My response to the Police
Credibility score: 52/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "My response to the Police" and rated it 52/100 for credibility (a BS score of 48/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-01. Its weakest claim — "Warrant listed liquor; police were actually searching for Legos and found none, proving embarrassment-driven redactions" — scored 40/100 and was flagged as dubious. 29 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 29 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 27 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Warrant listed liquor; police were actually searching for Legos and found none, proving embarrassment-driven redactions — Dubious (40/100)
At 0:30
The GoPro allegedly shows officers looking for Legos, not liquor — but the actual footage hasn't been independently verified.
Why this score: Key tension is between official justification (protecting victim) and alleged GoPro evidence (searching for Legos, finding none).
- No public warrant or unredacted report available to confirm liquor mention
- *Viewers flagged* potential legal issues around the Airbnb host being identified (Comment 4)
- The "embarrassment" motive is speaker's interpretation, not proven fact
Original quote: “Included in the warrant are liquor. For 3 months, the police department's answer has been, "This redaction is important because it protects Josh, the victim of this case." However, we can clearly see that the police are looking for Legos and they saw no Legos. And they redacted this because they…”
Police are redacting reports and breaking the law to hide info — Dubious (45/100)
At 2:30
Strong accusation with zero proof offered — just the redactions themselves.
Why this score: No evidence presented that redactions are illegal.
- Redactions are standard in active cases or to protect identities
- Speaker offers no statute or legal opinion showing misconduct
- Community comment notes only one side of story is being told
Original quote: “that in all the police reports, it is completely redacted. The police department wants this information hidden so bad that they're willing to break the law to hide this from everyone.”
Personal evidence from jail receipt and GoPro footage proves the case — Personal Story (60/100)
At 2:40
This is just his side — doesn't prove what the redacted parts actually say.
Why this score: Anecdotal evidence only.
- Receipt and GoPro show his version of events
- Cannot verify what was said in the redacted sections without the full audio
- No independent confirmation mentioned
Original quote: “The only reason I know about it is because the receipt I got the night I was released from jail and my friend's GoPro that was recording.”
Police only investigated after Airbnb host claimed Lego theft — OK (55/100)
At 3:00
Matches the search warrant text shown on screen — the host's statement is documented.
Why this score: Warrant affidavit directly supports this.
- On-screen text quotes: "The homeowner also disclosed that he could hear multiple individuals inside the residence speaking about possibly stolen Lego toys"
- This is the stated basis for the search
- No contradiction found in available sources
Original quote: “So, even though I've been asking them for 3 months why I got swatted, they finally came up with an answer, which is the Airbnb host told them that I stole the Legos.”
Something suspicious is happening despite taking officer at their word — Opinion (50/100)
At 3:35
Classic 'trust but verify' pivot — opinion dressed as investigation.
Why this score: Subjective judgment not a factual claim.
- Speaker says he'll take officer's word but immediately undercuts it
- No new evidence introduced at this point
- Functions as narrative framing rather than verifiable statement
Original quote: “I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. And I will take the police officer's word on this, but something fishy is going on here.”
Unredacting audio will reveal the full truth — Opinion (50/100)
At 3:55
Assumes the redacted parts contain something explosive — pure speculation.
Why this score: Assumption that hidden audio will vindicate the speaker.
- No guarantee the redacted sections contain key evidence
- Redactions could be for privacy or ongoing investigation reasons
- Cannot be verified until (or unless) released
Original quote: “everything can just be cleared up if you unredact the audio and let everyone see the truth.”
Officer injured him without justification during the raid — Personal Story (50/100)
At 4:15
His word against the officer's — no independent evidence shown yet.
Why this score: Personal testimony vs official account.
- Speaker disputes the 'fast movement' justification
- No medical records, bodycam, or witness statements provided in this segment
- Standard he-said-she-said situation in use-of-force cases
Original quote: “While we were getting swatted, one of the police officers decided to injure me for absolutely no reason. He claims it's because I was trying to make a fast movement.”
Officer injured him for no reason during swatting — Personal Story (60/100)
At 4:30
Personal account of the incident — no independent evidence presented yet.
Why this score: Personal testimony about physical contact during detention.
- Describes the speaker's direct experience
- No external verification in this segment
- Community feedback focuses on later police statements, not this moment
Original quote: “While we were getting swatted, one of the police officers decided to injure me for absolutely no reason.”
Footage proves no fast movements were made — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 4:40
Claims video evidence exists but doesn't show it here — can't verify from transcript alone.
Why this score: Visual evidence referenced but not presented in this clip.
- Speaker asserts footage contradicts officer's account
- No actual footage or third-party analysis provided in segment
- Would require viewing the referenced video to assess
Original quote: “But when we replay the footage, you can clearly see I was not making any fast movements.”
Officer reported feeling arm tensing before moving it — OK (70/100)
At 4:55
Direct quote from police report — this is what they officially documented.
Why this score: Police department statement presented as their official position.
