reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I spoke with an old army buddy today. This situation is like when parents tell you it's bedtime, and you have to go to bed whether you like it or not. The government is guilty, and they will be held accountable. They're desperate, talking about helicopters to escape, but it would take a long time. The police don't want to be involved. They see good, hardworking Canadians standing up for themselves. This moment is significant, and more people are realizing the truth through cell phone videos. The state and media are lying, and it's obvious to the world. There's no way out for the government.

The final group is regrouping as they prepare to confront the remaining protesters. There is a shift change among the officers on the ground. Both sides have used non-lethal tactics like rubber bullets and pepper spray pellets. The police fired flash bangs to disorient the protesters during the initial exchange.

Speaker 0 warns about chemical munitions and instructs the team to deploy. Speaker 1 welcomes viewers to the front line. Speaker 2 requests more munitions and urges shooting. Speaker 0 confirms the deployment of flashbangs. Speaker 3 expresses disappointment in the actions of their own side. Speaker 2 emphasizes staying on the point. Speaker 4 provides location updates. Speaker 5, having custody of videos, acknowledges witnessing acts of violence against police officers. Speaker 1 argues that the protest was peaceful and officers initiated aggression. Speaker 0 mentions tear gas being used.

The LAPD police chief described the level of violence in Los Angeles as disgusting, prompting a discussion about National Guard involvement. Speaker 1 was surprised at the police chief's description, stating there has been no violence where protesters hit, shot, or threatened anyone. She believes the police chief doesn't know what to do because Los Angeles is a sanctuary city and the police lack authority. She claims the president is purposely initiating this, and that he didn't contact the governor or mayor before potentially sending in the National Guard. She predicts the president will create martial law, alleging he started this by targeting migrants. Speaker 0 noted some violence has occurred, including assaults on police officers and damage to vehicles. Speaker 1 acknowledged that a few people may not conform, but people shouldn't be goaded into confrontation or violence because that's what the president wants so he can send in the military and create martial law. She hasn't heard of anyone being shot, killed, or beaten.

We're not fighting or protesting. It takes time, not a miracle. Murder? Just kidding. They'll understand. That's the worst. Let me explain.

The speaker asks if there is an organizer among the group blocking the roadway. They refuse to move and are warned that they could be arrested. The speaker explains that people need to use the roadway to get to work, the airport, and hospitals. They suggest moving people out of the roadway to allow traffic to flow and have a discussion later. The group mentions their goal of Biden declaring a climate emergency. The speaker says they cannot facilitate that and suggests finding a proper avenue. The group refuses to move, and the speaker warns that they will be arrested. The speaker questions the effectiveness of blocking traffic for their cause.

The speaker gives warnings about chemical munition and instructs the deployment. They express frustration and urge others to shoot. They mention being shot at and claim that the police are shooting into their own people. They mention a large crowd and give their location. Another speaker acknowledges acts of violence and defends the actions of the officers. A third speaker claims that the police started firing without provocation during a peaceful protest. Tear gas and other tactics are mentioned. The transcript ends abruptly.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

Protests are still happening in major U.S. cities, but Speaker 0 is not seeing the same level of reporting as in the first few weeks. Speaker 1 asserts the protests are a movement and will not stop. Speaker 1 warns that the protests will continue before and after election day in November. Speaker 1 believes protestors should not let up, and neither should "we."

According to credible sources within the police infrastructure, the government has chosen to use brute force instead of negotiating with the popular movement happening across the country. The RCMP is assembling and bringing in hundreds of riot cops to make mass arrests. They plan to disrupt the protests by cutting off cell phone service and transporting the arrested individuals to Lansdowne for processing. The government is avoiding dialogue and peaceful resolution, opting instead to disperse the protests forcefully. The RCMP riot cops will be supported by the exempt OPS and other police forces like the OPP and Durham police. This information is being shared to inform viewers about the situation.

Tomorrow, we're planning to peacefully go into the capital to address our problems. We don't want to be arrested or harmed, so we should be cautious. However, one person asks if we'll all get arrested, to which another person replies affirmatively.

