reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses holding people accountable and the negative responses they receive. They mention an individual named Lorna who frequently uses the word "private" when it comes to public safety. The speaker also mentions a person named Sherry who questioned their request for a statement regarding a burglary. They express concern over Mary Faye dropping the ball and promise to help with an incident. The speaker shares a text message from Mary Faye, which includes offensive language. They mention filing a complaint with the ethics board, where Mary Faye is a member. The speaker expresses frustration that their concerns are being ignored. The transcript ends with a mention of a town council member with mental health issues.

An individual states they were not home when part of the house was destroyed. Their daughter reported the individual was calling, using vulgar language, and demanding a credit card. The individual said they were at work and unaware of the credit card. Later, law enforcement is present. An individual repeatedly says "I can't" and requests review of body cam footage, stating they did not resist. They request a person of color be on the team, not white. An officer responds that it is their show now. The individual claims they were not given a chance to exit the car and were immediately threatened with a taser. They state the restraints are too tight.

The speaker confronts law enforcement, demanding their name and badge number. They mention FirstNet and whistleblowers inside the facility. They express their intention to obtain and publish body cam footage. They point out a bus filled with illegal immigrants and question the officer's knowledge. The officer responds that they are unsure. The speaker accuses the officer of lying and insists they know about the bus. The officer ends the conversation, stating they will leave it at that. The speaker expresses disbelief at the situation.

The exchange centers on a confrontation in a public/Louisiana parish building during a first amendment audit conducted by Justin (Speaker 0). Justin explains that he entered a public area and was subjected to aggressive behavior from a man who grabbed his belongings, attempted a headlock, and threw Justin’s phone. Justin asserts that this occurred in front of a deputy, who did not intervene. He claims the man (Ellis Booth) took his phone, assaulted him, and tossed it across the parking lot, while the deputy “did nothing.” Justin emphasizes that he was having a polite conversation when Booth acted aggressively, grabbed his property, and threw his phone multiple times. He argues that if he had done any of these actions, he would be in cuffs, and he questions why Booth has not been arrested. He challenges the deputy’s handling of the incident, insisting that the deputy witnessed the events and should have acted. He also claims the deputy’s inaction contradicts the duty to protect the public and enforce the law, noting he has a large social media following and intends to publicize what he perceives as misconduct. The dialogue includes several attempts to obtain formal statements and to follow proper procedure. Justin asks for a statement from the deputy who witnessed the incident, and for access to video footage (body cam) and other evidence. He asserts that the deputy’s eyewitness account should be sufficient to pursue charges, and he questions why extra steps or warrants are being pursued if the deputy clearly witnessed the events. He also mentions he has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the body cam footage. Speaker 4, Detective Adams of the Cattle Parish Sheriff’s Office, enters the conversation and tries to mediate. He explains that a new process is necessary: a written statement and a signed affidavit from Justin before any warrants or arrests can proceed, since there is no direct on-site arrest of Booth by the acting officer. Detective Adams clarifies that if a judge signs a warrant based on the deputy’s statements and Justin’s signed affidavit, Booth could be arrested. He notes that the deputy did not witness the exact moment of the phone being thrown in Justin’s hands, but did witness the assault and the destruction of property. He emphasizes following chain-of-command and needing a judge’s warrant to proceed. The discussion includes comparisons of how officers would be treated if the roles were reversed. Justin argues that the officer’s standards should be the same regardless of whether the person is a private citizen or a Homeland Security employee. Detective Adams explains that the Homeland Security director (Beeson) was not present to arrest on-site and that Booth’s arrest is tied to the body camera and the deputy’s written report. The exchange touches on past incidents, including a controversial encounter involving a black officer and other officers, which Detective Adams says he plans to address separately with superiors. Towards the end, it is confirmed that Booth was arrested previously (yesterday) for simple battery and criminal damage to private property, but the battery charge was kept separate from the damage charge after Justin notes his phone’s condition. Booth bonded out at $1,255 cash and would have a court date set by the district attorney. The district attorney asks Justin to forward any video and his written statement. Detective Adams states he will present the materials to a judge, and if a warrant is signed, Booth will be arrested. Beeson is identified as the online security director who previously attended the incident, and there is a discussion about obtaining more video and verifying all witnesses’ statements. In sum, the transcript captures Justin’s allegation of police inaction during a visible assault and property destruction, the procedural requirement for statements and affidavits to pursue warrants, and the subsequent administrative steps that led to Booth’s prior arrest and ongoing cooperation with the district attorney’s office.

You need to leave my property now. No, I'm going to get the on-call DSS worker. I just spent three hours with a mother who dug her children out of a landslide, only to be assaulted by the police and have three kids taken by DCYF. I’ll be going with her to the DSS office tomorrow. What’s happening in Western North Carolina and Tennessee is unacceptable. That was my bedroom and living room, and my car was parked by the door. I haven't done anything wrong. You need to ensure everything's okay. I’m fine. Am I being detained? I’m upset after almost dying and losing everything in a landslide. You’re here bothering me at 10:38 PM, scaring my children. Is it illegal to be upset after losing everything?

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

I'm very upset about what happened. You’re recording, and I’m glad you are. I won’t tell you where it is, but I had to ask an officer if I’d get arrested, and they said no. I had a great time and took some amazing selfies. If you want to reach out, I can share the video with you. A kind officer even gave me directions to the statue. Enjoy lying about yourself; maybe lose some weight while you're at it. Thanks for your taxpayer money. You're a loser. Bye.

In this video transcript, Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 engage in a conversation about their interactions with a person named Emily on Facebook. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 2 about explicit content and potential plans to meet up, while Speaker 2 denies any intention of engaging in sexual activities and claims their phone was hacked. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of honesty and offers assistance. The conversation continues with Speaker 2 expressing fear and Speaker 1 reassuring them. Speaker 2 reiterates their innocence, and Speaker 1 emphasizes their willingness to help. They discuss Speaker 2's past, including his daughter being in foster care, and Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 2 that they are there to help and not judge. They talk about the possibility of consensual actions between Speaker 2 and Emily, with Speaker 2 denying any intention of forcing himself on her. Speaker 1 stresses the need for honesty to provide necessary help. Speaker 2 acknowledges the need for help and expresses gratitude for support. They discuss Poncho's lies, potential sexual activities with a minor, and the need for help. Poncho admits to having a sex addiction and discusses interactions with underage girls and older men interested in young girls. The speaker suggests that Poncho may have received explicit pictures of minors from others online. Poncho expresses a desire for help and mentions seeing a psychiatrist. The conversation ends with a discussion about Poncho's sexual preferences and habits. The speakers also discuss instances where videos of underage girls engaging in sexual activities were sent to them, mentioning platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and Signal. They mention being added to groups where such videos were shared but leaving those groups. The conversation then shifts to the speaker's personal life, including a custody battle and accusations made by his daughter. They discuss the speaker's ban from Facebook and interactions with law enforcement, as well as the speaker's age and occupation. The video ends with a discussion about not inviting a 12-year-old named Emily over again, mentioning sending inappropriate pictures and potential legal action. The speaker hopes for prosecution and mentions police interest in pursuing the case, but no immediate arrest will occur. The video concludes with a request for likes and an invitation to join a group.

Speaker 1 recounts an incident where “eleven police officers” arrived at their house, which they describe as completely ridiculous. The speaker explains they had left the front door open and were waiting for their dad, actually being in the bath at the time the officers entered. They recall hearing their name called, noticing one female officer among the group of ten male officers. They initially thought the name might belong to their sister because they were upstairs in the bath. The officers then came up the stairs without giving them any privacy, and the speaker confirms they were naked. The speaker describes feeling disgusted and very upset, crying their eyes out. They asked that the female officer stay downstairs and that the male officers be the ones to handle the situation, expressing that they were upset about the lack of privacy and the presence of officers while exposed. Despite this, the males were sent downstairs, and the female officer sat with the speaker, who was crying and very distressed. When asked what the officers were there for, the speaker says they asked for clarification. The female officer explained that the police were there for “malicious communications. Hate crime and malicious communications.” The speaker pressed for more information about the reason behind the visit, and the officer indicated they would discuss the details “when we get to the police station” or “to the” authorities, but the exact phrasing in the transcript cuts off here.

