reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A man is visited by FBI agents who ask for help in identifying suspicious individuals or groups. Despite reassurances that he is not in trouble, the man refuses to cooperate unless under arrest. The agents imply guilt by association and suggest that knowing someone who commits a crime could have been prevented. The man questions why certain groups are not targeted by the FBI. The encounter ends with the man contemplating how he would react if the FBI came knocking on his door.

Two individuals are at a doorstep where one of them comments on a doorbell camera and notices a dog, then the other asks about a confrontation that follows. Speaker 1 arrives to address statements made online about the Jewish community. The person at the door asserts, “You So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude,” signaling a belief in freedom of speech. The other party acknowledges they understand the point but then questions the situation, indicating they are there because of online remarks about Jews. The conversation shifts toward legal processes. Speaker 1 asks if they have a warrant, to which Speaker 0 responds, “get a warrant?” and then clarifies, “No. That’s why we’re…,” implying something about the lack of a warrant. They reference a “no soliciting” sign, noting that what the person is doing amounts to soliciting and is not welcomed on the property. The resident agrees to leave and asks them to stay off the lawn, signaling a boundary. The exchange continues with the group emphasizing that online comments about Jews can lead to a doorstep response. The person outside asserts, “This is freedom of speech,” and claims the situation demonstrates how much control “Israel has over our country,” describing the response to expressing online opinions as a “response for exercising my freedom of speech online” and labeling it “a joke.” They threaten future actions: “Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys.” The door sign is reiterated: “Sign says no soliciting.” The person outside questions the others’ actions, asking, “What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant.” They reiterate that a sign that says “no soliciting” does not grant a right to the property’s curtilage and insist, “Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” The scene ends with the insistence on leaving and the declaration of exercising freedom of speech, contrasting legal door-to-door presence with the boundary marked by the sign.

An officer confronts a woman on the street, insisting she show identification. The officer asks for an ID multiple times, stating, “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” and later, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” The woman responds that she doesn’t need an ID to walk around in her city, and she refuses to produce any identification, saying, “I don't need to carry around an ID in my home,” and, “Not gonna give you a ID.” The officer presses, requesting the woman’s birth information as part of what he describes as an immigration check and a citizen check. He asks, “Where were you born?” and “Ma’am, can we see an ID, please?” The woman asserts her status, declaring, “I am US citizen,” and reiterates that Minneapolis is her home. She insists that this is where she belongs and that she should be allowed to walk there without fear, replying, “This is my home,” and, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” The officer continues to demand identification, stating, “Ma’am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” The woman pushes back on the line of questioning, asserting, “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.” She accuses the officers of terrorizing people, insisting, “You guys, you terrorizing people. Ma’am.” The exchange centers on the tension between civil verification checks and the woman’s insistence on her rights and belonging. As the conversation escalates, the officer reiterates the need for a birth place, while the woman remains adamant that where she was born is irrelevant to her citizenship and right to be in her home area. She maintains that she belongs there, repeatedly stating, “This I is my belong here. I'm sorry. I belong I'm not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?” The dialogue ends with the woman’s determination to resist producing any identification and a continued assertion of her US citizenship and claim to the space as her home.

After a choppy video call, an FBI agent visited my house regarding social media. They found nothing illegal but said it was a procedure. I referred them to my attorney, who tried contacting them with no response. Journalists also reached out with no reply. The FBI seems to be checking boxes at non-criminal homes. Share your thoughts on this.

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.

The speaker records a conversation with law enforcement officers regarding online threats they have received. They clarify that they do not advocate violence and are only using words to express their opinions. They mention receiving death threats and express concern for their family's safety. The officers advise them to report the threats and offer to make their house a lookout. The speaker emphasizes that they have no criminal record and do not possess any weapons. They believe that criticism should be allowed for all groups and advocate for peaceful dialogue. They express frustration with being labeled as hateful for expressing their views.

After a video cut off, I spoke with an FBI agent who visited my house regarding my social media. The agent said it was just a procedure, not related to any specific post. I requested my attorney to contact them, but they did not respond. Journalists also reached out with no reply. The FBI's visits seem to be random and for checking off boxes, not due to any illegal activity. Share your thoughts on this. Translation: After a video ended, I talked to an FBI agent who visited my house about my social media. The agent said it was just a procedure, not related to any specific post. I asked my lawyer to contact them, but they didn't respond. Journalists also reached out without a reply. The FBI's visits seem random, not related to any illegal activity. Share your thoughts on this.

- it's illegal. The FBI will raid me. They've done it twice. - No. It's not secret. No. It's not on OAN and Newsmax. - Why isn't the FBI looking for two metaphysically attacked? Exclusive inside FBI fomenting insurrection. No? - Well, see, I was at the East Entrance on January 6. - I recorded two federal agents attacking the capital. - Well, federal agents came to my home and took my phones. They still have that. So, hopefully, someone will stand out. - I've given them twenty nine minutes of high definition footage of these two turds. - And to date, neither one of them has been arrested and none of their images have appeared on the internet. - They refuse to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement. - I've got them by the Cajones. - Avoid the FBI if you can.

An individual confronts two people identifying themselves as FBI agents, one as Adrian O'Donnell, in front of their house. The individual demands to see their full names and identification, but the agents are hesitant to provide it on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money by investigating something that is not against the law and questions if they believe in the Constitution. The individual calls them "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed. The agents then leave.

We are arresting a man for a Facebook post without caution or legal advice, breaching the law. You are not Meghan Markle, unable to manipulate reality. You are under arrest. The man protests, claiming his freedom of speech as a British army veteran. The situation escalates as the man accuses the officers of acting like the Gestapo.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 are filmed at a door where a confrontation unfolds after online remarks about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 begins by stating they’re there because of comments made online about the Jewish community, and asks, “You So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 responds, “Yeah. No. We we we get that. We get that.” Speaker 1 adds, “We just we gotta make sure that you’re not Do have a” and continues, “get a warrant?” The officers stress their authority by noting the presence of a “no soliciting” sign and explain, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Mhmm.” Speaker 0 acknowledges, “Yeah.” Speaker 1 reiterates the sign’s meaning and says, “Sign says no soliciting. What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant. Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage. Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” The conversation escalates with the officers enforcing a boundary around the property. Speaker 0 challenges the encounter, while Speaker 1 insists on the illegality of soliciting without a warrant, pointing to the no-soliciting sign as justification for their presence. Throughout, Speaker 1 frames the interaction as a matter of free speech, while Speaker 0 and the recording voice push back on the idea that signs or government authority justify intrusion. In a series of inflammatory statements, the discussion broadens from the individual doorstep visit to a broader political claim: “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door.” Speaker 0 adds, “This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the impact of online comments and the response they’ve triggered, saying, “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” The exchange culminates with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 exchanging final declarations: “What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys. Bye bye,” and reiterating the sign’s message, “Sign says no soliciting.” Overall, the dialogue centers on a door-step confrontation triggered by online comments about the Jewish community, framed as a debate over freedom of speech versus property rights and the boundaries implied by a no-soliciting sign and curtilage, ending with an unresolved assertion of jurisdiction and mutual dismissal.

The scene centers on a confrontation over online comments about the Jewish community. The speaker says, “We’re here because of the comments you made online about the Jewish community.” The other person pushes back with, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” The responders acknowledge that but insist they must verify a legal issue: “Do you have warrant?” The reply is, “No.” A sign is pointed out reading “no soliciting,” and the others explain, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting.” They state, “You understand that. Mhmm.” The situation is summarized as the person not being welcomed, with the conclusion: “Yeah. It means you’re not welcomed here.” They instruct, “Okay. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.”

Speaker 0: We're here because of the comments you made online about The Speaker 1: US community. Are you So what? I'm saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude. Yeah. No. Speaker 0: We we we get that. We get that. We just we gotta make sure that you're not Do you have warrant? No. And what you're doing is basically soliciting. Speaker 1: You understand that. Right? Yeah. Means you're not welcomed here. Okay. Speaker 0: K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.

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 is contacted by the FBI but refuses to turn off the camera. They are asked about someone they met online but refuse to speak on camera. Speaker 0 declines an interview and ends the conversation.

An individual is asked repeatedly if they are with Black Lives Matter. The person on the phone says he is not being charged with anything. He denies being with Black Lives Matter.

The interaction begins with a confrontation over comments made online about the Jewish community. The person on the receiving end is pressed by someone (appearing to be an authority figure) to address the remarks that were posted publicly. The exchange centers on accountability for what was said online, with the other party insisting that they are there to address the consequence of those statements. The person responds by invoking freedom of speech, saying, “I have a freedom of speech, dude,” signaling a claim to protect their right to express their views. The authorities acknowledge the First Amendment point but proceed to outline their practical concerns in the encounter. They briefly probe whether the person has a warrant, signaling a possible legal basis for their presence or intervention. The person denies having a warrant, and the officers acknowledge that fact, implying that the current interaction is not predicated on a warrant at that moment. The discussion then shifts to a property rule displayed prominently there: a sign indicating no soliciting. The authority figure makes the point clear: “Do you see that sign? So it says no soliciting.” They state plainly that what the person is doing amounts to soliciting in this context. The implication is that the activity is not welcome on this property. The person acknowledges this assessment with a brief “Mhmm. Yeah,” indicating a muted or resigned acceptance of the explanation. With the no-soliciting designation established, the officers reiterate the outcome of that sign: “basically soliciting,” and “you understand that. Right?” The person again responds with a minimal affirmative, signaling recognition of the boundary being set, rather than contesting it. The exchange ends with the officers giving a direct and final directive: “K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.” The implication is a request or order to leave the property and avoid returning, reinforced by the visual cue of the “no soliciting” sign as the basis for their stance.

An individual confronts two individuals identifying themselves as FBI agents, demanding their full names and identification. The agents decline to provide full names on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money investigating something that is not against the law. Another individual asks why they came. One of the agents says they wanted to make sure that weren't any. The individual accuses them of being part of a regime and not believing in the Constitution. The individual calls the agents "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed and think about what they did. The agents then leave.

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.'

FBI agents admit to interrogating Americans daily about social media posts, sparking concerns over free speech. A woman questioned agents about criticism of Israel leading to a visit over an internet meme. The woman refused to talk without her lawyer present. The video highlights the FBI's increasing involvement in monitoring online speech. The speaker also discusses intimidation tactics by companies to force conformity. The transcript ends with a promotion for emergency food kits and a call to protect free speech.

They assert that recording is not illegal and proceed with filming. They question why their information is being taken down, and are told, “Because we have a nice little database.” A statement follows, “He is considered a domestic terrorist.” The exchange ends with, “So We're videotaping you? Are you crazy?”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 arrive at a residence after online comments about the Jewish community. Speaker 0 asks about a doorbell camera and notes a dog in the house, saying “Wrong one.” Speaker 1 asks for another attempt. Speaker 0 states they are there because of comments made online about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 responds, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 acknowledges the right to free speech but says they need to determine whether they have a warrant. Speaker 1 asserts there is no warrant. Speaker 0 points to a sign that says “no soliciting” and tells Speaker 1 that what they’re doing is basically soliciting and that they are not welcomed there. Speaker 1 says, “That sign says no soliciting,” and Speaker 0 agrees, indicating they will leave, and asks that they stay off the lawn. The scene shifts to a broader confrontation. Speaker 0 states, “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door.” Speaker 1 counters with, “This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 0 responds again, emphasizing the perceived power of the response they’re witnessing to exercising free speech online and questions the control claimed by Israel over the country, adding, “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” Speaker 0 calls the situation “a fucking joke,” and says, “What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys.” The interaction ends with Speaker 0 reiterating the “no soliciting” sign and stating that it does not grant a right to their curtilage, and both parties depart with brief exchanges of “Bye bye” and “Freedom of speech.” Key points conveyed: - The visit is prompted by online comments about the Jewish community. - A tension between freedom of speech and perceived harassment or intimidation at someone’s residence. - A no-soliciting sign is cited as indicating they are not welcome, with a claim that the sign does not grant permission to be on the property’s curtilage. - Assertions about a lack of warrant are made during the encounter. - The exchange includes strong language and a rhetorical claim about Israel’s influence, as well as a provocative statement about auditing the visitors.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

A Department of Homeland Security agent questioned an individual filming a government-leased building. The individual stated they were filming for their own use and presented a DHS memo stating it is lawful to film the exterior of federal buildings. The agent expressed concern that releasing the footage could endanger people in the building, potentially making the individual liable if harm occurred. The individual declined to provide identification, citing Texas law. The agent asked the individual to stop filming and leave, but the individual refused, stating they were on a public street and had verified this with the city of Frisco. The agent clarified they were only asking the individual to stop filming them. The individual said they would continue filming for a few more minutes. The agent then identified themself. The individual refused to stop filming, referencing their earlier proof that it was lawful.

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.”