A participant states that tear gas is being used by their own government against people they have employed, and that the government is tear gassing them. They emphasize that the protesters were peacefully protesting and urge others not to be misled by fake news, insisting, “We were peacefully protesting.” A second participant corroborates the scene, noting: “men coming out with blood all over their head.” They express uncertainty about what happened, saying, “We don’t know what happened,” and add that “a man and a woman coming out” were observed, with the woman limping and the man’s ears bleeding, and that the woman “had blood all over her.” The exchange underscores a reported use of force and resulting injuries during the protest.

Speaker 0 warns about chemical munitions and instructs the team to deploy. Speaker 1 welcomes viewers to the front line. Speaker 2 calls for more munitions and urges shooting. Speaker 3 expresses disappointment as their own team shoots at them. Speaker 4 provides location updates. Speaker 5, who has custody of videos, acknowledges acts of violence during the protest. Speaker 1 blames the officers for initiating violence, stating it was a peaceful protest. Speaker 0 mentions tear gas being used.

Protests are ongoing in the US, with limited media coverage. The movement won't stop before or after the November election. It's a warning for everyone to take note and not let up.

Speaker 0 argues that what was described is that he went there to try to stop the law enforcement operation, and that all the video shows him doing is documenting it with his cell phone, which is lawful. The only time he appeared to interact with law enforcement was when they went after him as he was trying to help an individual who law enforcement pushed down. Speaker 0 asks where the evidence is to show that he was trying to impede the operation, noting that he was filming, which he says is legal in the United States of America. Speaker 1 responds that Dana was there in the scene and was actively impeding and assaulting law enforcement to the point, but adds that this is not illegal. Speaker 0 counters that Dana wasn’t impeding it; he was filming, which is legal. Speaker 1 asks not to freeze-frame adjudicate the moment and insists that Dana was there for a reason, and that reason was to impede law enforcement. Speaker 1 further argues that de-escalation techniques were utilized during this action, including physically trying to remove those from the law enforcement scene and the use of pepper spray, which is described as another de-escalation technique. He states that those techniques did not work.

The speakers are discussing negotiations with law enforcement to resolve a situation. Speaker 0 expresses their intention to end the circumstances in the best interest of all parties, but feels that law enforcement is not open to communication. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of communication and accuses law enforcement of demanding compliance. Speaker 2 clarifies that they have listened to the concerns and will deliver the message, but warns that enforcement action will be taken if individuals choose not to comply. Speaker 1 requests communication on a non-demanding level and urges law enforcement to engage in dialogue. They express a desire to work together and invite authorities to sit down with them.

Speaker 0 notes how a protest has suddenly morphed into a movement aiming to topple an elected government, calling it a revolution. The agenda they are waiting to advance is for President Kenukovic to return to Brussels and sign the association agreement (AA). They state: “We’re here from America.” They emphasize the importance of signing the AA, arguing it would put Ukraine on a path to a stable and predictable business environment that investors require. They assert, “The free world is with you. America is with you.” They refer to themselves as “I am a litigator.” They warn that “it would be a huge shame to see five years’ worth of work and preparation go to waste if the AA is not signed in the near future,” urging to “finish the job.” Speaker 1 mentions active involvement in what’s been happening in the UK. Speaker 0 expresses a view on government formation, saying, “I don’t think cleats should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.” They designate Yadze as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” and note they are not going to comment on private diplomatic conversations. Speaker 1 calls for the protest to stand peacefully against tyranny and asks the Ukrainian government to demonstrate strength without resorting to violence, emphasizing the importance of dealing with peaceful protest.