The speaker is being pulled over and told they were speeding and asked to slow down. The speaker states they have a nice day every day. The speaker intends to put the police officer on TikTok to show how police officers act. The speaker believes that if they were a white woman, the officer would not have stopped them, but because they are a Black woman, the officer is bothering them. The speaker films the officer's truck and identifies it as belonging to the sheriff's office.

The police say they are responding because someone is shooting at their drone. They state it is being recorded on video and that the person sees the drone. They instruct the person to remove something from their pocket, get rid of it, and stop.

I broke the law, and you've been posting concerning things. Are you going to let me talk? You won't let me talk. It's in the notes. Do you want me to explain? There's been concerning behavior with no explanation at my house. I'm just telling you what's happened. We've had no explanation of the concerning things. There was a leak of flames. I tried to get in my house before it's clear. That's my supervisor; don't talk to her like that.

They're stopping my driver and telling me they want my phone because I videoed the USAID facility. I've told them they can't have my phone, but now they're telling my driver he has to get out of the vehicle. I'm continuing to record this, though I'm not sure if I'm aiming the camera correctly.

Speaker 0 describes a strategy for people having problems with law enforcement: file a Freedom of Information Act request with the county manager for any communique regarding your name, including emails or any entries in the NCIC system or state bureau of investigation records mentioning you. Send the request to the county manager or assistant county manager stating, under the Freedom of Information Act, you're requesting any communique regarding your name. The response should be a file dump showing what the FBI has entered, or what’s in the NCIC system about you. If you find false information, request its correction. If they ignore you, you sue them in federal court. The NCIC national database is governed by the FBI, and it’s a federal crime to use the NCIC system to submit false information. Lawyers may downplay it as casual talk, but it’s described as a very serious offense; most false NCIC-entry cases are settled quickly and quietly to avoid public scrutiny. Speaker 0 advises to file a FOIA request for any communication regarding your name, with the county, the state bureau of investigation, and NCIC systems. When you receive it, examine for false information and request corrections; if there’s no response within days (ten suggested), you sue. This is presented as a federal crime and a violation of federal law and state statutes. The speaker mentions ongoing litigation in Cherokee County, North Carolina against the sheriff and others for false NCIC entries, and urges people nationwide to pursue accountability, citing a personal grievance with Dustin Smith, a candidate for sheriff in Cherokee County, including an alleged incident where his wife faced an arrest warrant for second-degree trespass after being told there were civil papers to pick up, leading to property removal and stolen items, with the trespass charges later dropped and expunged. The discussion pivots to the founders: the last resort is emphasized, citing The Federalist Papers number 28 by Alexander Hamilton, about when representatives betray constituents and the people have no recourse other than self-defense. The Declaration of Independence is cited about abuses and usurpations, the right to alter or abolish a destructive government, and the right to revolution and to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is described as not just about hunting or self-defense but about securing freedom; the government cannot tell people what guns to have to resist tyranny, and peaceful gun ownership includes machine guns in the context of a right to bear arms, with peaceful not equaling harmless. Speaker 0 concludes by urging viewers to use FOIA to obtain documentation, pursue lawsuits for false information, and notes that public servants’ communications are not private, including text messages and emails, and that defamation per se laws can apply. The goal is to hold public servants accountable; a 10% turnout of suing viewers could deter abuse, and the speaker emphasizes willingness to go to trial rather than settle, even at personal cost. Speaker 1 ends with the words “Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark.”

The speaker received their phone back from the feds today, and it was completely destroyed. It was a thousand dollar Samsung phone. The speaker is upset and questions why the phone was destroyed. The SIM card is also missing. The speaker believes the SIM card was kept because it contained videos from January 6 showing cops beating people. The speaker plans to sue.

The Butler County Sheriff's Department stated that responding officers did not have body cam footage. The department is responding to the rest of the request. The speaker notes that a key law enforcement agency allegedly does not have body cam video of the "Trump assassin."

