reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A man confronts another man, Noor Sandhu, accusing him of coming to meet a 14-year-old girl for sex. The man threatens to call the police and claims to have all the messages as evidence. He states that Noor Sandhu works at Magna. The man questions if the encounter is a "scam" because the girl wasn't actually 14. He repeatedly asks the man why he came to meet a 14-year-old and questions his age.

I'm sorry, but you were online talking to a child. You were here to meet an 11-year-old girl. You expressed intentions about sex and even said you would force her if she didn't want to. Now you're crying and saying you're sorry, but it's too late for that. The police are on their way. How many other children are you talking to online? You claim it's just this one, but we will find out. You work as a nurse assistant, and you might lose your job over this. You were going to destroy an 11-year-old's life today, and now it's your life that’s at risk. Is that your picture? Are you really 33? We're here to hand over all the evidence of what you've done. You were going to take her into the woods.

What's your name? Sufian. How old are you? 24. Where are you from? Pakistan. How long have you been here? 5 days. When did you buy your phone? I got it 2 days ago. How long have you had it? About 3 or 4 years. What's your daughter's name? My full name is Mohammed Sofiane. What are you doing? Please stay here now.

Wazif is confronted for inappropriate behavior with a child. He is warned about the legal consequences of asking for naked images from minors. Wazif expresses a desire for romantic interactions and playing games with a 12-year-old. He is caught lying and his phone is taken as evidence by the police. The conversation ends with Wazif being confronted by authorities.

The speaker confronts Mohammed, asking him who he is here to meet. Mohammed admits that he is here to meet a thirteen-year-old. The speaker questions him about the legal age of consent and whether he has said anything inappropriate to the child. Mohammed admits to saying a few inappropriate things but denies finding it funny. The speaker asks about Mohammed's job, and he reveals that he works in a hospital as a healthcare assistant. The speaker questions whether Mohammed has daily contact with children, to which he denies. The speaker presents evidence of Mohammed's conversations and pictures with the child, accusing him of grooming. Mohammed denies planning anything and claims he didn't think it was inappropriate. The speaker insists on honesty and warns Mohammed about the consequences.

In this video, Gordon confronts Christopher Mark Allen about his online conversations with a 13-year-old girl named Zoe. Christopher initially denies any explicit intent and claims he was just being nice, but Gordon challenges his explanations and points out inconsistencies. Eventually, Christopher admits to finding Zoe attractive and wanting to have sex with her, mentioning plans to meet up and book hotel rooms. The conversation also involves Mark being questioned about his involvement with child pornography on Telegram. Mark admits to receiving and clicking on links to child pornographic content, but claims to have deleted them immediately. The conversation highlights Mark's curiosity and his history of watching adult pornography. The person questioning Mark expresses concern and emphasizes the need to identify and stop those who produce and distribute child pornography. Additionally, the video discusses a conversation about child pornography found on a phone, leading to plans to involve law enforcement and the DA's office. The individual is informed that their phone will be taken as evidence, and a search warrant will be obtained. The detectives will investigate further, and the individual may get their phone back if everything checks out. The conversation concludes with the individual being informed about the process and potential outcomes.

The speaker, Chris, admits to engaging in inappropriate conversations with a 13-year-old girl online. He claims that he never had any intention of meeting her or engaging in any illegal activities. He acknowledges that he made mistakes and played into her fantasies but insists that he never acted on them. The person he is speaking to, Gordon, questions his actions and highlights the seriousness of the situation. They discuss the need for accountability and honesty. Chris agrees to let Gordon and one other person into his home to further discuss the issue. The conversation touches on various topics, including the girl's age, potential meetups, and explicit messages exchanged.

The speaker confronts an individual, accusing them of grooming a child and planning to have sex with her, referencing condoms. The speaker claims to have evidence despite the individual possibly deleting it. The speaker questions the individual's early morning activities outside a flat and accuses them of using fake accounts to trap kids. They mention sending live locations and pictures of a front door. The speaker states the individual is getting arrested and remanded, as the police are present. They tell the individual to leave kids alone.

Two men confront a man who traveled from Israel after an alleged inappropriate encounter. Speaker 0 says, "I don't think you're bad guy. You just probably made a mistake." The man insists, "I didn't meant to do anything," and, "I came all the way from Israel for this?" They discuss actions taken: "I should block her right away." They review chat logs: "I saw a girl on app. She told me on the app, she's Jewish and 18," and "She told me she's 15." The man acknowledges "online solution online solicitation minor" and says it's illegal, while denying drugs: "Nothing." He claims cultural rules: "I don't touch non Jewish." He adds, "This is my daughter, by the way." The conversation ends with plans for a formal statement and a link to submit it, noting they are recording for protection and that it "not going online or anything." They consider consequences and what should happen to him.

What’s your name? What are you doing here? I’m texting a friend. Who are you texting? A 15-year-old. No, I’m not. Yes, you are. If you don’t stand here and talk, I’ll call the police. Let me see your phone. You’re here to meet a 15-year-old. Where are you going? You can’t just leave.

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

Please help me, please. Stop. No one's going to help you. I was wrong. Please stop me. Stop eating now. Stay calm. How many other children have you harmed? I just came here as a friend. You’re not going to win. Call the police; they’ll be here soon. You’ll be arrested. You’re known around here. You’ll be in a cell, away from our children. What would you have done to a child? You’re lucky we intercepted you. Stay calm. You’re wrong. Do not kick me. The police will arrive shortly. Stay there.

Stand back for me. Can I ask you something? I'm never gonna do it again. Are you sure? What are you not going to do again? What I did here. What did you do? Don’t be scared. I'm 26. Where do you study? West London. What campus? I’m not sure about the campus. You’re lying. You don’t go to university, do you? I don’t. How long have you been in England? Two months. You came here to work and study, right? Yeah. Not to mess with underage girls. True. Your cab is here. What was that? There’s another cab. Show them my cab. That’s your cab.

I'm here because there are transcripts, about 70 or 80 pages, of your chat conversations with a minor. It includes a selfie you sent to a 15-year-old boy on Valentine's Day. We want to go over these conversations. This is for everyone's safety, and for documentation purposes. I'm trying to show you here, Kevin, that you, a sixth-grade teacher, were talking to a 15-year-old boy online and having phone sex with him. The boy's name is Josh. You guys met on Daddy Hunt, then moved over to text messaging. He told you he was 15, homeschooled, and looking for gay guys to talk to. You acknowledged his age multiple times. I want you to tell me the truth, because you are a dangerous man.

I need to interview you about an allegation regarding an incident on Facebook. I'm asking you to come to the station voluntarily for a PACE-compliant interview, and you're free to seek legal advice. How about Sunday at noon? Can't you tell me the details now? Why do I need to come there? I need to do it by way of a formal interview. Do I have to come? What could I be charged with? What's the alleged crime? It's a racial matter, malicious communications. What's malicious about it? Malicious means intent to harm, right? That's what we'll discuss. Can you define "malicious"? It's making offensive comments on social media. Offensive? Who cares what's offensive? We can discuss it in more detail during the interview. I've got no hate in my heart, only for those who lie. I'll gladly discuss it. You've got to understand where I'm coming from.

The speaker confronts an individual, accusing them of grooming a child and planning to have sex with her, referencing condoms. The speaker claims to have evidence despite the individual possibly deleting it. The speaker questions the individual's early morning activities outside a flat and accuses them of trying to trap kids using different accounts. They mention sending live locations and pictures of a front door. The speaker states the individual is getting arrested and remanded, as Manchester police are present. The speaker repeatedly demands the individual leave children alone.

