BRICKS AND MINIFIGS Just COLLAPSED Overnight @RecklessBen WINS AGAIN!
Credibility score: 32/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "BRICKS AND MINIFIGS Just COLLAPSED Overnight @RecklessBen WINS AGAIN!" and rated it 32/100 for credibility (a BS score of 68/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-13. Its weakest claim — "Assumes YouTuber using events for content proves bad faith" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 42 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 42 claims analyzed: 22 scored under 40, 20 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Accuses BAM of filing false police reports to jail him — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:10
Calls it 'tons of lies' to paint victimhood before any proof — classic fear play.
Why this score: The speaker frames the lawsuits as malicious fabrications designed to silence him, but offers zero evidence of what was actually reported. By leading with 'tons of lies' and 'thrown in jail,' he triggers outrage before the audience can ask what the actual complaints were.
Original quote: “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 dude has 11 lawsuits from the two videos that he released.”
Bricks and Minifigs filing false police reports to jail him — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:10
Instantly paints the other side as villains trying to jail him — fear and outrage doing the work before any evidence appears.
Why this score: The speaker leads with the most emotionally loaded framing possible (police lies, thrown in jail) with zero supporting details shown. This is classic emotional button: outrage is substituted for proof. The claim is serious enough that missing context matters — what the actual reports say, whether they're public, and any evidence of fabrication would change the picture entirely.
Original quote: “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 dude has 11 lawsuits from the two videos that he released.”
Redactions are only to protect victims — framing as obvious cover — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:27
Assumes the only reason for redactions is protecting victims — never mentions the court's stated reason about preventing profit from the footage.
Why this score: The transcript later shows the state explicitly argued that giving Ben the details would let him monetize it on YouTube. By presenting redactions as purely victim-protection theater, the video skips the actual legal argument the judge is hearing.
Original quote: “did legally. I'm not allowed to film inside court, so I formally requested the audio. 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.”
Redactions hide charges, not just victims — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:27
Claims redactions 'don't make sense' — admits he doesn't know what was removed.
Why this score: Without seeing the actual footage or the state's justification, calling the redactions suspicious is just a guess dressed as certainty. The legal standard for discovery is more complex than 'I don't like the redactions.'
Original quote: “did legally. I'm not allowed to film inside court, so I formally requested the audio. 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…”
Assumes YouTuber using events for content proves bad faith — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:34
Frames 'making content' as automatic proof the case is fake — nobody said otherwise.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a straw man where using public events for videos equals the claims being fabricated. That's not the argument being made against him.
Original quote: “And just in and not only is it strange, but like, okay, yes, he is a YouTuber, right? Of course, he's going to use it for content. This is my big thing.”
Suspects opponent skipped discovery and lacks evidence — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:44
Calls discovery incomplete without showing any filing or docket — just suspicion dressed as fact.
Why this score: Frames the other side as procedurally lazy while offering zero proof the discovery phase was actually skipped or deficient.
Original quote: “If you think you are correct and you are in court, you have all the evidence you need, you've done all the discovery in the pre-trials, unless you don't, which is what I suspect is happening here.”
Judge signed protective order to shield Josh and Brandon from evidence — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
Calls the order 'insanity' with zero proof the judge even knew the evidence existed.
Why this score: Speaker admits he's 'not a lawyer' and 'some dumb guy on the internet,' then instantly claims the judge deliberately ignored evidence. The leap from 'I don't understand the process' to 'the court is protecting them' is pure speculation dressed as certainty.
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. I was under the impression that the judge had signed that protective order prior to him going into court. I did not realize that Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best were trying to conceal…”
Judge signed silencing order without evidence — conspiracy framing — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 5:13
Calls it 'insanity' with zero proof judge ignored evidence — fear button, no receipts.
Why this score: The speaker jumps from 'I've never seen this' to 'insanity' and 'people working together' without showing the order or the evidence the judge supposedly ignored. The emotional label does the heavy lifting.
Original quote: “I have never seen a judge just sign an order that silences someone and doesn't care about what they have to say about the evidence. That is insanity.”
Claims Ben threatened to burn the store or kill him — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:35
Quotes the threat but leaves out the 'or' that makes it ambiguous.
Why this score: The speaker plays the audio then immediately attacks the 'or' as proof it's fake. The missing piece is whether the actual caller ever said anything that specific — the clip only shows the CEO paraphrasing it later.
Original quote: “>> Hi there. I'm calling to report a crime. >> They themselves say, "Hey, you guys stole this product from this person. If you don't give it back, I'm going to burn the place down or we're going to burn the place down or I'll kill you. It's Ben Snyder who's been the one engaged in this behavior."”
Claims CEO's call proves extortion threat — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:35
Plays the 'or' like proof of a lie — ignores it's how people list options when pissed.
Why this score: The transcript shows the CEO used 'or' to list possible threats. Ben treats the word choice as evidence the threat was invented, but that's a normal way to escalate without committing to one exact action. The police report labeled it extortion, yet the actual words never name Ben as the one making threats.
Original quote: “>> Hi there. I'm calling to report a crime. >> They themselves say, "Hey, you guys stole this product from this person. If you don't give it back, I'm going to burn the place down or we're going to burn the place down or I'll kill you."”
I don't lie to police, unlike the CEO — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Sets himself up as the honest one while calling the other guy a liar — no proof shown yet.
Why this score: He frames his own approach as truthful by default and pins the lying label on the CEO before presenting any evidence, making the audience accept the contrast without checking facts.
Original quote: “And he called the police on me. But they told us that they were. I know. Normally, I wouldn't want to get someone arrested, but we gave him every opportunity to talk to us. So, at this point, he's just arresting himself. However, the only difference between my strategy and me's strategy is I don't…”
Implies the store lied to police while he didn't — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:44
Sets up a false binary: either the store lied or he did. Ignores that the store may have simply been uncertain or cautious without committing perjury.
Why this score: By framing the situation as 'I don't lie to police,' the speaker paints any conflicting statement from the store as deliberate deception rather than a possible good-faith difference in knowledge or interpretation of ownership.
Original quote: “I don't have to lie to the police.”
CEO denies knowledge, then invents nonexistent brother COO — Straw Man (20/100)
At 10:48
Lies about a brother then immediately forgets the lie — classic move when cornered.
Why this score: Speaker fabricates a brother who supposedly handled the consignment issue, then instantly contradicts himself when asked to speak to that brother. The framing pretends the denial was about someone else while the evidence shows direct knowledge.
Original quote: “>> Uh, well, we didn't do it. Someone else did it. >> Oh, wait. So, you do know about the situation. >> Well, I don't personally know anything about it, but my brother, the COO, he, you know, he might have said something about >> Oh, can we talk to him? >> No. >> Wait, who? Your brother? >> I don't…”
Denies doing it, then admits knowing about it — Volume Game (20/100)
At 10:48
Says 'we didn't do it' then immediately shows they knew — quiet walk-back in the same breath.
Why this score: Starts with flat denial, then the next sentence reveals knowledge of the situation. The retraction is buried in the follow-up so the initial claim lands first.
Original quote: “Uh, well, we didn't do it. Someone else did it.”
Calls Ben an offline cat-video guy with mustache as evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
At 12:27
Builds a weak loser version of Ben then attacks it — straw man classic.
Why this score: The speaker reduces Ben to a stereotype ('cat videos' and 'mustache') that nobody actually claimed, then uses that fake version to dismiss his investigation. Classic straw man move — attack a cartoon, not the argument.
Original quote: “YouTuber. You're clearly not a guy that's online, okay? And if you are, you're probably watching like cat videos. Strikes me as that guy. Nothing wrong with cat videos. I'm just saying with that mustache, this is the guy.”
CEO's argument reduces to 'trust me, ignore evidence' — Straw Man (20/100)
At 12:40
Turns CEO's denial into 'don't look at evidence, just trust me' — classic straw man setup.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false version of the CEO's position (reject all evidence, accept his word alone) then attacks that invented stance. The actual defense might be different, but the argument is framed to look like pure arrogance instead of engaging with whatever the CEO actually offered.
Original quote: “Does he really think it's easier to go after a corporation than it is to go after a private person? ... Basically, what the CEO is trying to explain to me is we shouldn't be looking at the evidence. Instead, I should just be taking his word for it because he said so.”
Labels locking phone as 'obstruction' — legal term stretched without authority. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:30
Calls locking a phone 'obstruction' while admitting Ben isn't an official source — emotional weight doing the work.
Why this score: Using the serious legal term 'obstruction' on a private citizen's phone lock creates false gravity. The speaker knows it's not technically obstruction but keeps the word for its impact.
Original quote: “That crosses into new territory called illegal. Specific crime is called obstruction.”
Equates phone-locking with obstruction of justice — legal leap — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Locks phone = obstruction? That's not how the statute works, mortal.
Why this score: They flatten a narrow legal term (impeding an official investigation) into any refusal to hand over a device. The actual charge requires intent to block law enforcement proceedings, not just privacy. Missing that distinction turns a routine legal act into a supposed crime.
Original quote: “That crosses into new territory called illegal. Specific crime is called obstruction. If someone commits this crime, they can get arrested.”
Cites 'numerous stories' of police misconduct — no sources named — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 16:41
'Numerous stories' doing the work — zero names, zero links, zero receipts. Classic move. 💀
Why this score: Speaker invokes unnamed stories to imply a pattern, but provides no specific cases, articles, or evidence. The authority is anonymous, letting the claim sit without being testable.
Original quote: “there have been numerous stories coming out of some crazy things that the American Fork Police have been doing similar to this”
One lie proves 'normal' daily lying — leaps from single case to pattern — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 17:45
One interaction becomes proof of a lifestyle of lying. That's not evidence, that's a jump. 🚩
Why this score: Speaker treats a single recorded conversation as representative of someone's entire character and daily behavior. The leap from 'lied here' to 'lies this effortlessly every day' collapses the distinction between one incident and a verified pattern.
Original quote: “This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that you need to both record and take notice of what is happening around you because you never know. I could be completely wrong, but I have to believe based on these interactions that this is a normal thing for them. If you lie that effortlessly, how many…”
Opponent's case has zero evidence — dismissed as pure invention — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:30
Claims total absence of evidence with zero proof shown. Bold. Stupid, but bold.
Why this score: Speaker asserts Ammon's entire case is fabricated yet offers no documentation or case file. The certainty outruns what's actually presented.
Original quote: “Oh, 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 if you're just making everything up? Like, of course, you can't submit anything.”
Opponent's entire case has zero evidence because it's fabricated — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:30
Declares the case has no evidence at all — hasn't shown the file, just asserts it.
Why this score: Speaker claims full access yet offers no excerpt, log, or document to back the 'zero evidence' line. The move is certainty without receipts.
Original quote: “Oh, 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 if you're just making everything up? Like, of course, you can't submit anything.”
Police took the zero-evidence case over the overwhelming one — Missing Context (45/100)
At 21:11
Calls it 'zero evidence' like the police just flipped a coin — leaves out what the actual evidence standard was.
Why this score: The speaker asserts the police picked the case with literally nothing, but never shows what the evidence threshold or case details actually were. Without that, it sounds like corruption when it could just be different legal criteria.
Original quote: “They thought that case was garbage. Also, evidence is D E N CE. >> D A E A N C E. >> They took on the case that has zero evidence at all.”
Cops took Ammon's case over Ben's because it had 'zero evidence' — Missing Context (45/100)
At 21:18
Calls it 'zero evidence' right after admitting police only had time for one case — the evidence difference isn't proven, just assumed.
Why this score: The move is treating 'they picked Ammon's case' as proof that Ben's had nothing. Missing the part where police can only take limited cases — doesn't automatically mean Ben's had zero evidence, just that they chose the other one.
Original quote: “They took on the case that has zero evidence at all.”
Ammon demands proof then immediately tells them to leave — self-contradiction exposed — Missing Context (45/100)
At 23:11
Demands ownership proof then cuts himself off with 'leave' — the demand was theater, not real.
Why this score: He sets up the condition 'show proof' then instantly revokes it. Classic move: pretend to want evidence while ensuring you never have to see it.
Original quote: “You guys need to leave. No, wait. Give me the proof of what you're saying. No, wait. Leave. What do you think I should do?”
Accuses Ammon of pretending to be the helpful CEO returning property — Straw Man (20/100)
At 24:05
Reduces Ammon's position to "just trying to help Brian" when the transcript shows Ammon demanding proof of ownership first 🚩
Why this score: The speaker sets up a version of Ammon's stance that the actual audio never supports. Ammon repeatedly asks for proof of ownership and tells them to leave — he never offers to hand over the Legos unconditionally. The "helpful CEO" frame is invented so it can be attacked.