The speakers discuss street occupancy by protesters and city responses: - Protests are currently allowed to take up street space as part of First Amendment rights. There is no immediate plan to prevent people from being in the roadway, though they are asked “to not be in the street if they can.” This stance may change, but as of now, protesters may occupy the street because it is not a major roadway and there are corridors to move traffic. If action were to be taken, an announcement would be made stating that arrests would occur for people in the street; leaving the street would not result in arrest. - Traffic management is handled with the help of protesters who guide traffic and create corridors to move vehicles around the protest. - Decision-making is on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis. The CMIC (incident commander) makes the on-scene decisions and relays information to the chief, while the chief oversees overall operations. The chief (Bob Day) ultimately answers to the mayor. - The hierarchy: the mayor is at the top of the city decision-making. If the mayor directs that people should not be in the street at all, the responders would carry that out in the most equitable way. - The past policy reference mentions 2020 riots and a hard line about stepping off the sidewalk leading to arrest, but the current stance is that people could be in the street without arrest, with announcements if arrests would begin. - On permits or insurance: a question is raised about whether the demonstrators have a permit or insurance (compared to a past demand for thousands of dollars for permits and insurance). The response: the individuals are not identified as Antifa, and it’s unclear who they are; the speakers have not been told who they are, and no permit/insurance status is confirmed. - There are comments about how the local government has handled the situation, with some hostile interruptions, including expressions of frustration and insults directed at authorities. The operational point retained is that arrests would be considered for those in the street only if the policy requires it, otherwise leaving the street is allowed. - The speakers emphasize that there are workers to guide traffic and that the current approach balances First Amendment rights with traffic flow, adjusting as needed on a day-to-day basis.

There are police presence in the area, ready to take action. Muslim leaders have been in talks with the police regarding the situation. The speaker expresses support for Palestine.

During a protest, there were acts of violence against police officers. The speaker, who has custody of thousands of hours of videos, witnessed these acts. The officers responded with necessary force. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation wouldn't have escalated. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and that the officers initiated the violence without provocation.

Speaker 0 notes there is an ice facility nearby, about 200 feet away, and asks if they are staying overnight. Speaker 1 says they have to, because people from the other side, described as MAGA chuds, have set things on fire with people sleeping inside. Speaker 0 asks what a “chud” is; Speaker 1 says it means MAGA, just another word. Speaker 1 describes their area as a community space that provides snacks, water, and things for folks who are out protesting and “fighting the good fight.” Speaker 0 asks if this is their group or volunteers dropping things off; Speaker 1 says it is a community effort, with nothing funded by anyone but the community trying to support itself. Speaker 0 asks about the sidewalk protest site and whether they have had trouble with Portland police. Speaker 1 confirms police have come by a few times. Speaker 0 mentions they have written permission from the school to be on the sidewalk, asking what kind of school it is. Speaker 1 explains it used to be an elementary school but had to close and move because of chemical munitions that were “poisoning the earth.” Speaker 1 adds that last night, tear gas was deployed four or five blocks away, not because anyone attacked or used force, but “they wanted a photo op,” causing the area to shut down. Speaker 0 asks if tear gas would be deployed if demonstrations weren’t happening. Speaker 1 deflects but reiterates the need to fight the good fight because people are being kidnapped and taken. Speaker 0 asks how long they expect the demonstrations to last and what they do with tear gas. Speaker 1 replies that they are one of the medics on the ground, and that Speaker 1 received training in California when they were there, not with a job but through school. Speaker 1 now provides medical services to those in need, noting many do not receive medical care and that some people on the ground die while others pass by without helping. Speaker 0 observes this as a sad thing in Portland. Speaker 1 questions what people think about liberals, calling it another word for capitalist, and states that people confuse liberals with the left. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss that people deserve to be taken care of, criticizing the system for failing to provide housing despite having more houses than people, with many living on the street because they can’t access it, and noting that the system continues to fail people and they continue to slide through the cracks.

Speaker 0: We're in this together and want to get things done. We're not causing issues, but the restrictions are still in place. The media portrays us as a small minority, but more is happening. My name is George, and I appreciate someone speaking up for the group. We've been instructed to do so by our superiors. We need your support to make a change. We have a lot of support and other police forces are standing up too. There's no negotiation.

College students are protesting and there are flashes of violence. The speaker mentions that this is a common occurrence and not much different from previous times. They clarify that it is usually the people throwing rocks who get shot at or have their tires fired at. The speaker concludes by stating that the police shooting at protesters would not be acceptable anywhere else in the world, and these protesters are fighting for their country.

The speakers discuss the rights of farmers to protest and the government's response. The first speaker, the Minister of the Interior, acknowledges that farmers suffer and have the right to protest. However, they also mention that the police will intervene if public buildings or officials are targeted. The second speaker raises the issue of double standards in the government's response to protests. The Minister denies any double standards and emphasizes the need for compassion and understanding towards farmers. They also mention that the Prime Minister will make announcements to address the farmers' concerns.