- Attributes specific actions and perceptions to Lieutenant Adamson
- Presented as the department's response to the incident
- Matches standard police reporting language
Original quote: “During Snyder's detention, Lieutenant Addison Adamson took hold of Snider's right arm. Lieutenant Adamson later reported that he felt Snyder tense his arm, at which point Adamson moved Snyder's right arm behind his back to place him into custody.”
Officer lied about fast movement and lunged first — Opinion (55/100)
At 5:15
Interprets timing and intent from footage — subjective reading of events.
Why this score: Mixed interpretation of events.
- Acknowledges partial truth in officer's report (arm tensing)
- Disputes sequence and motivation
- Conclusion depends on how footage is interpreted
Original quote: “So, the police officer was lying, but not fully because I did tense my arm. However, he lunges at me extremely fast before he even touches me.”
Officer must have psychic powers to know about arm tension — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:30
Sarcastic rhetorical device — not a literal claim about supernatural abilities.
Why this score: Rhetorical exaggeration to highlight perceived inconsistency.
- Uses absurdity to question officer's stated perception
- Not presented as actual belief in psychic powers
- Highlights timing discrepancy in the account
Original quote: “So, how could he even know that I was tensing my arm before he even grabs me? That doesn't make any sense. There's only one solution. This police officer has psychic powers.”
Psychic officer would have known Josh and Brandon were the real thieves — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:50
Continues the joke — extends the psychic premise to its logical absurdity.
Why this score: Sarcastic extension of the earlier joke.
- Uses the psychic framing to point out the officer targeted the wrong people
- Reinforces the speaker's position that they were innocent
- Keeps the tone mocking rather than literal
Original quote: “if the police officer did truly have psychic powers, he would have known that we were not the thieves. Josh and Brandon were the thieves.”
Only possible explanation is officer injured him without cause — Opinion (45/100)
At 6:05
Strong conclusion from limited options — dismisses other explanations without evidence.
Why this score: Binary conclusion after rejecting alternatives.
- Frames the situation as having only two options (psychic powers or unjustified force)
- Does not address standard police training or perception factors
- Stronger claim than the evidence presented supports
Original quote: “literally the only outcome left is that this police officer injured me for no reason.”
Claims police injured his shoulder with no reason — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 6:30
Personal conclusion, not independently verified — his word vs theirs.
Why this score: Core dispute remains unresolved.
- Speaker concludes officer acted without cause
- No bodycam, witness, or medical record cited in this segment
- Police response mentioned but not detailed here
Original quote: “the only outcome left is that this police officer injured me for no reason”
Admits using wrong-side stock X-ray in previous video — Verified (90/100)
At 6:40
Straight admission — he used a left-shoulder image for a claimed right-shoulder injury.
Why this score: Speaker directly confirms mismatch.
- X-ray had visible 'L' marker for left side
- Arrest footage shows right arm being handled
- He states he never went to hospital, so image couldn't be his
Original quote: “the stock footage I used to show what a dislocated shoulder is a image that's clearly not mine because I didn't go to the hospital. I went to jail. So, how could I have taken this picture? But anyways, the stock image I used is of a left shoulder when my shoulder that got injured was my right…”
Claims he dislocates his shoulder monthly as slackliner — Personal Story (60/100)
At 7:00
Unverifiable personal claim — sounds frequent but no supporting data.
Why this score: Anecdotal frequency stated without evidence.
- No medical records or prior incidents referenced
- Slacklining can cause shoulder stress, but 'monthly' is high
- Remains his lived experience
Original quote: “As a professional slackliner, dislocating my shoulder is almost a monthly thing for me”
Claims police chief reviewed dashcam and concluded they ran a stop sign — Dubious (45/100)
At 8:30
Chief's interpretation of footage presented without showing the actual video or statement.
Why this score: Interpretation dispute over dashcam evidence. Issues:
- Speaker asserts chief reviewed footage and reached conclusion
- No direct quote or source from chief provided in segment
- Police statement in transcript references 'failing to stop before the stop line' — wording differs from speaker's summary
Original quote: “Another thing I find shocking is the chief of police even after reviewing the dash cam footage says that we ran a stop sign.”
Josh told police he would shoot someone over harassment — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 10:30
Direct claim with no recording or report shown — only the speaker's version.
Why this score: The speaker states Josh reported an intent to shoot someone to police.
- No bodycam, police report, or transcript provided to verify exact wording
- Relies entirely on the speaker's account of what was said
- Unverifiable without official records
Original quote: “Joshua Johnson contacted police and reported he was going to shoot someone as a result of the ongoing harassment.”
Josh planned to murder to avoid court and escape accountability — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:52
Speaker's interpretation of Josh's motives — not a verifiable fact.
Why this score: Opinion on Josh's internal reasoning.
- Speaker infers intent from the threat report
- No evidence presented that Josh explicitly said this was his plan
- Interpretation, not direct evidence
Original quote: “Josh was so scared of going to court that he would rather shoot us than accept these court papers. Josh's logic here is that if he can murder the process server and if he can murder me, then he can get away with his crimes because there'll be no one to sue him in court.”
Police should have arrested Josh for threatening murder but arrested speaker instead — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 11:20
Core claim about what police should have done — no official outcome shown.
Why this score: Speaker asserts police had grounds to arrest Josh but chose to arrest the speaker.
- No arrest records, charging documents, or police statements provided
- Unverifiable without external confirmation of events
- Community comment echoes the frustration but adds no new evidence
Original quote: “However, sadly for Josh, murder is illegal. And now he just admitted his plans to the police officers. The American Fork police should at least be arresting Josh for trying to use murder as a way to get out of court. But sadly, for some reason, they arrested me instead.”
Bodycam footage is fully redacted and police refuse to release it — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 11:50
Claims total redaction and refusal — no proof of either provided in segment.
Why this score: Speaker states footage exists, is redacted, and department won't release it.
- No link to footage, FOIA response, or official statement shown
- Unverifiable based on available information
- Recent police transparency cases show mixed results on bodycam release
Original quote: “And all of the answers are in the body cam footage. However, they redacted all the body cam footage. So, this is where I think if we all come together as a community, we can somehow convince the American Fork Police Department to unredact this footage so we can find out why they arrested me and not…”
Police claim they arrested her because case was real and she's making YouTube content, but she wants proof — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 12:30
She disputes their stated reason but the call itself isn't in the released footage — no way to verify what was said.
Why this score: Core dispute centers on a phone call that supposedly happened. Key issues:
- The department claims they verified the case was legitimate
- Speaker notes the raw footage does not contain this call
- No independent record of the conversation is provided
Original quote: “the police department said the reason they arrested me and not Josh this day is because they called to confirm if this was a real court case and they said it was real. However, the papers have already been served and now I'm doing this solely to get YouTube content. And if that's true, I would like…”
Police report dated March 10th but Josh served March 13th so contradiction proves fake date — Dubious (45/100)
At 14:30
Date mismatch exists but doesn't prove fabrication — reports often list incident date not service date.
Why this score: Date discrepancy noted but context matters.
- Police reports frequently use the date of the alleged incident or complaint filing
- Service of process on the defendant is a separate procedural step that occurs later
- No evidence presented that the March 10th date was meant to represent service date
Original quote: “On March 10th, 2026. However, you can see here that Josh doesn't get served until 3 days later, March 13th. So, how could Josh have already been served on March 10th if he didn't get served until March 13th?”
Speaker feels unsafe from 3-hour heroin search, so his fear is reasonable too — Opinion (40/100)
At 16:30
Tries to flip the 'reasonable fear' standard by claiming his own discomfort from the search is equally valid — subjective comparison, not legal analysis.
Why this score: Legal misapplication of the reasonable-person test. Key issues:
- 'Reasonable fear' is judged by an objective standard, not mutual feelings
- No evidence presented that Josh's fear lacks basis
- Speaker's discomfort from being searched doesn't cancel the other party's fear assessment
Original quote: “I even tried explaining this to one of the police officers early on. What the law says is if the average person would feel unsafe by our behaviors. So I think he's feeling unreasonably unsafe. A reasonable person would not feel unsafe in the situation. Well, I can say the same thing. I feel unsafe…”
Josh is not a reasonable person so police claim fails — Opinion (50/100)
At 16:30
Calling someone unreasonable based on past accusations — that's a legal opinion, not a fact check.
Why this score: Subjective judgment presented as legal conclusion.
- Speaker defines 'reasonable' based on prior accusations of false heroin claims and threats
- No court has ruled on Josh's reasonableness
- Police standard uses objective 'reasonable person' test, not personal history
Original quote: “is that if a reasonable person would be scared. The police are claiming that since this action made Josh scared, this check mark is complete. However, they've completely forgotten about the term reasonable. As we can see, Josh is not a reasonable person.”
Police claimed they had heroin during traffic stop — Dubious (40/100)
At 18:30
Police deny this — they say no tip about heroin, just observed glossy eyes.
Why this score: Direct contradiction in record.
- Police now state they received no heroin tip
- Speaker claims police initiated search based on that claim
- Redacted footage leaves both versions uncheckable
Original quote: “Now let's go to the heroin claim. We got pulled over by the police and they claimed that we had heroin on us.”
Claims police chief lied about almost everything so far — Dubious (45/100)
At 20:30
Strong accusation with zero specific lies identified yet.
Why this score: Broad claim lacks evidence. Key issues:
- Speaker asserts "almost everything" is a lie
- No specific false statements from chief are cited here
- Video promises to show lies later but this statement stands alone
Original quote: “It seems hard to take what the chief of police is saying seriously because so far almost everything he said is a lie.”
Police lied about why Sheldon was arrested — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 22:30
Video analysis vs officer statement — no independent footage to confirm either version.
Why this score: Core dispute is interpretation of intent.
- Creator shows thumb moving toward lock button
- Officer claimed intent to delete evidence
- No audio of arrest or additional camera angles released
- Without full unredacted footage, both versions remain possible interpretations
Original quote: “the police officer claims that Sheldon was arrested because he opened his phone to start deleting evidence. However, we can clearly see in the footage Sheldon's thumb is heading towards that lock button to lock his phone.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →