Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "These people are genuinely beyond saving.." and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-18. Its weakest claim — "Claims cop gets power fantasy from 'stupid' people" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 28 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 28 claims analyzed: 2 scored under 40, 23 between 40 and 69, and 3 at 70 or above.
At 0:26
Gives the one answer that screams 'avoiding the question' while acting like it helps.
Why this score: When asked 'how much did you have,' answering 'we just started' is classic dodge — implies minimal intake without actually saying it, then pivots to the work excuse. The cop clocks it instantly.
Original quote: “We just started. No, we just got off work and I was”
At 0:51
Switches from zero to 'not that much' once pressed — quietly admitting while pretending nothing changed.
Why this score: Starts with flat denial, then shrinks the claim the moment the cop repeats it. Classic quiet retraction after the confident line.
Original quote: “No, not that much.”
At 0:53
Switches from "nothing" to "not that much" then reveals they just left the bar — timing does the work.
Why this score: The phrasing hides the real answer: they were drinking minutes ago. The officer catches the dodge immediately.
Original quote: “No, not that much. ... We literally just left.”
At 2:50
Calls her too dumb to function while she's literally handing over documents.
Why this score: Loaded Language: paints total helplessness from isolated slow moments instead of showing the actual sequence.
Original quote: “They can't drive the car. They can't figure out the paperwork. Can't use their phone.”
At 2:50
Labels them as too stupid to function — no evidence given, just contempt.
Why this score: Uses blanket incompetence claims to paint the people as hopeless without showing what actually happened with the phone or documents.
Original quote: “They can't drive the car. They can't figure out the paperwork. Can't use their phone.”
At 3:00
Turns a traffic stop into 'what's wrong with these people' — pure disgust framing.
Why this score: The question isn't seeking information; it's a rhetorical gut punch meant to make the audience feel the same revulsion.
Original quote: “Oh my god. What is wrong with these people?”
At 3:34
Direct accusation based on what he saw — straightforward, no tricks.
Why this score: Officer simply restates the reason for the stop without exaggeration or hidden framing.
Original quote: “I told you when I first pulled up, you ran the red light almost causing an accident.”
At 3:51
Says he believes her then undercuts it with 'but I have some concerns' in the same breath.
Why this score: The quick 'I believe you' followed by suspicion serves to appear fair while still treating her as potentially impaired.
Original quote: “I work my [__] ... I believe you. I believe you. I don't doubt that.”
At 4:50
Turns routine DUI stop into 'psychological domination fantasy' — pure projection, zero evidence.
Why this score: The speaker fabricates an entire inner monologue for the officer based on nothing but his own resistance. No cop said anything about feeling superior; the driver invented the power fantasy to mock the situation while ignoring why he's being detained.
Original quote: “Like, dude, can you imagine being like I bet dealing with these people, a police officer, you must think that you're like [__] L from like uh Death Note. Like you you're like Sherlock Holmes. You can [__] do like interdimensional like uh you know [__] psychological tricks on these people. Like like…”
At 5:26
Straight admission — he's describing his own attitude, not the cop's.
Why this score: At least he's honest about the projection. The line reveals the driver is the one assigning god-complex motives; the officer never claimed any of it.
Original quote: “That's the way I'd feel.”
At 5:47
Standard safety protocol — nothing sinister, just procedure.
Why this score: The officer is following textbook protocol for a suspected DUI. The commands are routine, not evidence of the 'power fantasy' the driver invented seconds earlier.
Original quote: “Based on my observations, I do believe you're operating a motor vehicle under the influence. ... Stay in the car. ... I told you to stay in the car. You were too.”
At 6:26
Suddenly cares about male vs female distinction only when it serves her — classic selective principle.
Why this score: She rejects the officer's touch by weaponizing gender rules she otherwise mocks, turning a procedural request into an emotional button without consistent logic.
Original quote: “I need a female. I need a female. I need female.”
At 6:26
Weaponizes 'female' like it's a magic shield — the same person who was just 'a woman' now needs special rules.
Why this score: Suddenly gender matters when it might delay consequences. Classic move: identity as a get-out-of-jail card the second accountability shows up.
Original quote: “I need a female. I need a female. I need female.”
At 6:52
Cries 'don't touch me' while refusing to move — the touch only happens because she won't comply.
Why this score: The frame hides the refusal. Without showing the non-compliance first, 'don't touch' sounds like unprovoked aggression instead of officers trying to do their job.
Original quote: “Don't touch me. Do not touch me like that.”
At 7:10
Acts like officers are violating rights by asking her to walk — when the actual issue is she won't move at all.
Why this score: Creates the illusion of oppression by ignoring her own refusal. The 'rights' card only works if you pretend the officers are the ones being unreasonable.
Original quote: “I'm not going anywhere. Okay. You're going to walk over here.”
At 7:35
Insists supervisor is right there, then immediately asks where he is — the contradiction is doing the work.
Why this score: She asserts knowledge of rights and visibility of authority, then undermines both claims in the next breath, revealing the move is resistance theater rather than legal understanding.
Original quote: “I know my rights and that has nothing to do about violating your supervisor. He's right there.”
At 7:35
Says it like it's a trump card — zero evidence she actually knows what those rights are in this situation.
Why this score: The phrase 'I know my rights' is almost always a stall tactic when the person is already breaking the law. Confidence without the actual legal knowledge to back it.
Original quote: “I know my rights and that has nothing to do about violating your supervisor.”
At 7:59
Escalates neutral physical guidance into 'mean to a woman' — fear and outrage as the persuasion tool.
Why this score: By labeling standard arrest procedure as gendered aggression, she bypasses the actual context of non-compliance and resistance to create moral high ground without addressing her own behavior.
Original quote: “Yes, you are. You're being mean to a woman. Pushing to a woman. You're pushing me.”
At 9:50
No such 'guest law' exists — that's just cop-speak for 'you didn't listen.'
Why this score: Officer invents a legal-sounding term to justify the charge. The actual statute is obstruction; the 'guest law' framing is invented authority.
Original quote: “For obstructing an arrest. Because when you charge an arrest like that after I told you to stay in your car, that's a guest law.”
At 10:46
Scorpio as the reason she's resisting arrest — astrology dodging accountability 💀
Why this score: She pivots from denial straight to star sign as explanation. No evidence, just a cosmic excuse. The claim isn't trying to persuade anyone of anything factual — it's pure deflection comedy.
Original quote: “I'm not intoxicated. I don't know why you guys keep saying that. I'm emotional. I'm a Scorpio.”
At 12:09
Calls it battery before any legal finding — that's charging language with zero trial.
Why this score: The speaker assigns a specific criminal label in real time based on physical resistance during an arrest. That's not a neutral description; it's a verdict spoken as fact while the situation is still unfolding.
Original quote: “So, she's resisted again. She's battered a cop.”
At 14:58
Calls it deliberate spite — skips that drunk, cuffed, kicking suspects change the rules fast.
Why this score: The speaker frames the shoe decision as pure malice while leaving out the immediate context of resistance, escape attempts, and officer safety that usually forces officers to improvise instead of fetching items.
Original quote: “Well, you know, by the way, you know the cops could just easily go get the shoe, but they're like, "You know what? You [ __ ] [ __ ] You obnoxious drunk, you know, disorderly [ __ ] [ __ ] that doesn't want to listen. No, bro. We're going to leave your shoe in the [ __ ] street. [ __ ] you."”
At 17:59
Says 'instantly solved' like possession with no ownership = case closed — that's a legal leap.
Why this score: The cop immediately treats her denial of ownership as conclusive proof of guilt despite her still having the pill in her purse. 'Instantly solved' implies zero further investigation needed, which is the kind of confident shorthand cops use when they already decided the outcome.
Original quote: “>> [ __ ] Kaye. Okay. [ __ ] instantly solved.”
At 19:20
Reads refusal as proof of blackout drunk — could've been legal advice or distrust. No receipts for the leap.
Why this score: Takes one action and instantly converts it into total mental incapacity for both women. That's assuming the conclusion instead of letting evidence speak.
Original quote: “Upon request, the driver actually refuses to do a field sobriety test. And for the life of me, I don't understand why the passenger also refuses when she wasn't even driving, which further lets me know, in my opinion, that these women don't even know where they are or what's going on.”
At 20:02
100% certain it's the booze. Officers did nothing. Bold. Stupid, but bold.
Why this score: The speaker assigns 100% certainty to alcohol impairment as the sole cause while explicitly noting officers took no physical action. This absolute claim rests on visual interpretation alone with no medical assessment or contradictory evidence addressed, making the certainty unsupported by available facts.
Original quote: “And I'm 100% saying it's because of her drinking cuz the officers did nothing.”
At 20:27
Says 'this happens a lot' — names zero incidents or stats. Classic anonymous authority move.
Why this score: The speaker treats personal observation as common knowledge without offering any count, source, or timeframe. 'A lot' sounds authoritative until you notice there's no evidence attached.
Original quote: “When the officer is restraining her, she flips her arms to the front in an unnatural way, which probably means that she's double jointed. And this is why I always kept an eye on my prisoners because this happens a lot while transporting suspects.”
At 20:44
Slaps 'stupid' label then gives solid advice — the insult does the persuading.
Why this score: The moral judgment ('stupid enough') triggers outrage before the practical point lands. The advice itself is fine, but the emotional framing makes the listener nod along with the insult instead of just hearing the warning.
Original quote: “if you're stupid enough to drink and drive and you get stopped by the police, I would advise you to go quietly because if you think that you can control the situation, you're going to lose”
At 24:03
Blanket 'stupid' label does the work instead of showing any actual pattern or data.
Why this score: Dismisses the people as inherently dumb rather than examining why the same behaviors keep happening. The insult replaces analysis.
Original quote: “It's just these people are so stupid. I don't understand how they do anything with their life other than just like ruining their lives just continuously over and over and over,”