Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "How to get arrested for $3" and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-27. Its weakest claim — "He's trying to set up a 'manager only' rule that doesn't exist. Peak goalpost shifting. 🥅" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 27 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 27 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 21 between 40 and 69, and 3 at 70 or above.
At 0:00
Starting strong with a felony for a soda cup — this is gonna be a wild ride. Buckle up, buttercup. 🍿
Why this score: The video immediately grabs attention with a dramatic, almost unbelievable premise, setting up the narrative for the rest of the clip. It's a classic hook.
Original quote: “How to get a felony for $3.79.”
At 0:15
He just doubled down on the soda theft right in front of her. That's not just cheap, that's a power move. 💀
Why this score: The description of the man's actions and the employee's reaction is presented factually, based on the visual evidence. There's no attempt to manipulate the viewer's perception beyond the events themselves.
Original quote: “However, the male then backs out of the water option and pours himself more soda. He then leaves, leaving the employee frustrated.”
At 0:20
Calling the cops over a soda? That's commitment to the bit, or just a really bad day for that employee. 🚨
Why this score: The statement accurately reflects the action taken by the employee. While the severity of calling the police for a minor theft might be debatable, the claim itself is a direct report of what happened.
Original quote: “She then calls the police as the male is now sitting out. He's >> called the police over filling the cup of water up with soda.”
At 0:34
Bro's out here teaching the dark arts of soda swiping like it's a life skill everyone should have. The audacity! 😭
Why this score: This isn't a factual claim, it's just the speaker giving 'expert' advice on how to steal soda without getting caught. It's pure commentary on the situation, treating petty theft as a strategic game.
Original quote: “See, like he's so stupid. The way that you do that regularly is you usually there's two of those machines in the area. And what you do is you wait for them not to look at you and then you stand in between the machine and the person working at the register so they can't see what you're putting on…”
At 1:43
The speaker is treating the cop knowing the guy's first name as a huge, dramatic reveal. It's not a 'plot twist,' it's just... she knows him. 🤦♀️
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to the police officer knowing the suspect's first name, framing it as a significant revelation or a sign of a deeper connection ('2enter'). This is purely a comedic interpretation of a mundane detail, playing up the drama for laughs, not a factual claim.
Original quote: “Wait, wait, wait, hold up, hold, wait, wait. She knows his first name. Gentlemen, I think we might have a 2enter. She knew him. They're on a firstname basis. Oh, it's Brandon. Uh, yep.”
At 1:43
The speaker's acting like knowing a first name is the smoking gun for a deeper conspiracy. It just means he's a repeat offender, not a secret agent. 🤡
Why this score: This is a comedic reaction to the officer knowing the suspect's first name. The speaker frames it as a dramatic revelation, implying a deeper, more personal history, when it likely just indicates the suspect is a known troublemaker at that location. It's a humorous exaggeration.
Original quote: “Wait, wait, wait, hold up, hold, wait, wait. She knows his first name. Gentlemen, I think we might have a 2enter. She knew him. They're on a firstname basis. Oh, it's Brandon. Uh, yep.”
At 2:04
The officer's just laying out the facts for why he's being trespassed. No frills, just the cold, hard truth. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The officer is clearly stating the reason for the trespassing order: the individual has been stealing and loitering. This is a direct, factual statement of the store's complaint, not a rhetorical trick. It's a straightforward explanation of the situation.
Original quote: “staff called because you've been going in there taking water and stealing soda and not really serving any purpose being here. So, they want you trespassed.”
At 2:04
The cop basically said, 'You're not even good at being here.' That's a brutal, efficient takedown. 🔥
Why this score: The phrase 'not really serving any purpose being here' is loaded language used by the police officer to justify the trespassing. It's a dismissive and dehumanizing statement that goes beyond simply stating the legal reason for the trespass, adding an emotional layer of judgment.
Original quote: “staff called because you've been going in there taking water and stealing soda and not really serving any purpose being here. So, they want you trespassed.”
At 2:25
The 'What? What?' after being told exactly what he did. Peak denial, bro. 😂
Why this score: The suspect's reaction of 'What? What?' after being explicitly told he was stealing soda is a classic comedic trope of feigned ignorance or denial. It's a performance for the camera, not a serious attempt to understand, and the speaker is reacting to the absurdity of it.
Original quote: “what what they're saying is I stole. What? What?”
At 2:25
Dude's acting shocked that 'stealing soda' means he 'stole.' The mental gymnastics are Olympic-level. 🤸♂️
Why this score: This is the suspect's reaction, feigning ignorance or disbelief at the accusation of stealing, despite the clear context. The speaker is reacting to this obvious attempt to deny responsibility, highlighting the absurdity of the suspect's 'What? What?' response.
Original quote: “what what they're saying is I stole. What? What?”
At 2:30
He's confidently stating legal opinions to actual police officers. That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off. 😬
Why this score: The speaker is asserting a legal interpretation ('I don't think you could trespass me') to police officers who are clearly acting within their authority. This shows a significant mismatch between his confidence and his actual understanding of the law, especially when dealing with law enforcement on private property.
Original quote: “I don't think you could trespass me.”
At 2:30
He's inventing a rule that only a manager can trespass, which is not how it works. Creating a straw man to argue against. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is creating a false premise ('unless it's the manager') to challenge the officer's authority. He's arguing against a version of the rules that nobody else is presenting, which is a classic straw man argument.
Original quote: “You got to talk louder. I don't think you're trespassing unless it's the manager.”
At 4:30
3,000 years ago? That's some next-level entitlement, wrapped in a joke about ancient contracts. 😂
Why this score: The speaker uses hyperbole ('3,000 years ago') to mock the trespasser's sense of entitlement, framing it as an absurd, long-standing 'promise.' While clearly a joke, it uses loaded language to emphasize the perceived ridiculousness of the trespasser's actions.
Original quote: “This soda was promised to him 3,000. This Firehouse Sub was promised to me 3,000 years ago.”
At 4:30
This is pure comedic exaggeration, mocking the other guy's entitlement. The '3,000 years' bit is gold. 😂
Why this score: This is clearly a sarcastic, hyperbolic statement intended for comedic effect and to highlight the absurdity of the situation. It's not meant to be taken as a literal claim, but rather a humorous commentary on the other person's perceived sense of entitlement.
Original quote: “This soda was promised to him 3,000. This Firehouse Sub was promised to me 3,000 years ago.”
At 6:30
Throwing around 'millions' and 'billions' for micromanaging the 'bottom 2%' with zero data. That's a lot of numbers for a gut feeling. 💸🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker makes a broad, unquantified claim about 'millions' and 'billions' of dollars being spent to manage a 'bottom 2%' of the population. While the sentiment might resonate, there's no specific evidence or data provided to back up these financial figures or the precise demographic percentage. It's a confident assertion without supporting details.
Original quote: “I don't think you guys understand the millions of dollars that we spend. billions of dollars that we spend every year trying to micromanage the bottom 2% of our population into not acting like [ __ ] animals.”
At 6:30
Dude's confidently declaring 'that's not how it works' about a manager's authority. Sir, that's exactly how it works. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is asserting with certainty that the process of contacting a manager for a ban is incorrect, despite the obvious reality that managers often handle such decisions. This is a mismatch between his confidence and the actual operational procedures of a business. He's just refusing to accept the authority.
Original quote: “contact the manager. That's not how it works.”
At 8:30
Throwing out "millions of dollars" without any actual numbers or breakdown. That's just hitting the outrage button. 💸
Why this score: The speaker uses a large, round number ('millions of dollars') without providing any specific data, calculations, or sources to back it up. This is designed to evoke a strong emotional response (outrage, frustration) rather than present a verifiable financial claim. It's a classic appeal to emotion to frame the situation as a massive burden.
Original quote: “dollars. Brandon will cost the city millions of dollars over the course of his life. You understand that? Millions of dollars will be spent on Brandon. Keeping him in jail, getting him out of jail, court hearings, police time, arrests, everything.”
At 8:30
Throwing out "millions of dollars" for one guy's petty crime. That's a bold prediction with zero math to back it up. 🔮
Why this score: The speaker asserts with high confidence that this individual will cost the city 'millions of dollars' over his lifetime due to repeated arrests and court appearances. While repeat offenders do incur costs, 'millions' is a very specific, high number presented without any data, projections, or breakdown of how that figure is reached. It's an emotional appeal to the cost, not a factual one.
Original quote: “dollars. Brandon will cost the city millions of dollars over the course of his life. You understand that? Millions of dollars will be spent on Brandon. Keeping him in jail, getting him out of jail, court hearings, police time, arrests, everything.”
At 10:30
Calling it 'literal NPC pathing' is a funny, but not actually literal, comparison. The word 'literal' is doing some heavy lifting it didn't sign up for. 🎮💀
Why this score: The speaker uses 'literal' to emphasize the robotic, predictable nature of the person's actions, drawing a humorous comparison to non-player characters in video games. While evocative, it's not a literal description of reality, but a hyperbolic one.
Original quote: “It It's just literal NPC pathing.”
At 12:30
Stating 'you cannot explain things' with such certainty, like they've got the definitive guide to human stubbornness. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker makes a broad, confident assertion that 'you cannot explain things to somebody like this,' implying a universal truth about certain individuals. This is a confidence mismatch because it's presented as an absolute fact without any evidence or nuance, based purely on personal experience or frustration.
Original quote: “You cannot explain things to somebody like this. You can't. I know you might think you can. You would be wrong.”
At 12:30
The cop's like, 'Either I do paperwork or you go steal from McDonald's.' Bro, there are other options besides felony theft. 😂
Why this score: The officer presents a false dilemma, implying the only two options are doing paperwork for the current incident or the suspect going to steal from McDonald's. This ignores the obvious third option: the suspect simply not stealing at all. It's a comedic exaggeration to express frustration.
Original quote: “Dude, just go to Please don't make me have to do paperwork. Please, just go steal from the McDonald's across the street. Please just get the just get something from McDonald's instead.”
At 14:30
Assuming 'at least three times' just because he has a cup from 'two days ago.' That's some CSI-level deduction from a soda cup. 🕵️♂️
Why this score: The speaker is inferring a pattern of behavior ('at least three times') based on the presence of a cup that's 'two days old.' While it suggests a repeat, it doesn't definitively prove three separate incidents of theft or even that the cup is from a stolen soda. It's a leap of confidence without direct evidence.
Original quote: “So this has happened at least three times. He still has the cup from two days ago at least.”
At 14:30
Seeing a cup from 'two days ago' doesn't automatically mean 'at least three times' of theft. That's some serious deduction from a disposable cup. 🕵️♂️
Why this score: The speaker leaps from observing a cup that's 'at least two days old' to concluding 'this has happened at least three times.' The evidence (one old cup) doesn't logically support the confident conclusion of multiple, specific instances of theft. It's a leap of faith, not a fact.
Original quote: “So this has happened at least three times. He still has the cup from two days ago at least.”
At 16:30
The suspect's logic on 'stealing a cup' vs. 'being given a cup' is peak mental gymnastics. The title sets the stage for the absurdity. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to the sheer absurdity of the suspect's defense, contrasting it with the video's title about getting a felony for a small amount. It's a comedic observation of the situation, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing technique. The 'stealing if I took the cup' line is just chef's kiss for the vibes.
Original quote: “The video. The title of this video is how to get a felony for $3.79. They gave me a cup. It is noting stealing. It would be stealing if I took the cup. [laughter] It would be stealing if I It would be stealing if I took the cup. But they gave you the cup. But I”
At 18:30
Your 'whole life' for a soda? That's a bit dramatic, even for a felony. Dial it back, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses hyperbole ('your whole life') to amplify the perceived severity of the act of stealing a soda. This is an attempt to evoke a strong emotional response (disbelief, judgment) rather than a factual assessment of the legal consequences.
Original quote: “Imagine [ __ ] up your whole life over a soda.”
At 18:30
Turning a petty theft into a 'ruin your whole life' scenario. The drama is dialed to 11 for a soda. 🙄
Why this score: This uses hyperbole to evoke an emotional response, framing a minor incident (stealing a soda) as having catastrophic life-altering consequences. It's an attempt to shame or shock rather than a literal assessment of the situation.
Original quote: “Imagine [ __ ] up your whole life over a soda.”
At 20:30
Presents it as either 'entitlement' or 'confusion,' ignoring other possibilities like mental health issues or a bad day. It's not always so black and white, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false dilemma by presenting only two options for the man's behavior: either he's entitled or he's confused. This ignores a spectrum of other potential reasons for his actions, such as a misunderstanding, a bad day, or even underlying mental health issues, which would change the viewer's perception of the event. It's a classic move to simplify a complex situation into a clear-cut villain and victim narrative.
Original quote: “Honestly, this isn't about soda. It's about entitlement running head first into a boundary and refusing to back down. Rewatch the clip because he's told to leave, but he argues. He's given space, but he creeps back in. He's warned, but he continues acting like the rules owe him some sort of debate.…”