Here we go. Watch your legs; you keep kicking them out. How many children are you talking to? Just this one. I don’t do that. When you’re fasting, does that make you speak to children? No, I don’t do that. Explain what you don’t do because I know you speak to children online. This proves you can do that. Why were you going to meet a child? I can’t do that. You’ve asked this child to delete messages, haven’t you? No. I have all the messages you sent, including asking for pictures. You even talked about marrying the child. Are you married? No. You’re sick in the head for finding children attractive.

He's with a 15-year-old, someone should call the police. Oh, he works there? Yeah, he does. We have evidence of him having sex with a minor. Let's call the police. This is crazy.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex, revealing he has all the information and can report it. Speaker 1 admits wrongdoing and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's motivations, especially considering his position as a professor. Speaker 1 admits to bringing lube and a douche. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and seeks understanding. Speaker 1 acknowledges he "fucked up" and may need help. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. Later, law enforcement arrives. Speaker 2 explains they cannot make an arrest because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement. The phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Speaker 0 questions why the same evidence leads to arrests in Orange County but not San Diego County. Speaker 2 refuses to debate the issue. Speaker 0 suggests this will look bad.

The speaker confronts someone who came to meet what they believed to be a child. They inform the person that the police have been called and that they have been exposed by a group called Predator Exposure. The speaker questions the person about their intentions and how they arrived in the country. They also mention the inappropriate conversations the person had with the supposed child. The speaker emphasizes that the person will be arrested for their actions.

"you're under arrest currently, right, on suspicion of harassment." "the grounds of the arrest are that from the March 10, you've made apparently a number of posts online and on social media harassing an individual who came making serious allegations." "Someone from the church." "We've got serious safeguarding concerns." "But we need to interview you in relation to that investigation have been made." "My children are 12, 13, and eight." "First of all, there's three things that we need to do." "I've got three young children here on the property." "They don't I don't know where they are."

The video features a conversation between two individuals, Charles and Speaker 1. Charles is confronted about his interactions with a minor named Hailey and his involvement in online groups related to explicit content. Charles admits to engaging in conversations with Hailey but denies any sexual activity. He also mentions being addicted to pornography and struggling with erectile dysfunction. The conversation touches on Charles' use of messaging apps like Telegram and Wickr, where he has encountered explicit content, including child pornography. Charles expresses a desire to seek help for his addiction. The police are mentioned, and it is suggested that Charles has a warrant out for his arrest. The video ends with Speaker 1 providing his contact information to assist with the investigation.

Hey Nick, can you come here? Let's talk privately, away from everyone. What do you do here during the day? Just hang out with friends? What are your hobbies? You play video games, huh? What kind of games? Wrestling? Who's your favorite wrestler? We're here because of your online posts. Facebook and TikTok blocked you, right? Unfortunately, you're coming with us. I know you don't want to go, but we have to take you to see a doctor. You can't keep doing what you were doing. I'm sorry, but it's necessary. Please, promise me you won't do it again. I want to believe you.

How many grooming gangs are there in London? Can you clarify what you mean by that? I'm referring to the gangs in places like Rotherham that groom young girls for sex. In London, there are issues with the exploitation of young people, but they may not fit the specific definition you're using. Are you saying we don't have similar gangs in London as in Rotherham and Bradford? It's important to understand what you mean. I’ve clarified: these are gangs that groom young girls for sex. How much clearer can I be?

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old for sex, revealing they have all the information. Speaker 1 admits fault, acknowledging they "fucked up" and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's intentions, highlighting the presence of lube and a douche in their bag. Speaker 0 struggles to understand why someone like Speaker 1, a professor, would engage in such behavior. Speaker 1 says they need help. Speaker 0 informs law enforcement about the situation. Law enforcement explains that because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement, they can't use the evidence for probable cause for an arrest. Speaker 1's phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet crimes against children task force. Speaker 0 questions why the law enforcement cannot find probable cause when they can in Orange County. Law enforcement refuses to debate the issue.