I'm outside the Jasper County Sheriff's Department to request information about the shooting of Matthew Huddle on January 27th. I'm submitting a FOIA request for the body cam footage and inquiring about the ongoing investigation. I spoke with an officer who directed me to fill out a public information request form, including my phone number and email. Currently, they can't release any information, as it has to go through protocol. After completing the form, I'll call and submit it through dispatch. The officer confirmed that they plan to release information after the investigation concludes, but I'm submitting the FOIA request to ensure transparency for the public. I'm not assigning blame, just seeking clarity.

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.

At a residence, officers discuss a social media post described as 'not an arrestable offense.' The resident says, 'this is my own house...' and notes, 'viewed a post, which is not an arrestable offense.' They insist, 'the phone needs to get seized from us.' The officers say, 'The phone isn't seized right now. We're not able to get the phone. We have to escalate this further.' They warn, 'Which means your daughter will get arrested. For what? You in the social media post.' They frame it as a 'voluntary interview' and ask, 'Have you spoken to anyone else?' 'No. We'll come to the station now.' The dialogue includes 'Is that Do I need to go with that in order to No. Absolutely not.' They say, 'It's been destruction of evidence.' The scene ends with, 'I'd like you to leave now' and, 'You've harassed this child enough. Lisa, that's no worry.'

Speaker 0 describes a tense encounter, asserting safety concerns and clarifying they were visiting parents in Spencer and live there. They refuse to provide a requested detail: “What’s your dad’s name?” and answer “You don’t gotta get the information.” The other party orders, “Hands where I can see them. Don’t move around. Be nice,” followed by statements that they are not detained: “We’re not detained.” The speaker notes, “I have that too on recording already, and you are not allowed to do this,” and is told to “Turn the phone off.” There are repeated directives to relax and stop moving, with insistence that they are not in a traffic stop: “You’re not in the fucking traffic stop.” The confrontation escalates with commands to come up, culminating in “Come on up. Come up. Come on up. You got the right one.”

Social media and journalism can misrepresent the circumstances surrounding an event, and the post seen does not depict the entire incident. What often happens is that social media and mainstream media commentary distort content, which makes it harder to thoroughly investigate the activity and enforce the law. A single post or coverage item can present one side of the story without context, leading to people rushing to conclusions and the narrative “growing legs” that the investigation then has to manage. Speaker 1 asked where the nearest officers were. Speaker 0 answered that in the central business section they were working; both were in vehicles and had to maneuver through traffic. Regarding what exactly was distorted, Speaker 0 explained that social media irresponsibility frequently shows one side of the equation without factual context, and then people run with that, causing the issue to grow larger and become more difficult to manage as part of the investigation.

We use encrypted communications at events, but did not save radio traffic from Butler. Communications between Secret Service agents are not recorded like local law enforcement. Moving forward, we will start recording these communications. Translation: We use encrypted communications at events, but did not save radio traffic from Butler. Communications between Secret Service agents are not recorded like local law enforcement. Moving forward, we will start recording these communications.

The exchange appears to be a tense traffic-stop interaction. One speaker asserts they are not detained and mentions having it on recording, while questioning the legitimacy of the stop. They indicate they were visiting parents and that they live in Spencer, and they are asked for their father’s name, though they decline giving that information. Throughout the confrontation, the other party demands that the speaker keep their hands visible and not move around, insisting they are not detained and that nothing about a detention has been said. The speaker is told to turn the phone off and to stop recording, with repeated instructions to relax and not to move excessively. There is a back-and-forth about recording and legality: the speaker states they have it on recording already and asserts a prohibition on certain actions, while the other party continues to instruct the speaker to put the phone away and to calm down. The dialogue includes commands to approach or come up, culminating in repeated insistence that the speaker "come up," with multiple repetitions of "Come up" and "You got the right one," suggesting the speaker is being asked to move toward the officer or another location. Overall, the moment captures a confrontation where one participant emphasizes not being detained and references recording, while the other enforces compliance through visible-hand and proximity directives, culminating in persistent urging to advance.

They're stopping my driver and demanding my phone because I filmed the USAID facility. I've refused to give them my phone, and now they're ordering my driver to exit the vehicle. I'm continuing to record this situation, though I'm unsure if I'm holding the camera correctly.

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.