reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An individual confronts Roger about conversations on Grindr with underage boys. The individual claims to have evidence of these conversations and accuses Roger of being a pedophile. Roger denies knowing the ages of the people he talks to on Grindr, stating he assumes they are of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses disbelief, asserting they wouldn't be there without evidence. The confrontation escalates, with the individual threatening to call the cops, go to Roger's church, or go to SDSU and reveal the chat logs to expose Roger's alleged actions. Roger's companion urges him to stop the recording. The individual states they are recording Roger because he is a "fucking pedophile."

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.

Is your name Mohammed Daniel? We're from a team called Leisure Child Protection. We stop people like you from grooming children online. You’ve been communicating with someone you believe is a 14-year-old in a sexual and coercive manner. I have a few questions for you. Is this your chat log? Is this your number? Do you know the age of sexual consent in the UK? Do you have any children living with you? You mentioned you've been contacting children online for about a month. How many children are you speaking to?

An individual confronts Roger about conversations on Grindr with underage boys. The individual claims to have evidence of these conversations and underage contacts. Roger says he assumes everyone he speaks with is of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses skepticism, stating they wouldn't be there without evidence. The confrontation escalates when Roger touches the individual, who is recording the interaction. The individual threatens to call the cops, go to Roger's church, and share chat logs with kids from the church. Roger denies knowing the ages of the people he's been talking to.

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.

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.

An individual confronts Roger about his Grindr activity, alleging he's been communicating with underage boys. The individual claims to possess evidence of these conversations and pictures. Roger denies knowing the ages of the individuals he's been talking to, stating he assumes they are of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses disbelief and threatens to reveal the information to Roger's church and to authorities at SDSU, referencing 14 and 15-year-old boys. The confrontation escalates, with the individual calling Roger a pedophile and threatening to distribute chat logs at his church.

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.

The speaker confronts Boris about meeting his daughter, who Boris thought was 23 but turned out to be 15. Boris claims they only talked and flirted, but the speaker questions his intentions. Boris tries to leave but is stopped and accused of being a pedophile. The speaker expresses disbelief and confusion over Boris's actions. Boris becomes agitated and tries to leave, but the speaker prevents him from doing so. Boris eventually admits to his mistake and apologizes. The speaker remains wary and cautious of Boris's behavior. Translation: The speaker confronts Boris for meeting his daughter, who Boris thought was 23 but turned out to be 15. Boris claims they only talked and flirted, but the speaker questions his intentions. Boris tries to leave but is stopped and accused of being a pedophile. The speaker expresses disbelief and confusion over Boris's actions. Boris becomes agitated and tries to leave, but the speaker prevents him from doing so. Boris eventually admits to his mistake and apologizes. The speaker remains wary and cautious of Boris's behavior.

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.

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.

This person is accused of trying to meet a 13-year-old boy. They deny it, but are confronted and restrained. The person is called a child predator and is warned about their actions. They were caught trying to take the boy for a milkshake.

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.

An individual confronts Roger about conversations on Grindr with underage boys. The individual claims to have evidence and asks Roger how many underage boys he has been talking to. Roger claims he assumes everyone is of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses skepticism, citing contradictory evidence. The confrontation escalates when Roger touches the individual, who states he is recording the encounter. The individual threatens to call the cops, go to Roger's church, and report him to SDSU with chat logs of conversations with 14 and 15-year-old boys. He accuses Roger of being a pedophile and says he will distribute the chat logs at the church in two weeks.

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.

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 told the child you would meet him, but you claimed you wouldn't because you would be at work. You mentioned meeting at 1 o'clock, but there seems to be confusion about your intentions. You deny knowing the child's age, despite him saying he was in school. When asked about your past actions, you insist you haven't done anything wrong. There's a discussion about your former role as a veterans minister, which raises concerns. You are confronted about your plans with the child, and despite your denials, it’s clear that your intentions were questioned. Ultimately, you are told that the only reason you aren't meeting the child is because of their presence.

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.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.

The video features a conversation between the speaker and a man named Nathan, who is a registered sex offender. Nathan had arranged to meet an 11-year-old girl at a park, but it turns out he was talking to a group of individuals who expose predators. Nathan denies any wrongdoing and claims that he was just joking. However, he admits to being part of a Telegram group that shares inappropriate content, including videos of young children. The speaker confronts Nathan about his actions and urges him to seek help. Nathan agrees to get rid of the content and promises to speak to a counselor.