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 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 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

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 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.

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.

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: "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."

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.

Please step back. I'm not doing anything wrong. Don't touch me. Get your hands off me. I’m just trying to talk. You don’t need to walk into my space. I’m allowed to be here. You can’t get close to him. I’m not going to touch him. Stay away from our people. I understand what you think you're allowed to do, but I’m asking you to stay back. I know my rights. I can go wherever I want. Just please be cool. Why should I back up? I’m allowed to be here. This is ridiculous.

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.

Why arrest her? You didn't say why she's arrested. Trespassing? We're within our rights. Why arrest her? I've told you twice. It's not trespassing. We're within our rights. You've been asked, but I have to. A mandate is not a requirement. Translation: Why are you arresting her? You didn't say why she's under arrest. Trespassing? We are within our rights. Why arrest her? I've already told you twice. It's not trespassing. We are within our rights. You've been asked, but I have to. A mandate is not a requirement.

The speaker is involved in a confrontation with someone, repeatedly telling them to step back and not touch them. Another person tries to intervene and calm the situation. The speaker continues to assert their rights to be in a certain area and questions why they are being told to back up. The conversation becomes heated and the speaker uses profanity. The video ends with the speaker expressing frustration and defiance.

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 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.

The speaker informs Speaker 1 that they need to leave or they will be arrested for trespassing. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief and asks if they are serious. Speaker 0 confirms and instructs everyone to go to the unsecured side where the ticket counter can assist them. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are not there for a flight but on a layover. Speaker 0 asks if they are trying to go to Tampa and mentions the possibility of getting a shot and going to jail. Speaker 1 explains they didn't ask because they already have tickets. Speaker 0 reiterates that if they don't have valid tickets and refuse to leave the secured side, they will be arrested. Speaker 1 argues that they do have valid tickets, just not to Washington, DC or Phoenix. Speaker 0 mentions Southwest Gates and the need to close a gate. Speaker 1 acknowledges they are not calling or asking for information. Speaker 0 insists they need to go to the ticket counter outside of security. Speaker 1 thanks them.

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.

A large crowd is present. Someone is being told they are trespassing. The person speaking says they didn't see any signs. A man is described as "raging" and kicking people out.

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.

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.

The first speaker says they are here because of online comments the other person made about the US community. The second speaker asserts freedom of speech. The first speaker acknowledges that but says they must ensure compliance, asking, “Do you have a warrant?” and stating, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting.” The second speaker says, “Yeah,” insisting on freedom of speech. The first speaker notes, “We get that. We just…,” then declares, “You understand that. Right?,” and asserts, “Means you’re not welcomed here. Okay. Bye.” They add, “Stay off the lawn, please.”

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.