reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 informs Speaker 1 that they have accomplished something. Speaker 1 expresses happiness for Speaker 0. Speaker 0 then states their intention to leave and asks for some information. Speaker 1 refuses to provide the information. Speaker 0 clarifies that they are not feeling suicidal, and Speaker 1 confirms the same. Speaker 0 concludes by expressing their love for life.

Speaker 1 asked Speaker 0 to continue what they were doing but to avoid standing in front of the Disney store. Speaker 0 acknowledged and agreed to stay away from the front of the store. Speaker 1 thanked Speaker 0 for cooperating.

Is this it? Let us in! Where are you? Come on, get in the door! Oh, your phone's going up. They're out back? Okay, they're out back.

Speaker 0 tells someone to stay still and they need to find a building. They struggle to find one with an entrance. Speaker 1 asks how they are doing, and Speaker 0 mentions a shell landing nearby. Speaker 1 doesn't see anything. Speaker 0 notices flares being fired and says it's not their fault.

Speaker 0 asks someone why they are shaking their head and why they don't want to answer. The speaker then says they will talk to them another time.

Speaker 0 questions going in, Speaker 1 hesitant. Speaker 0 distracted by rock, Speaker 1 reminds of interview. Speaker 0 defensive, claims talking on phone. Speaker 1 reassures, conversation ends positively.

Speaker 0 is trying to confirm something with someone, but they are not responding. Speaker 0 wants the person to let someone know that they are trying to do something with their jeepers. Speaker 0 keeps asking for confirmation and tells the person that if they don't confirm, they will keep asking. Speaker 0 mentions that something needs to be cleaned up and asks the person to get up. Speaker 0 also mentions a bag of weed and asks if the person bought it. They also mention wanting drugs.

Speaker 0 is checking in with someone and expresses that they have accomplished something. The other person asks if they are leaving, to which Speaker 0 confirms. Speaker 0 then asks for some information, but the other person refuses. Both speakers clarify that they are not suicidal and enjoy life.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 are in a building with no doors, feeling under attack. They hear loud noises and see flares being fired. They are concerned about their safety and the situation escalating.

Is that doorbell camera right there? Yeah. The dog the wrong one. Oh, there's a dog in there? Yeah. Wrong one.

Speaker 0 asks if the listener is present and tells someone named Mary to be quiet. They then ask how the listener is doing and instruct them to throw something on the ground.

The speaker's phone rang. The speaker asked someone if they wanted the phone. The speaker repeated the question aggressively. The speaker said someone just got them over. The speaker told someone to open the door. The speaker said "this thing is just young" and "they think it's trapped in there again."

Speaker 0 instructs to move their car and warns, “You’re gonna knock it off.” They tell the other person to pull their car, say, “Yeah. It’s good,” and ask, “How? Everybody good?”

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 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 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.

They're banging on the door, and we finally got into the room. A few people are with us, but the noise from the banging and yelling is really annoying. I don't see the hold-up; the alarms are off.

The conversation centers on police attempting to remove a man from his long-time home, with his family contesting the action and a dispute over capacity and legal orders driving the tense exchange. - The man (referred to as “Dad” and later identified as Jonas Sveritis) is told by Speaker 0 that “the police is here to take you away” and that Donna “wants you to to be taken away with the police.” They ask him to tell the police officer what he wants. - The man expresses his intention to stay: “arranged nice night to go to the old home. She Myself, I don't need no help here or anything. I just on the way today to see where I gonna go and retire. Okay. I Now it's my place and my sons, and we are all in peace.” He says he wants to stay in his place, stating, “We don't need policemen and everything. We're not fighting or anything at all. We're doing right way with the lawyers and whatever needed police, the police gonna be involved with the lawyer.” - Speaker 0 asserts the man has capacity and can make his own decisions: “He's got capacity. He wants to stay here. He wants to live here, and he wants to die here.” The other party counters that the judge has overridden other decisions: “The judge has kind of overridden all of our decisions. So … Not his decision. Not his decision.” - A lawyer appears: Speaker 1 says, “My lawyer comes. I know.” Speaker 0 counters, “You don't have a lawyer. He says that if his lawyer comes, he'll talk to his lawyer.” Speaker 2 notes, “the judge overrides that decision by the lawyer,” and asserts the need to hear from the man: “Do you understand why … Does he look like a guy with severe dementia?” - The dispute about process and timing includes: “there's a court order to extract them,” and “we appealed March 30.” They discuss documents and an appeal, with references to “the court of appeal,” “a factum,” and a denial of a stay by a JP (JP Sweeney) who “overrides the court of appeal.” - The family conflict includes a history: Speaker 0 recounts, “This man that's what we want. This man he lived here for almost seventy years. He was taken with undue influence out of his home by my sister. She took his farm … 37 after my mom died. He went in the hospital two days after. My sister took him out of the hospital, and I didn't know anything about it. And I didn't see him for almost six years.” - Communication barriers and safety concerns are prominent: “I can't read a document that you're trying to show me,” “through the glass,” “you've got guns. You've got tasers,” and “I don't trust a police officer with guns.” They propose to continue discussions “through the glass” or via a warrant to breach glass and talk inside. - The parties discuss arranging a peaceful meeting with Donna: Speaker 0 says, “Donna can come in a peaceful manner. We offered that.” Yet Speaker 2 asserts the need to speak to the father directly through the barrier. - Ending mood: Speaker 0 insists on keeping the glass closed for safety, while Speaker 2 expresses frustration at the lack of civil, direct conversation, proposing a PA system or a future arranged visit. The exchange ends with hostility: “Fuck off.”

Speaker 1 expresses fear and believes someone is working. Speaker 1 instructs someone to keep their eyes peeled. The other speaker says they are trying.

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.

Speaker 1 acknowledges he is not in his own house. He claims that if he leaves, Speaker 0 will not return. Speaker 1 denies responsibility for an unspecified action and says it is easy to yell at him. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of stealing the house. Speaker 1 responds that if he doesn't steal it, someone else will.

Door closed. Where's Viv? Get over there. You good? Get 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 raises the question of whether cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting of illegal immigrants and effectively provide sanctuary to immigrants. Speaker 1 responds by explaining that cities ignore federal law because there is no funding at the federal level to support the kind of enforcement required. He references the New York Times, noting that a city near his state implemented similar sanctions and subsequently experienced adverse effects—“their city went in the dumpster,” with stores closing and other consequences—leading to a policy reversal. He argues that the underlying issue is the need for a federal government capable of enforcing laws and asserts that the administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce the existing laws. Speaker 0 follows up with a direct question to Senator Biden: yes or no—“Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?” Speaker 1 answers: No. Speaker 0 closes with a brief, informal remark: “You okay.”

Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1 was right about something. Speaker 1 states they were trying to communicate this, but couldn't say much. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to wash their chair and suggests the film they are making will be the best ever. Speaker 0 agrees enthusiastically. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 was recording, and Speaker 1 offers to delete it. Speaker 2 clarifies that they only recorded verses.