Original quote: “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.”
Spreadsheet equals ownership — McDonald's ice cream analogy — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 24:30
Compares a random spreadsheet to a franchise ownership claim — the analogy collapses the second you notice real contracts exist.
Why this score: The speaker equates any piece of paper with zero legal standing to an actual consignment contract that was provided. The McDonald's line pretends documentation never matters, ignoring that the actual inventory list came with a signed agreement the speaker later admits existed.
Original quote: “When we asked him to provide us with any documentation and he provided us with a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet is not something that anybody, you know, like you can just walk over to a, you know, a McDonald's right now and say, "All your ice cream machines belong to me." Why? Because so and so said…”
Accuses prior owner of lying on inventory — Straw Man (20/100)
At 25:40
Puts words in Ammon's mouth — theft and fake inventory — when he only said corporate did their own count.
Why this score: Speaker invents a strong accusation (previous owner stole and lied) that Ammon never made. Then attacks that made-up claim instead of what was actually said about the corporate recount.
Original quote: “So, first off, this spreadsheet Ammon's referring to wasn't just some mystery spreadsheet. It was the actual inventory the store made. But I guess Ammon's trying to claim that the previous owner stole the Legos and then lied on the inventory. And so now it basically makes this inventory invalid. He…”
You emailed the wrong address — I never said use the website. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 26:44
They set up a rule they never actually gave, then attack the guy for not following it. Classic dodge.
Why this score: The rep claims he only authorized franchise.com, yet the website itself lists fbc.team and bricksandminifigs.com. By pretending the contact method was never on their site, he reframes the customer as the one who broke protocol. The move dodges accountability for the ghosting that followed.
Original quote: “>> I don't know what email address that is. That's >> This is on your's website. >> That says fbc.team. It said franchise bricksandmigs.com. >> Well, this is just on the website. So, >> did I I tell you to look up something on the website and send it there? >> Well, >> did I say that just barely?…”
Asking for inventory = harassment and media manipulation. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 27:32
They slap the 'harassment' and 'media stunt' labels on a year-long polite request for their own property. That's fear-baiting, not a rebuttal.
Why this score: The corporate rep equates a customer demanding their own inventory list with 'public provocation' and 'manipulation for media content.' The emotional trigger words do the heavy lifting while they still refuse to hand over the list they've had since the store takeover. The framing turns the victim into the aggressor without addressing the year of silence.
Original quote: “>> 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? He says he had he said that's all he wants is the inventory list and he'll stop like bugging you guys. >> Well, then Mr.…”
Ben equates requesting Lego inventory to politely asking for stolen money back — framing the company as thieves. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 27:32
Asking for your money back assumes clear ownership. Here the ownership of the bricks is exactly what's disputed — that's the whole lawsuit.
Why this score: The analogy only works if the inventory is already proven stolen. By treating the disputed goods as obviously stolen, Ben skips the actual legal question and paints the company as criminals for not handing over records. The company then refuses further contact, which the comparison conveniently justifies.
Original quote: “>> 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? He says he had he said that's all he wants is the inventory list and he'll stop like bugging you guys. >> Well, then Mr.…”
Asking for inventory list = criminal harassment — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 28:30
Calling a request for records 'criminal' and 'harassment' — emotional words doing all the work.
Why this score: The letter frames a simple demand for documentation as potential fraud or harassment. That's loaded language meant to make the request sound illegal when it's just a request for proof.
Original quote: “confidential information through misrepresentation or the creation of fraudulent documents. just for me asking for this inventory list to prove their innocence cuz I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.”
Brian only wants cash, not inventory — Straw Man (20/100)
At 30:58
Puts words in Brian's mouth that the emails never said.
Why this score: The line attacks a version where Brian is just being difficult about money, when the transcript shows his attorney explicitly asked to get the sets back, not a payout.
Original quote: “MINE TRICKS DON'T WORK ON ME. ONLY MONEY.”
Both sides immediately label the other's actions 'extortion' with zero legal backing — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 34:16
Each party slaps the same serious legal term on the other — neither has shown the elements of extortion.
Why this score: They're treating mutual accusations as equal. True extortion requires specific threats and demands; here it's just heated name-calling after being confronted with footage. The label is being used as a weapon, not a legal conclusion.
Original quote: “>> extortion >> because we caught you guys. >> No, because you are attempting to extort us. So >> how >> what you are doing right now is illegal. It's an extortion. >> So catching you guys in illegal activity that's illegal on me. >> Nope. We have done nothing.”
CEO calls showing security footage 'extortion' — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 34:17
Equates catching them on camera with extortion — as if evidence is now a crime.
Why this score: The CEO reframes being shown their own security footage as an illegal act. That's not how extortion works, but it flips the script so the person with receipts becomes the villain.
Original quote: “because we caught you guys. ... No, because you are attempting to extort us. ... what you are doing right now is illegal. It's an extortion. ... So catching you guys in illegal activity that's illegal on me.”
Accuses opponents of deliberate exhaustion tactic to create damning clip — Missing Context (45/100)
At 34:53
Frames their own 30-40 min exchange as harassment trap — omits what they actually asked or why the other side stonewalled.
Why this score: Speaker presents the long back-and-forth as intentional exhaustion warfare without showing the initial questions or the refusal that extended it. The 'unreasonable monster' outcome is treated as proof of malice rather than possible result of genuine dispute.
Original quote: “After just going around in circles for probably 30 to 40 minutes and just, you know, having like kind of uh less than genuine questions or less than genuine responses being given to me. You know, I was exasperated by the end of it. And that's, you know, like when people get tired and exasperated,…”
They harassed him 30-40 minutes just to film him snapping — Missing Context (45/100)
At 34:53
Claims the whole back-and-forth was a deliberate trap to manufacture monster footage — omits what actually started the confrontation.
Why this score: He's framing their persistence as pure harassment with the explicit goal of catching an outburst, but the transcript never shows what the initial exchange was about or whether the questions were legitimate. Without that context the 'they just wanted the monster clip' line lands as an unproven motive.
Original quote: “After just going around in circles for probably 30 to 40 minutes and just, you know, having like kind of uh less than genuine questions or less than genuine responses being given to me. You know, I was exasperated by the end of it. And that's, you know, like when people get tired and exasperated,…”
Claims police are inventing excuses to dismiss him — Straw Man (20/100)
At 37:12
Turns 'evidence not credible' into 'they're just making shit up.'
Why this score: He's reframing the police saying the evidence doesn't hold up as them actively conspiring to protect BAM. That's not what was said — it's a much darker, more intentional version of events he invented for the narrative.
Original quote: “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.”
They're extorting me by threatening jail — flips the extortion charge — Straw Man (20/100)
At 39:20
Recasts a legal threat as literal extortion — the court system isn't 'stealing' when it enforces a judgment.
Why this score: Classic reversal: takes the normal consequence of losing a lawsuit and dresses it up as criminal extortion so the original accusation looks absurd.
Original quote: “Bricks and mini figs 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.”
State of Utah rejected video because it doesn't show everything — straw man of their actual ruling — Straw Man (20/100)
At 40:35
Turns 'video might not capture everything' into 'Utah says videos are never credible' — that's not what they said. 💀
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false version of the state's position — that any video is automatically insufficient — then knocks it down. The actual objection was likely about this specific video's limitations, not a blanket dismissal of all video evidence. Classic straw man move.
Original quote: “Obviously a video doesn't necessarily show everything that possibly happened. So, according to the state of Utah, the raw video that shows everything that possibly could have happened is not credible and could not have shown everything that possibly could have happened. And they didn't even watch…”
No charges exist so the case is baseless — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 41:06
Pretends 'no charges listed yet' means 'impossible to charge' — false choice.
Why this score: The speaker equates the absence of filed charges with legal impossibility, ignoring that prosecutors can and do file charges later. Classic false dilemma that skips how charging actually works.
Original quote: “They don't have any charges. They don't have them. They can't charge you because they don't have charges.”
Apology only counts if they do the chicken dance — framing demands performance over words. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 43:11
Only two options: chicken dance or nothing. Ignores every normal way people apologize.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false choice where a sincere written or verbal apology is automatically invalid unless it includes a literal chicken dance. This turns a reasonable demand into a ridiculous performance trap.
Original quote: “If they want to apologize, they can say that they're sorry by doing the chicken dance.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →