I got arrested because of legos
Credibility score: 46/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I got arrested because of legos" and rated it 46/100 for credibility (a BS score of 54/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-02. Its weakest claim — "Facing at least 5 years in jail from these charges" — scored 25/100 and was flagged as sketchy. 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, 24 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Bold teaser — promises theft, swatting, and crooked cops over Lego. Let's see if it delivers.
Why this score: This opening is a rapid teaser montage rather than individual claims. No specific facts to verify yet — just setting up the dramatic premise.
Original quote: “This is the story of how I got swatted all because of Legos. The whole thing started with me investigating a Lego company called Bricks and Minifigs. The company sent two guys to steal the world's largest Star Wars Lego collection worth around $200,000, and for some reason, the police are helping…”
Claims his video went extremely viral and exposed the company's corruption worldwide — Dubious (35/100)
At 0:30
Viral is doing heavy lifting here — one video doesn't equal 'entire world' watching 💀
Why this score: Exaggerated reach claim.
- No independent data on actual view counts or global coverage
- Single YouTube video rarely reaches 'entire world' status
- Company corruption narrative presented as settled fact without broader confirmation
Original quote: “I personally gave them an official closing ceremony, and it went extremely viral. And now, the entire world has seen how corrupt this Bricks and Minifigs company is.”
Police footage proves they fully stopped — making stop illegal — Dubious (35/100)
At 2:30
Claims footage shows full stop — but video never shows us that footage.
Why this score: No footage presented in this segment. Speaker asserts they requested and reviewed it, but *viewers see nothing*. Without the actual video evidence, the claim that the stop was 'full' and therefore illegal remains unverified.
Original quote: “I was so sure that we stopped at the stop sign that I actually requested all the police footage of this. And as you can see, we didn't even do a rolling stop. We fully stopped at the stop sign. So, this is an illegal traffic stop.”
Claims he destroyed Josh's trophy — Personal Story (50/100)
At 4:30
Pure personal testimony — no external proof either way.
Why this score: First-person account of destroying property.
- No police report, video, or witness statement in public sources confirms the act
- Story fits the ongoing feud narrative but remains unverified
Original quote: “since Josh clearly doesn't want to have this good faith conversation with me, I took his trophy and destroyed it.”
Brandon stole the Legos by illegally kicking out the previous owner — Dubious (45/100)
At 6:30
Court win claimed but no public records shown — feels like selective story so far ⚖️
Why this score: Core allegation rests on prior court ruling.
- Speaker says they already proved theft in court, yet provides zero case number or judgment text.
- Web coverage confirms ongoing dispute over $200k Lego consignment but does not establish criminal theft finding.
- Police response and trespass notice suggest civil matter being treated as potential harassment.
Original quote: “Brandon is the guy in the security camera footage that illegally kicked the first owner out of the store so he could steal all their Legos.”
They won a lawsuit and the store closed to dodge payment — Dubious (40/100)
At 6:45
Won in court supposedly, but zero judgment link or docket number provided 💼
Why this score: Claim hinges on unverified court victory.
- Transcript states they won and the store closed to avoid payment, yet no public court records or news articles confirm a monetary judgment against Brandon.
- Available coverage frames the situation as a civil consignment dispute, not a proven theft case.
- Police involvement described as protecting the current owner, contradicting the "won in court" narrative.
Original quote: “We went to court, we won. We know you closed down the store to avoid paying us.”
Brandon only inherited the store and isn't responsible for prior issues — Dubious (50/100)
At 7:00
Classic "not my fault" defense — needs actual ownership transfer proof 🏪
Why this score: Defense presented by police/officer that Brandon inherited rather than stole.
- If true, liability would depend on whether he assumed debts or assets of the prior business.
- Speaker counters that court already rejected this, but again offers no documentation.
- No public business records or news confirm exact ownership transfer details as of June 2026.
Original quote: “He inherited the store. He's being blamed for everything that the previous owner did.”
Says Mormon belief is that thieves go to outer darkness — Dubious (40/100)
At 8:30
Outer darkness is reserved for specific betrayals, not general theft
Why this score: Theological inaccuracy. - In LDS doctrine, outer darkness is for sons of perdition who deny the Holy Ghost after full knowledge, not standard sinners. - Theft is considered a sin but does not automatically result in outer darkness.
Original quote: “if Josh and Brandon are truly Mormons, they believe that stealing is wrong and if they steal, they're going to go to hell. Or I guess in Mormonism they call it the outer darkness”
Claims they will win a personal lawsuit against the store owners — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:30
Bold prediction with zero legal analysis shown 💼
Why this score: This is pure speculation about future court outcomes.
- No case details or lawyer input provided
- Winning previous rounds doesn't guarantee the same result
Original quote: “Yesterday I told Brandon that our plan is to now sue them personally. We could just sue you guys personally and do the whole thing again. We would obviously win again.”
Accuses store owners of trying to get them arrested out of desperation — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:40
Classic "they're desperate" narrative with no proof 🧐
Why this score: Speaker is interpreting police contact as a deliberate tactic.
- No evidence shown that store owners called the cops
- Could be routine citizen report instead
Original quote: “It seems like they're getting so desperate that they're going to resort back to the same strategy they used in the last video.”
Claims the store owners believe arrest will stop the lawsuit — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:52
Mind-reading the other side's legal strategy 🤔
Why this score: Assumes Josh and Brandon's exact thought process.
- No direct quote or evidence from them
- Pure speculation about their motives
Original quote: “Josh and Brandon think that if they can somehow get us arrested and thrown in jail, then we won't be able to sue them.”
Says police were told they had heroin in the vehicle — Personal Story (50/100)
At 11:10
Personal account of what the cop said — can't verify the tip itself
Why this score: This is the speaker recounting what the officer told him.
- The claim is about what police said, not whether heroin existed
- No way to confirm the actual tip without police records
Original quote: “The police apparently got a call that we had a heroin on us.”
Bricks and Minifigs framed him for drugs to dodge paying for stolen Lego collection — Personal Story (50/100)
At 12:30
Personal account of events — no independent evidence here.
Why this score: This is the speaker's version of why police searched his car. No external corroboration provided in this segment.
- Web context shows ongoing Lego dispute with Bricks and Minifigs involving ~$200k Star Wars collection
- Reddit discussions mention police involvement but no confirmation of drug-planting claims
- Unverifiable without bodycam, warrants, or store records
Original quote: “After 2 hours of searching the car, obviously they found no drugs. So, did you find Did you find I explained to the police that we didn't have drugs and the reality of the situation is is that Bricks and Minifigs is so desperate at this point that they're willing to do anything to get us arrested…”
Claims public land + free speech means the sign is legal — Dubious (45/100)
At 14:30
Public forum rules are messier than that — depends on local ordinances.
Why this score: First Amendment protects speech but doesn't grant unlimited access to any patch of land. Time, place, manner restrictions and local property rules often apply. The claim skips those nuances entirely.
Original quote: “So, I made this poster that says, "I stole a dying man's life savings." and printed it out. Now, I'm placing this poster in a public space right across the street from Josh's house. Yeah, it turns out this tiny patch of land is actually free for any person of the public to use. And since we have…”
Claims the target stole the family's life savings — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 16:30
No evidence presented either way — just the accusation.
Why this score: Unverifiable personal allegation.
- No documents, police reports, or court records cited in segment
- Context suggests ongoing dispute over Lego consignment, not proven theft
- Serious claim requires evidence beyond verbal assertion
Original quote: “This man stole uh basically this family's life savings. So, we're just here to serve him his court papers.”
Guy lied about heroin in car, 3-hour search found nothing — Personal Story (50/100)
At 18:30
Personal testimony — can't verify without police records
Why this score: Anecdotal account of events. Key points:
- Speaker describes a specific incident involving a false report
- States a 3-hour search occurred with no heroin found
- No independent evidence provided in video segment
Original quote: “He lied to you guys saying that we had heroin on us and we did a 3-hour search of the car yesterday. We found no heroin in the car.”
Police gave permission then arrested him anyway — Personal Story (50/100)
At 20:30
Classic he-said-they-said with zero footage shown yet.
Why this score: Personal testimony about conflicting police instructions. No independent evidence presented in this segment.
- Arrest itself is documented in related coverage
- Permission vs. violation details remain unverified here
Original quote: “I got arrested for just doing what the police told me to do. What's even more confusing is the police are supposed to be the good guys. Why are they arresting an innocent person to protect an evil criminal?”
Justice system protecting criminals, only way to recover money is GoFundMe — Opinion (50/100)
At 22:30
Calling the justice system corrupt to justify a GoFundMe — that's a take.
Why this score: Personal framing of legal outcomes as systemic protection. No evidence presented for the "protecting criminals" claim.
- The GoFundMe is presented as the only remaining option after dropping lawsuit plans.
- This is subjective interpretation, not a verifiable fact.
Original quote: “it really hit me that the justice system has decided to protect these criminals. So now, there's really only one way I can think of to get this family the money back that got stolen from them. Which is a GoFundMe.”
Police redacted audio to hide that they knew the arrest was illegal — Opinion (40/100)
At 24:30
Big leap from one officer's comment to a department-wide cover-up.
Why this score: Speculation about motive behind redactions. - One officer questioning the arrest doesn't prove the whole department knew it was illegal - Police cite Utah State Code as justification for redactions - No evidence the redactions were done to protect officers from firing rather than following standard procedure
Original quote: “It seems like the police department redacted this entire conversation because right here the police are actually admitting to themselves that none of this is illegal, but they're still going to try to arrest us anyways.”
No search warrant means locking phone is legal — Dubious (45/100)
At 26:30
Locking phone isn't automatically legal without a warrant — depends on seizure context.
Why this score: Context matters.
- Police were already seizing the phone as evidence
- Attempting to lock during active seizure can be viewed as obstruction
- No warrant required if phone is already being lawfully taken
Original quote: “There's no search warrant, so Sheldon is legally allowed to lock his phone.”
LEGO company is the one powerful organization he can't beat — Opinion (50/100)
At 28:30
Hyperbolic framing — LEGO isn't the opponent, the franchise owner is.
Why this score: Opinion, not a factual claim. - Speaker equates the LEGO brand with a single franchise dispute. - Legal issue is with Bricks & Minifigs store owners, not LEGO corporate.
Original quote: “It's crazy that out of all the powerful organizations I've gone up against, the one company I'm not able to beat is a LEGO company. I literally couldn't have imagined a worse ending for this video”
Police raided with zero evidence, accuser has history of lying — Opinion (45/100)
At 30:30
Strong claim, zero receipts shown in segment
Why this score: No evidence presented for either the 'zero evidence' raid or prior lies.
- Reddit discussions mention the raid but don't confirm lack of probable cause
- Accuser's alleged history of lying is asserted without documentation
Original quote: “They're looking that we stole the LEGOs is why they stormed our house with no evidence. And this is after he's been proven to make up stories about us before.”
Claims the Lego company is worth $400 million — Dubious (45/100)
At 32:30
Pulled that valuation straight from the void 💀
Why this score: No public valuation matches $400 million.
- Lego Group is privately held; no verified $400M figure exists
- Likely confusing revenue, franchise value, or just rounding up dramatically
Original quote: “83-year-old man versus 400 million-dollar company”
GoFundMe is always safe and legal for theft victims — Opinion (50/100)
At 34:30
Technically legal — doesn't mean police can't twist it anyway 🙄
Why this score: GoFundMe itself is legal. Key points:
- Platform allows fundraising for theft recovery
- Doesn't protect against unrelated charges or police overreach
- Speaker conflates "legal tool" with "zero legal risk"
Original quote: “I wasn't afraid to admit that I actually made the GoFundMe for Brian because a GoFundMe is a safe, legal way to raise money for a family if they got all their stuff stolen. I should be risking nothing by admitting this.”
Facing at least 5 years in jail from these charges — Sketchy (25/100)
At 36:30
5 years sounds wild for a GoFundMe post 💀
Why this score: Sentencing exposure for typical defamation or false statements is usually probation or months, not years.
- No charging documents or statutes cited
- Maximum penalties rarely reach 5 years for this conduct
Original quote: “with all the charges I got in this video, I'm looking at at least 5 years in jail”
Claims Bricks and Minifigs got police to issue arrest warrant to stop his lawsuit — Opinion (50/100)
At 38:30
Pure speculation dressed as insight — zero evidence presented.
Why this score: Speculation, not fact.
- Speaker admits 'if I had to guess'
- No evidence shown linking store to warrant
- Motive theory without supporting timeline or documents
Original quote: “If I had to guess, I'd say that Bricks and Minifigs has seen that I am a free man and they can't have me actively working on my lawsuit against them. And considering how many lies Bricks and Minifigs has made about me in this video, [__] you, man.”
His single post caused his arrest and city-wide upset — Personal Story (50/100)
At 40:30
Personal claim — no way to verify the causal link here.
Why this score: This is first-person testimony about motive and consequences.
- Arrest itself appears documented in web results
- Attributing the arrest directly to "one post" is his interpretation, not independently confirmed
Original quote: “If me posting this picture online once got the city this upset where they had to arrest me, just think about how upset they'd be if thousands of people started wearing it.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →