This Officer Was Never The Same Again
Credibility score: 51/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "This Officer Was Never The Same Again" and rated it 51/100 for credibility (a BS score of 49/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-19. Its weakest claim — "Question implies only two options: deadly force or nothing. Classic false dilemma setup." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 16 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 16 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 11 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of a police chase. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
This is a quick montage of radio calls from a police pursuit, setting the scene for what's to come. — Just a teaser, no claims yet.
Why this score: The video starts with a rapid sequence of radio communications describing a wrong-way driver and the police response, clearly a highlight reel to hook the viewer. It's not presenting factual claims to be verified, but rather setting a dramatic tone for the content that follows.
Original quote: “Wrong way driver, 275 northbound in the
southbound lanes.
>> 48, pursuing her.
>> 81, advise the negative. They're not
pursuing, they're attempting to locate.
>> 81, it's passing me right now.
>> Confirmed 100, he's driving in the right
shoulder now.
513, authorize potential contact.
>> red Ford…”
Officer uses extreme threats to ensure compliance, emphasizing lethal force. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:30
The officer's using 'I will kill you' to trigger immediate fear and compliance. Pure emotional leverage. 🚨
Why this score: The officer is employing highly charged, threatening language ('I'm going to kill you!') to elicit an immediate and absolute response from the suspect. While understandable in a high-stress situation, it's a direct appeal to fear rather than a procedural command, designed to bypass rational thought and force compliance through terror. It's not a factual claim, but a rhetorical tactic.
Original quote: “>> Do not [ __ ] move! You You reach for anything, REACH FOR ANYTHING, I'M GOING TO [ __ ] KILL YOU! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I WILL [ __ ] KILL YOU!”
Officer uses extreme threats to ensure compliance. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:30
That's not just 'don't move,' that's a full-on fear tactic. Pushing the emotional button hard. 🚨
Why this score: The officer's repeated, highly aggressive threats ('I'M GOING TO KILL YOU! I WILL KILL YOU!') are designed to elicit an immediate, fear-driven response from the suspect. This is a clear use of an 'emotional button' to achieve compliance, rather than a straightforward command.
Original quote: “Do not [ __ ] move! You You reach for anything, REACH FOR ANYTHING, I'M GOING TO [ __ ] KILL YOU! DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I WILL [ __ ] KILL YOU!”
Officer states the suspect 'would have been able to' point the firearm, using hypothetical to justify action. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
That's a 'would have been able to' — not 'did.' Justifying action with a hypothetical possibility, not an actual threat. 🚩
Why this score: The officer is asked if the suspect 'was able to point' the firearm directly. The response 'She would have been able to' shifts from an actual event to a potential one, using a hypothetical to bolster the justification for deadly force without confirming the direct threat actually occurred. It's a subtle but important distinction.
Original quote: “She would have been able to, yes, in a moment's notice.”
Officers repeatedly command the suspect to show hands and put the car in park, indicating a high-stress situation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
Just straight-up commands in a tense situation. No rhetorical games, just trying to get control. 🚨
Why this score: The officers are giving direct, clear commands based on the immediate threat of a moving vehicle and potential firearm. This is a straightforward account of a police interaction, not a rhetorical maneuver.
Original quote: “>> SHOW US YOUR HANDS. HOLD. HOLD. It's in drive. HOLD IT. HOLD. HOLD. IT'S IN DRIVE. HOLD IT. PUT IT IN PARK. LET'S GET THAT FIREARM AND GET her out and get her in custody. Do you guys see the gun again? Let it crash. >> Let it crash. >> I'm going to. I'm just trying to slow it down. >> Hey, let…”
The officer's urgent warning about a gun. No framing. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
Just a raw, immediate reaction to a threat. No spin here, just pure adrenaline. 🚨
Why this score: This is a direct, unembellished report of a critical observation in a high-stress situation. There's no attempt to manipulate or frame the information; it's a simple, urgent statement of fact. The context is a chaotic scene, making direct communication essential.
Original quote: “>> GUN. GUN. GUN.”
Officer expresses immediate need for a break after the incident. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
Just a raw, honest moment from the officer. No tricks here, just human reaction.
Why this score: The officer is clearly in distress and states a direct personal need. This is a straightforward expression of emotion and a request, not a claim that can be framed or manipulated.
Original quote: “I I need a break.”
Officer's urgent commands and discovery of a gun. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
Just raw, real-time audio from a chaotic situation. No spin, just the facts as they unfold.
Why this score: The audio captures the immediate, high-stress environment of the incident. The officer's commands and discovery of the weapon are direct observations, not framed opinions or rhetorical moves.
Original quote: “>> Go to the ground. Go to the ground. Go
to the ground, sir.
>> GUN. GUN. GUN.
I GOT THE GUN.”
Officer's emotional reaction: 'I just killed somebody' and the gun was empty. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
The officer is clearly in distress, focusing on the tragic outcome and the perceived futility of his actions. It's a raw, emotional moment.
Why this score: This is a highly emotional statement from the officer, expressing immediate regret and shock. While it's a genuine personal experience, the framing here is the raw emotional impact, highlighting the tragedy and the officer's distress, which can evoke strong empathy from the viewer. It's not a factual claim about the incident itself, but a personal, emotionally charged reaction.
Original quote: “I just killed somebody. Oh [ __ ] Gun was empty. Didn't even have a freaking mag in it. I shot.”
Officer's emotional reaction and belief the gun was empty. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
The officer is clearly in distress, focusing on the 'empty gun' detail to process the trauma. It's raw emotion, not a calculated claim. 😭
Why this score: This is a highly emotional moment for the officer, expressing immediate regret and shock. The focus on the gun being 'empty' (which is later disputed by community comments) is part of his internal processing of a traumatic event, designed to elicit empathy rather than present a verifiable fact in a calm manner.
Original quote: “I just killed somebody. Oh [ __ ] Gun was empty. Didn't even have a freaking mag in it. I shot.”
Backup officer asks if the distressed officer wants to "say some more bars" after a shooting. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:30
Asking "want to say some more bars?" after a shooting? That's a wild choice of words. What even is the context for that? 🤨
Why this score: The phrase 'say some more bars' is highly unusual in this context, typically referring to rapping. Without further context, it comes across as incredibly insensitive or a bizarre attempt at humor, completely missing the gravity of the situation. It highlights a potential disconnect or lack of immediate support from the backup officer, as noted by community comments.
Original quote: “Where uh where's your car?
>> Obviously the red one up there.
>> Where do you uh you want to say some
more bars?
>> No, I just want to walk it off.
>> I got you.
>> Hey, you want to go ahead and go audio?
>> I got you.
>> I just want to walk it off.
>> I got you.
>> [ __ ] damn.
Oh dude.
>> I'm…”
Officer repeatedly states the suspect wouldn't drop the gun, expressing remorse. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:30
He's repeating 'She wouldn't drop the gun' and 'I'm sorry' — clearly processing trauma and justifying his actions. — Raw emotion, not a detached report.
Why this score: The officer's repeated statements about the suspect not dropping the gun, coupled with his apologies, highlight the emotional distress and the need to justify his actions in a high-stress situation. This isn't a factual claim as much as an expression of his internal state, using repetition to emphasize the perceived necessity of his response.
Original quote: “She wouldn't drop the gun. She dropped
it and she was complaining. She had it.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
>> Okay.
>> She wouldn't drop it, man.
>> You good?
>> Yeah, you good?
>> I know.
>> Oh, she just I'm up here and then”
Claiming protocol allows something without specifics. 🚩 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:30
Just saying 'our protocol allows us' without saying what the protocol actually IS. Conveniently vague. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker references 'our protocol' as justification but doesn't elaborate on what that protocol entails, leaving the audience to assume it supports their action without any specific details. It's a classic 'trust me, I know the rules' move.
Original quote: “Well, I mean, our protocol allows us”
Question implies only two options: deadly force or nothing. Classic false dilemma setup. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 14:30
Framing the situation as 'deadly force or nothing' ignores a spectrum of other options. Textbook false dilemma. 🙄
Why this score: The question, 'At the time of the shooting, did you perceive any other option other than the use of deadly force?' sets up a false dilemma. It implies that the only choices were either using deadly force or doing absolutely nothing, effectively eliminating any intermediate or less-lethal options that might have been available or considered. This narrows the scope of accountability and justification.
Original quote: “At the time of the shooting, did you perceive any other option other than the use of deadly force?”
Briefly mentioning positive achievements before returning to the negative narrative. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:30
A quick nod to her achievements, but it's a speed bump before the 'decline' story. 🎭
Why this score: This statement briefly highlights positive achievements (college basketball, MMA championships) but immediately pivots back to a 'recent decline in her mental state' in the very next sentence. While not false, it's a classic setup to contrast past capability with current struggles, potentially downplaying the significance of these achievements by framing them as 'before the fall' rather than integral parts of her identity.
Original quote: “In adulthood, Kelsey played college basketball and won amateur MMA championships.”
Detailing a troubled past with specific, dramatic events to build a narrative. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 16:30
Listing a series of dramatic, traumatic events from childhood to adulthood. It's designed to evoke sympathy or understanding for the suspect's background. 😢
Why this score: The speaker is providing a detailed, almost chronological account of Kelsey Hildahl's difficult past, including brain surgery, parental calls for arrest, boot camp, and nearly freezing to death. While these might be factual, the cumulative effect of presenting such a string of unfortunate events is to create an emotional connection or a sense of tragedy around the suspect's life, rather than just presenting neutral facts. It's a classic emotional button push.
Original quote: “Documented interventions include her brain surgery at age 10 to control spasms, Kelsey's parents calling for her arrest at age 14, followed by months of boot camp, and admission to Montana Academy, a boarding school for psychologically troubled teens, where she reportedly ran away and almost froze…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →