Bricks and Minifigs Tried to Get Me Arrested to Stop This Video
Credibility score: 35/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Bricks and Minifigs Tried to Get Me Arrested to Stop This Video" and rated it 35/100 for credibility (a BS score of 65/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-09. Its weakest claim — "Claiming moral high ground by not lying to the police." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 43 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 43 claims analyzed: 20 scored under 40, 23 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Claiming Bricks and Mini Figs is fabricating lies to police to prevent documentary release, using emotional language. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
Starting strong with 'tons of lies' and 'thrown in jail' to set the emotional stakes high right out of the gate. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker immediately frames the situation as a dramatic personal attack, using emotionally charged language ('tons of lies,' 'thrown in jail') to evoke sympathy and outrage from the audience before presenting any specific evidence. This is a classic emotional button push.
Original quote: “I'm about to go to court and I don't even know what I did wrong. Yeah, Bricks and Mini Figs is making up tons of lies about me to the police to try to get me thrown in jail so I can't release my documentary about them.”
Stating they're legally barred from knowing the accusations, creating a sense of injustice. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:12
The 'crazy part' is not knowing the charges? That's a hell of a legal loophole if true, and a great way to build suspense. 🕵️♀️
Why this score: The speaker highlights a perceived injustice ('not even allowed to know what they're saying I did') to further engage the audience's sense of fairness and create a 'David vs. Goliath' narrative, even if the legal specifics might be more nuanced or temporary. It's designed to make the audience feel the speaker's frustration.
Original quote: “But the crazy part is is I'm not even allowed to know what they're saying I did.”
Claiming redactions are suspicious and not for victim protection. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:30
He's saying the redactions don't make sense, but he can't know the full context of why they were made. It's a classic 'just asking questions' move 🕵️♂️
Why this score: The speaker implies the redactions are nefarious, but without knowing the specific content or legal standards for redaction, it's impossible to confirm if they are truly unwarranted or if they genuinely serve to protect victims' privacy as claimed by the prosecution. He's highlighting a lack of transparency, but also speculating on the intent.
Original quote: “Right now, I kind of don't even know what I'm being charged for because all of the body cam footage has been redacted. And they say it's to protect the victims. However, he's I think there are some redactions that maybe don't make sense and that weren't to protect the victims. And there's some…”
Speaker claims Bricks and Minifigs tried to get him arrested multiple times with false accusations. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:30
He's laying out a whole saga of alleged police harassment, painting himself as the victim of a coordinated attack. It's a wild ride! 🎢
Why this score: The speaker details a series of escalating incidents: a false heroin tip, a SWAT team raid for stolen Legos, and a 'mystery crime' warrant. This narrative is designed to evoke strong emotions (outrage, sympathy) and establish a clear villain (Bricks and Minifigs) and victim (himself). The community comments also reflect this sentiment, suggesting a strong emotional response from viewers.
Original quote: “Bricks and figs went into ultimate defense mode and was going to do whatever it takes to prevent this documentary from coming out. First, the police got a call saying I had heroin on me. This officer is going to conduct the search of the person because substances >> and obviously they found…”
Speaker claims the judge signed a protective order without considering his "overwhelming evidence." — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
Says the judge 'didn't care about the evidence' and signed the order. That's a pretty strong take on a legal proceeding without showing the actual court's reasoning. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker is presenting a one-sided account of a legal proceeding. While he states he has 'overwhelming evidence,' he also claims the judge 'didn't care' and signed the protective order. This framing suggests judicial bias or negligence without providing the court's stated reasons for the decision, which would be crucial context. Legal processes often have specific rules about when and how evidence can be presented, and a judge's decision to sign a protective order might be based on procedural rules or preliminary assessments, not necessarily a disregard for evidence itself. The community…
Original quote: “Uh the courts inclined to sign this pre-trial protective order unless you have an objection to it, Mr. Schneider, and the objection to such an order. >> Uh yes, I think there's a bunch of misunderstandings in this case. And so this person doesn't want to get exposed. So he's making up a lot of lies…”
Court protecting others and ignoring evidence, leaving him to fight 'mystery crimes.' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Calling them 'mystery crimes' and saying the court 'doesn't want to look at evidence' paints a picture of injustice without specifics. 🕵️♀️
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'mystery crimes' and 'protect Josh and Brandon for some reason' to imply bias and a lack of due process, rather than stating the court's actual legal reasoning for its actions. It's a narrative of victimhood without the full legal context.
