer does not provide a clear answer. The officer mentions the Trespass Property Act and the facility manager's request. The speaker asks for the officer's name and their partner's name. The officer mentions being in Kincardine and advises contacting to learn the rules. The conversation ends with a request not to push.

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.

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.

Let's go outside. What's happening, officer? They want you to leave. Why? It doesn't matter; they've asked you to go. We were just recording. I don't know why they said you were uninvited. They asked me to escort you out. Did they say you couldn't record? Everyone's using their phones. I can't answer any more questions, but she's looking into it.

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.

Speaker 0 warns speakers 1 and 2 that they have already had ample time and that further action may escalate. Speaker 1 is upset and claims they are trying to retrieve their belongings to prevent others from taking them. Speaker 1 accuses speaker 0 of threatening jail. Speaker 2 confirms with someone over the phone that speakers 1 and 2 are packing up and leaving. Speaker 0 reiterates the warning, stating that further action may escalate if they return. Speaker 1 responds that they will have to escalate then.

Speaker 0: Make one. Make one. You're wrong. Get out. Your microphone. Hey. What what can we do to help you? Hey. You guys no. That ain't gonna happen. Hey. How can we get you out of here safely? Hello, everyone.

Speaker 1 explains that they had a bad experience on a flight where the person next to them stole their AirPods. Speaker 2 asks about their plan and mentions that there were reports of assault, but the person who was allegedly assaulted doesn't want to press charges. Speaker 1 says they are going home and will arrange for someone to pick them up. Speaker 2 reminds them that they can't stay at the airport if they have no business there. Speaker 1 agrees and says they will request a ride.

Speaker 0, a citizen journalist, encounters Officer Trapp at the San Antonio Airport. Speaker 0 asks for Officer Trapp's name and badge number, and mentions recording the situation. Speaker 1, Officer Trapp, asks if there is an issue, to which Speaker 0 responds that they are just recording. Speaker 0 asks about Corporal Perez and requests to speak with a supervisor. Officer Trapp confirms they have a supervisor but is unsure if it is Corporal Perez. Speaker 0 mentions being a concerned citizen and asserts their right to record on public property. Officer Trapp questions this, and Speaker 0 argues that taxpayers fund the airport. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 expressing concern about potential harassment and Officer Trapp mentioning a criminal trespass warning. The transcript ends with Officer Price joining the conversation and Speaker 0 refusing to provide identification.

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.