reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A 911 call was placed, but police were allegedly not allowed to enter the premises. The speaker questions why police responding to a 911 call must wait for a supervisor to grant them access. The speaker finds it strange that police are restricted from entering after a 911 call and expresses a need to relocate.

Speaker 0 tells someone to shut up, calls them names, and asks if they got a video. Speaker 1 confirms they got a video of them being a ring without a warrant. Speaker 0 asks if they came inside, and Speaker 1 confirms they went inside with that warrant.

The speaker is requesting to use the restroom but is being denied access. They argue that it is their right to use the restroom and express frustration about being excluded. The person denying access suggests using a different restroom, but the speaker insists on using the current one. The conversation becomes heated, with mentions of Zionism and Palestine. The video ends with the speaker expressing gratitude.

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 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 territorial rights. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by not allowing Bill Jones on his own territory.

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.

The speakers engage in a heated argument about using a restroom. Speaker 1 insists on using the restroom, claiming to be a patron, while Speaker 0 repeatedly asks them to leave. Speaker 1 questions why they are being denied access and accuses Israel of taking private property. Speaker 0 suggests using another restroom, but Speaker 1 refuses. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 mentioning the history of Israel and advocating for a free Palestine. The video ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 sarcastically.

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, an employee at Ace Hardware in Seattle, confronts someone and tells them to leave. The speaker expresses frustration and uses strong language. They mention having recorded the incident on video. The transcript is filled with profanity and aggressive language.

The exchange centers on filming rights and the status of the location. Speaker 0 challenges whether they are allowed to film, asking, “Oh, turn off the camera? Yeah. Do I not have a right to have the camera? I’m not giving you permission to check my face.” They then inquire about authority, asking, “Are you a public servant? Or United Nations against the city. Okay. Does because this is my city, and so I have a right to film.” This line underscores Speaker 0’s insistence on their right to record within the space, coupled with a demand for clarity about the other party’s authority to restrict that right. Speaker 1 responds by questioning the premise of the filmed area, asking, “This is United Nations compound?” and clarifies the location’s status by confirming whether it is a compound. The conversation shifts to the status and sovereignty of the area, with Speaker 1 asserting control and jurisdiction over the space in question. A pivotal point in the dialogue arises when Speaker 1 provides a long claim about the compound’s ownership and territorial status. They state, “Since Sunday evening, we took over this compound. This is international territory.” They further elaborate the contrasting jurisdictions, stating, “When you step outside, it’s US. Here is international territory.” This statement frames the location as international territory within the compound, implying a distinct legal or political status compared to the surrounding area. Overall, the interaction is a brief confrontation over visual documentation and the governing authority of the space. Speaker 0 emphasizes the right to film and presses for clarity on who can permit or deny that right, while Speaker 1 asserts that the space is an international territory under their control since Sunday evening, differentiating it from the surrounding US jurisdiction. The dialogue highlights tensions between individual or press rights to film and a claimed change in sovereignty or control of a contested compound.

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.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about taking food. Speaker 1 explains that businesses need permits to use the public sidewalk, and this particular business has a permit for 5 feet. Anything beyond that is a violation. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of mistreating elderly people and questions their actions. Speaker 1 denies the accusation. Speaker 0 urges New Yorkers to stand up for their people and warns Speaker 1 that God is watching. Speaker 1 politely ends the conversation, wishing Speaker 0 a good day. Speaker 0 insists that Speaker 1 should be prepared.

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 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?”

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.

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 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.

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.

Two speakers engage in a tense confrontation on private property, captured on video. Speaker 1 says, "There's no problem with that," while Speaker 0 accuses, "Not showing respect to the rules of" and, "Because of the just after you are not serving me. Really? Please leave, sir. Please leave. Because I'll make sure you go out of business." Speaker 1 replies, "Don't worry. I'm sorry. I got to call the police as best as you want. But I'm sure you're gonna go out of business." They add, "We will wait for them outside." "You can get out of my property. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. We will leave." The exchange ends with, "Good luck. Idiot." and, "Definitely, he's going out of business, this guy."

Speaker 0 confronts another person with repeated "Get the fuck out" and "Don't come back," insisting "Let me move. Let me get out" while being pushed toward the road and urged to "Fucking walk." The exchange includes "Stop it" and "Stop sticking your camera to people's fucking face," followed by "I didn't do anything" and "I have the right to be here. Okay. Did I say I have the right to be here. I have the right to film." The other person threatens violence: "You come back, I'm gonna fucking smoke you, dude," and "gonna smash that fucking camera." The scene ends with the claim: "DHS watching you right there lasered on you. You have a sniper lasered on you right now. I don't give a fuck."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave a private property, but Speaker 1 insists on using the restroom. Speaker 0 suggests using a restroom next door, but Speaker 1 refuses. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being afraid of being photographed and brings up Zionism. Speaker 0 mentions the history of Palestine and thanks Speaker 1 sarcastically. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing support for Palestine.