Original quote: “So, the court has made it clear they do not want to look at the evidence and they want to protect Josh and Brandon for some reason. And now I have to somehow fight a court case against all of these mystery crimes against me that I have no clue what they're even saying I did.”
Claiming moral superiority in legal tactics. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:30
He's confident he's not lying, but the 'tons of crimes' claim needs to be proven first. Big talk, little evidence so far. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that his strategy is superior because he doesn't have to lie to the police, unlike Bricks and Minifigs. This claim of moral high ground is made before any evidence of the CEO's alleged crimes is presented, making it a statement of confidence without immediate backing.
Original quote: “However, the only difference between my strategy and Bricks and Minig's strategy is I don't have to lie to the police.”
Claiming moral high ground by not lying to the police. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 6:30
He's comparing his 'truth-telling' to their alleged 'lying' to paint himself as the good guy. It's a classic setup. 😇
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by contrasting his 'strategy' with Bricks and Minifigs' 'strategy,' implying that the only difference is his honesty. This positions him as morally superior without fully detailing the complexities of both sides' actions, simplifying a potentially nuanced legal conflict into a good vs. evil narrative.
Original quote: “However, the only difference between my strategy and Bricks and Minig's strategy is I don't have to lie to the police.”
CEO dismisses presenter's understanding as a 'misunderstanding' and 'taking one person's word'. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:30
CEO claims the presenter is 'taking one person's word' after the presenter just laid out photo and video evidence. That's not 'one person's word,' chief. 🤡
Why this score: The CEO is creating a straw man argument by mischaracterizing the presenter's position. The presenter just detailed evidence (metadata-verified photos, security footage) that goes beyond 'one person's word.' The CEO is simplifying and distorting the presenter's argument to make it easier to dismiss, rather than addressing the actual evidence presented.
Original quote: “you have a misunderstanding of what has occurred and you're taking one person's word over another person's word to go after the party that's responsible and you don't want to cuz that's not easy.”
CEO claims presenter misunderstands, taking one person's word over another. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
The CEO says 'misunderstanding' and 'one person's word' but ignores the actual evidence presented. That's a convenient blind spot. 🙈
Why this score: The CEO dismisses the presenter's claims by saying they have a 'misunderstanding' and are 'taking one person's word over another.' This conveniently sidesteps the specific evidence the presenter just cited (photos with metadata, video footage) and tries to frame it as a subjective 'he said, she said' situation, rather than addressing the presented facts. It's missing the context of the evidence.
Original quote: “you're talking about, but you have a misunderstanding of what has occurred and you're taking one person's word over another person's word to go after the party that's responsible and you don't want to cuz that's not easy.”
Claiming police take obstruction "very seriously" by citing a questionable arrest. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Using a questionable arrest as proof that police take obstruction "very seriously" is a bit of a leap. That's not serious, that's just... an arrest.
Why this score: The speaker uses the arrest of his friend for 'obstruction' (for locking his phone) as evidence that Utah police take obstruction 'very seriously.' However, the legality of that specific arrest is immediately questioned, making it a weak example to support the broader claim about police seriousness. It's like saying a chef is serious about cooking because they once burned toast.
Original quote: “new territory called illegal. The specific crime is called obstruction. If someone commits this crime, they can get arrested. >> We're at the police station and we're going to charge them with a criminal crime, obstructing of evidence of um a $200,000 theft. And good news for us, we found out last…”
Claims police arrested friend for obstruction just for locking phone, showing seriousness. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Saying 'just for locking his phone' downplays the situation — the cops clearly thought it was more than that. That's a huge leap from 'locking phone' to 'destroying evidence' 🚨
Why this score: The speaker presents the arrest as if it was solely for 'locking his phone,' implying an overreaction by the police. However, the police officer's statement 'you're attempting to destroy evidence' suggests they perceived the action as more than a simple phone lock, indicating a potential 'confidence mismatch' in the speaker's portrayal of the event versus the police's stated reason for arrest. The speaker's framing minimizes the police's perspective without providing additional context about why they believed evidence was being destroyed.
Original quote: “And good news for us, we found out last week that all of the police in Utah take obstruction very seriously here. The police arrested my friend Sheldon for obstruction just for locking his phone. Right >> now, you're you're attempting to destroy evidence. Okay, put your hands behind your back. >> I…”
Claims Utah police take obstruction very seriously, citing a friend's arrest for locking his phone. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Using one anecdote to declare ALL Utah police take obstruction 'very seriously' is a leap — that's a whole lot of confidence from a single incident. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker extrapolates a broad generalization about all police in Utah from a single, specific incident involving his friend. While the incident itself might be true, it doesn't automatically mean every officer in the state shares the same strict interpretation or enforcement of obstruction laws. It's a classic case of overgeneralization based on limited evidence.
Original quote: “And good news for us, we found out last week that all of the police in Utah take obstruction very seriously here. The police arrested my friend Sheldon for obstruction just for locking his phone.”
Claims his statements are true, the other person's are lies, and he has all the evidence while the other has none. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:30
Declaring his side 100% true and the other 100% false, with 'tons of evidence' vs. 'no evidence at all.' That's a bold, absolute claim without showing the actual evidence yet. ⚖️
Why this score: The speaker is asserting absolute truth and falsehood for both sides of a legal dispute without presenting any of the actual evidence he claims to possess. This is a classic 'confidence mismatch' where the certainty of the claim far outstrips the presented proof. He's telling us what to believe about the evidence, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.
Original quote: “everything I told the police is true. And everything Aan told the police is a lie. On top of that, I even got access to the complete case Ammon made against me and he doesn't have a single piece of evidence to support any of his claims, which I guess makes sense. Like, how can you support evidence…”
Claiming police took the case with zero evidence, not the one with 'overwhelming' evidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:30
Says police took the 'zero evidence' case over the 'overwhelming evidence' one with zero proof of either claim. Just vibes, bro. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker asserts that the police chose to pursue a case with 'zero evidence' while ignoring one with 'overwhelming evidence.' This is a strong claim about police judgment and case merit, but it's presented without any actual evidence to back up the 'zero' or 'overwhelming' nature of either case. It's an opinion stated as fact.
Original quote: “Yes,”
Highlighting the contradiction: asked to leave, then asked to stay for proof. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:30
Told them to leave, then told them to stay and provide proof. That's a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' move. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker points out a logical inconsistency in Ammon's instructions: first asking them to leave, then immediately asking them to stay and provide proof of ownership. This creates a no-win situation for the visitors, and the speaker is highlighting this contradictory directive.
Original quote: “Right. Provide proof. But right after he says this, he's now asking us to provide him proof that we actually are entitled to these Legos. So, we can't leave now because he just told us to stay and provide proof.”
Speaker points out Ammon asking for proof of ownership, then telling them to leave, creating a catch-22. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 16:30
Ammon demands proof, then tells them to leave, making it impossible to comply. That's a masterclass in 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' 💀
Why this score: The speaker identifies a clear logical trap: Ammon asks for proof of ownership, which requires them to stay, but then immediately tells them to leave. This creates a false dilemma where they cannot satisfy both demands, effectively preventing them from resolving the issue or leaving without being accused of non-compliance.
Original quote: “Right. Provide proof. But right after he says this, he's now asking us to provide him proof that we actually are entitled to these Legos. So, we can't leave now because he just told us to stay and provide proof.”
Ammon's description to police contradicts the video footage shown. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Ammon's version to the cops is a whole different movie than what we just watched. 🎬🤥
Why this score: The speaker directly contrasts Ammon's account to the police with the video footage just presented. Ammon's description of the visitors refusing to leave and demanding money appears to misrepresent the earlier interaction where they were asked to stay to provide proof, creating a 'straw man' argument to justify calling the police.
Original quote: “Well, we have now all just seen the video footage of what actually happened. But now, let's hear how Ammon describes it to the police. Guys, at this point, I've asked you to leave. Please leave. Well, we we you know, like you have to listen to us. You have to pay us this money. No, guys, you need…”
The speaker highlights the contradiction: being told to leave, then asked to stay and provide proof of ownership. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 16:30
Told to leave, then told to stay for proof. That's a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' setup. Pure chaos 🤡
Why this score: The speaker points out the logical inconsistency: Ammon tells them to leave, but then immediately asks for proof of ownership, which requires them to stay. This creates a no-win situation for the speaker, as they can't comply with both demands simultaneously. It's a rhetorical trap, making it seem like the speaker is refusing to cooperate when they're being given conflicting instructions.
Original quote: “I don't know. It kind of looks like the reality of what happened is we left too early for them. They wanted to pull us back in to keep talking to us. But we did show back up a second time. And to Ammon's credit, about halfway through the conversation, he did say that if we don't leave, he's going…”
Store claims they're a 'separate business entity' to dodge responsibility. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:30
Claiming 'separate business entity' to push off corporate issues — that's a classic move to avoid dealing with problems directly. 🚩
Why this score: The store is trying to distance itself from corporate responsibility by claiming to be a 'separate business entity,' which is a common tactic for franchises. While technically true, it's often used to deflect customer issues rather than resolve them, implying a lack of accountability for the brand as a whole. It's a convenient way to say 'not my problem' when it absolutely is a brand problem.
Original quote: “So when they say go to corporate, how do we respond next time? I have no idea. You have to take it up with them. It's it's your uh thing with them. It's that doesn't involve us. Okay. As a separate business entity, you got to take it up with them. You got to resolve it with them.”
Ammon demands proof of ownership, forcing them to stay after telling them to leave. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 16:30
Telling them to leave OR provide proof, but then making 'provide proof' a condition for staying. It's a trap! 💀
Why this score: The speaker points out the logical inconsistency: Ammon tells them to leave, but then demands proof of ownership, effectively forcing them to stay. This creates a false dilemma where they are told to do two mutually exclusive things, making it impossible to comply without being accused of not leaving.
Original quote: “Right. Provide proof. But right after he says this, he's now asking us to provide him proof that we actually are entitled to these Legos. So, we can't leave now because he just told us to stay and provide proof.”
Ammon's selective retelling of events to the police. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 16:30
Ammon's version conveniently leaves out the part where he told them to stay and provide proof. Selective memory for the cops! 🚨
Why this score: The speaker is highlighting how Ammon's description to the police (that 'they did not leave' despite being asked 'multiple times') cherry-picks details. It omits the crucial context that Ammon himself had just asked them to stay and provide proof, creating a false narrative of non-compliance without provocation. The video footage shown earlier directly contradicts Ammon's simplified account.
Original quote: “But now, let's hear how Ammon describes it to the police. Guys, at this point, I've asked you to leave. Please leave. Well, we we you know, like you have to listen to us. You have to pay us this money. No, guys, you need to leave and you're not leaving. Like, but I asked multiple times. They did…”
Using a ridiculous analogy to dismiss a spreadsheet as proof. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 18:30
Compares a store's actual inventory spreadsheet to claiming McDonald's ice cream machines with a random spreadsheet. That's not an analogy, it's a cartoon. 🤡
Why this score: Ammon uses an absurd analogy (claiming McDonald's ice cream machines with a random spreadsheet) to dismiss the validity of the inventory spreadsheet provided by the other party. This creates a straw man argument, misrepresenting the nature of the evidence to make it seem easily refutable, rather than addressing its actual context or potential legitimacy.
Original quote: “McDonald's right now and say all of your ice cream machines belong to me. Why? because so and so said so and I have a spreadsheet that says that all these ice cream shoot for that's not proof of ownership that's not proof of anything.”
Speaker claims Ammon is framing himself as helpful CEO, blaming others — Straw Man (20/100)
At 18:30
Accusing Ammon of 'framing' himself as helpful while simultaneously saying 'we're preventing him' is a classic straw man. They're attacking a perceived narrative. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is presenting Ammon's alleged 'framing' of the situation (as a helpful CEO trying to return property) as a deceptive tactic, and then immediately counter-framing it by saying 'we're the ones that are preventing him.' This creates a straw man argument where they're attacking a simplified, potentially exaggerated version of Ammon's position, rather than directly addressing the core issue of property ownership or legal process. The 'Mormon thing' comment also adds an irrelevant, loaded detail.
Original quote: “besides the whole Mormon thing, is that Ammon keeps framing the situation as he's just the helpful CEO who's trying to do the right thing and return Brian's property. And we're the ones that are preventing him from giving it back to Brian.”
Dodging responsibility for an incorrect email by claiming they didn't explicitly say to use the website's email. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 20:30
The speaker is arguing they didn't explicitly say 'use the website email,' ignoring the reasonable assumption that a website's contact info is valid. Classic deflection. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker is creating a straw man argument by focusing on the literal phrasing of their instruction ('Did I tell you to look up something on the website?') rather than the implied understanding. When someone says 'send me an email,' and their company's website lists a contact email, it's a reasonable assumption that's the correct channel. The speaker is deflecting blame for their own company's outdated or incorrect contact information by nitpicking the other person's actions.
Original quote: “Well, this is still on the website. So, did I Did I tell you look up something on the website and send it there? Well, did I say that? just barely. Yes or no? Did I say that? No.”
The corporate rep denies telling them to use the website's email, despite it being the obvious contact point. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 20:30
The rep is playing semantic games, denying they *explicitly* said 'use the website email' when it's the default. It's like denying you said 'breathe' when someone's suffocating. 🙄
Why this score: The corporate representative is creating a straw man argument by focusing on whether they *explicitly* instructed the speaker to use the email *on the website*. This avoids the core issue: the website's contact information should be valid and functional. By denying a specific instruction, they deflect responsibility for the website's potentially outdated or non-responsive contact details, making it seem like the speaker made an incorrect assumption rather than using a logical, publicly provided channel.
Original quote: “Well, this is still on the website. So, did I Did I tell you look up something on the website and send it there? Well, did I say that? just barely. Yes or no? Did I say that? No.”
Comparing asking for Legos to asking for stolen money — a false equivalence to amp up the drama 🎭 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 22:30
Equating a business dispute over inventory to literal theft of money. The stakes are not the same, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses a 'stolen money' analogy to frame their request for Lego inventory as a clear-cut case of restitution, implying the same moral weight and urgency. This ignores the complexities of a business dispute, which likely involves contracts, agreements, and different interpretations of ownership or responsibility, unlike a simple theft.
Original quote: “Well, we're not harassing. We're just asking for our Legos back. If someone stole money from you and you went and politely asked for the money back, is that you harassing them? It seems like Ammon kept either trying to stall or switch the subject. It almost seems like he doesn't want to actually…”
Comparing asking for Legos back to someone stealing money. False equivalence to amp up the drama. 🎭 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 22:30
Equating a business dispute over inventory to outright theft is a classic move to make your side sound more victimized. Not the same, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses a 'someone stole money from you' analogy to frame their request for inventory. This creates a false equivalence, as a business dispute, even if contentious, is legally and ethically distinct from direct theft. It's designed to evoke a stronger emotional response and paint the other party in a more negative light than the situation might warrant.
Original quote: “Well, we're not harassing. We're just asking for our Legos back. If someone stole money from you and you went and politely asked for the money back, is that you harassing them? It seems like Ammon kept either trying to stall or switch the subject. It almost seems like he doesn't want to actually…”
Bricks and Minifigs' legal threat uses loaded language to shut down requests for an inventory list. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 24:30
Calling a request for an inventory list 'public provocation' or 'manipulation of facts' is a wild leap. They're trying to scare him off with big words. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker is quoting Bricks and Minifigs' communication, which uses highly charged terms like 'public provocation,' 'harassment,' 'manipulation of facts,' and 'fraudulent documents' to describe the act of asking for an inventory list. This is a classic use of loaded language to intimidate and deter further inquiry, rather than addressing the request directly. It frames a simple request as a malicious act.
Original quote: “franchising incorporation will not participate in any form of communication that appears designed for public provocation, harassment or manipulation of facts for the purpose of media content, attempts to obtain [music] privilege or confidential information through misrepresentation or the creation…”
Speaker claims the narrative is that Bricks and Minifigs always tried to return Legos. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 26:30
Framing the 'main narrative' to then immediately tear it down. Classic setup for a takedown 🥊
Why this score: The speaker is setting up a 'straw man' argument by defining what they perceive as the 'main narrative' (that Bricks and Minifigs always tried to return the Legos). This allows them to then easily dismantle this simplified version of the argument, rather than addressing the full complexity of the situation or the specific claims made by Bricks and Minifigs.
Original quote: “The main narrative now seems to be Bricks and Mini [music] Fakes has always”
Ammon on Fox News contradicts the email, claiming they never heard back. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 28:30
Ammon's Fox News claim that 'we never heard back' directly contradicts the email they just showed. That's a bold face-plant. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker highlights a direct contradiction between the email response from Bricks and Minifigs (stating they would not return products and considered the matter closed) and Ammon's statement on Fox News (claiming they never heard back after expressing willingness to work it out). This is a clear instance of presenting two conflicting narratives, one of which is demonstrably false based on the evidence presented in the video.
Original quote: “Exactly. They finish this email saying, "We consider this matter closed and will not be returning any Lego products to you." So as you can see, that's the reality of what actually happened. But then Ammon goes on Fox News and says this. So, they actually did have an attorney send information to us.…”
Accused of extortion for catching them in illegal activity. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 30:30
Claiming that catching someone doing something illegal is 'extortion' is a wild leap. That's not how laws work, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker attempts to reframe being caught in illegal activity as 'extortion' by the person who caught them. This creates a false equivalence between exposing wrongdoing and committing a crime, which are fundamentally different actions.
Original quote: “>> Extortion because we caught you guys.”
Speaker claims 'Ammon' harasses people to get a single clip for a 'monster' narrative. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 32:30
Setting up Ammon's motive as purely to 'make him look like a monster' is a classic straw man. It simplifies and distorts his actions. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is attributing a malicious, oversimplified motive to Ammon's actions, claiming his 'goal' is to 'harass' and find 'one clip' to paint someone as a 'horrible monster.' This creates a straw man argument, making it easier to dismiss Ammon's entire case by attacking this exaggerated, negative portrayal of his intentions rather than addressing the substance of his claims or actions.
Original quote: “that's when like, ah, we finally got the the footage that we can use to make him look like a completely unreasonable monster, you know, like. So, but but that's what they do is is, you know, people whose goal is to do those types of things. They just harass and and go after people as long and hard…”
Accusing the other side of a classic 'gotcha' editing tactic — Straw Man (20/100)
At 32:30
He's setting up Ammon's supposed strategy as if it's a known playbook — 'they just harass until someone breaks' — before even showing the footage. Classic pre-emptive strike. 🥊
Why this score: The speaker is preemptively framing Ammon's actions as a deliberate attempt to provoke and then cherry-pick a clip to make him look bad. This is a straw man argument because it attributes a manipulative motive to Ammon without presenting evidence, setting up an easily attackable (and possibly false) premise before the actual events are shown. It's a way to discredit the opponent's narrative before it's even fully presented.
Original quote: “that's when like, ah, we finally got the the footage that we can use to make him look like a completely unreasonable monster, you know, like. So, but but that's what they do is is, you know, people whose goal is to do those types of things. They just harass and and go after people as long and hard…”
Accusing police and Bricks and Minifigs of colluding to dismiss evidence. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 34:30
Claiming the police are 'working with' the other side to dismiss evidence. That's a big accusation without showing the receipts. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker is suggesting a conspiracy between the police and Bricks and Minifigs to discredit his evidence. This taps into an emotional button of unfairness and corruption, aiming to generate sympathy and outrage from the audience without providing concrete proof of collusion, just his interpretation of events.
Original quote: “But at least now I can see why the police aren't listening to me. They're basically just saying that all of the evidence I submit to them is not credible and therefore case closed. Ben's wrong and we're right because we said that the evidence is uncredible. At this point, Bricks and Minigs is…”
Claiming police ignore video evidence, setting up a narrative of injustice. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 34:30
He's framing the police as willfully blind to 'proof' — pushing the audience to feel outrage on his behalf. 😠
Why this score: The speaker is using emotionally charged language to suggest a conspiracy or bias, rather than presenting a neutral account of the police's assessment of the evidence. This is designed to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer, positioning the speaker as a victim of an unfair system.
Original quote: “police officer is referring to the security camera footage that proves that everything Bricks and Minifigs is saying is a lie.”
Bricks and Minifigs is extorting me by threatening jail if I don't let them steal Legos. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 36:30
Accusing them of 'extortion' for threatening jail if he doesn't 'let them steal' the Legos. That's a wild twist on who's stealing what. 🤯
Why this score: The speaker claims Bricks and Minifigs is extorting him by threatening jail if he doesn't 'let them steal the Legos.' This creates a false equivalence by framing the return of property (which Bricks and Minifigs presumably believes is theirs) as 'stealing' by Bricks and Minifigs, while simultaneously portraying their legal threats as 'extortion.' This flips the narrative without clear evidence to support the 'stealing' accusation against Bricks and Minifigs.
Original quote: “Let's go to the next thing. Bricks and Miniigs is accusing me of extortion. when they're the ones actually extorting me by saying if I don't let them steal the Legos from us, they're going to make up a reason to throw me in jail.”
Accusing Bricks and Minifigs of defamation while being sued for defamation. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 36:30
Being sued for defamation and then saying *they're* defaming *him*? That's not how this works, chief. 🤦♂️
Why this score: The speaker is being sued for defamation but claims that Bricks and Minifigs are 'actually the ones defaming me.' This creates a false equivalence, suggesting that their legal action is itself defamation, rather than a response to his alleged actions. It attempts to flip the narrative without addressing the substance of the original claim against him.
Original quote: “Well, they're suing me for defamation. But this entire time, Bricks and Minigs [music] is actually the ones defaming me.”
Dismissing opposing actions as illogical — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 38:30
Calling the other side's actions 'no sense' without explaining *why* it makes no sense to *them*. Just vibes. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses 'it makes no sense' to dismiss the actions of 'Bricks and Minifigs' without providing a deeper analysis of their potential motivations or perspective. This is loaded language designed to frame their actions as irrational, rather than objectively analyzing them.
Original quote: “It makes no sense.”
Accusing the other party of fabricating threats to get them jailed and silence their documentary. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 40:30
The speaker is framing the legal action as a deliberate attempt to silence them and their documentary, not just a response to alleged threats. It's a classic 'they're trying to shut me up' narrative. 🎤
Why this score: The speaker is suggesting a motive behind the accusations—to prevent the release of a documentary exposing 'crimes.' This taps into an emotional appeal about censorship and injustice, rather than simply stating the facts of the legal dispute. It's a strong narrative choice to rally support.
Original quote: “Sorry, let me look. And so it makes sense why the police would take me to court because I mean he's threatening that we're going to burn down the building and shoot everyone. But we did nothing like he's just saying that because he's he's trying to I'm a documentary maker so I'm making a…”
Accusing the other party of fabricating charges to silence a documentary. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 40:30
He's connecting the charges directly to his documentary work, claiming it's a 'silencing' tactic. Big leap from 'they lied' to 'they're trying to jail me to stop my film' 🎬
Why this score: The speaker is confidently asserting a motive for the alleged false police report: to prevent him from exposing 'crimes' in his documentary. While the initial claim about false threats might be verifiable with the footage, attributing a specific, elaborate motive (silencing a documentary) without direct evidence from the other party is an assumption, even if plausible. It's a strong interpretation of intent.
Original quote: “Sorry, let me look. And so it makes sense why the police would take me to court because I mean he's threatening that we're going to burn down the building and shoot everyone. But we did nothing like he's just saying that because he's he's trying to I'm a documentary maker so I'm making a…”
Court thinks Bricks and Minifigs' claims are 'real' — a classic 'my side wasn't heard' move — Missing Context (45/100)
At 42:30
Claiming the court just 'thinks' things are real without mentioning the legal process. Courts don't just 'think,' they rule based on evidence presented. ⚖️
Why this score: The speaker implies the court's view is arbitrary, but courts make decisions based on legal filings and evidence, even if one party doesn't appear. It's not just a 'thought' process; it's a legal finding based on what was submitted. The missing context is *why* the court found the claims 'real' based on the submitted complaint.
Original quote: “that's not how the court sees it. The court thinks that these are [music]”
Claiming 'most legal experts' agree on a multi-million dollar win, with no names 🤡 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 44:30
Oh, 'most legal experts,' huh? The ones who live in his head? No names, no specifics, just vibes and a big number 💰
Why this score: The speaker attributes a significant legal opinion to 'most legal experts' without citing a single one. This is a classic anonymous authority fallacy, used to lend weight to a claim without providing any verifiable evidence or sources. It's easy to say 'experts agree' when you don't have to name them.
Original quote: “Most legal [music] experts are saying I could easily win millions of dollars from bricks and mini figs.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →