I Help YouTubers Arrested Over Lego Videos (PART 3)
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I Help YouTubers Arrested Over Lego Videos (PART 3)" and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-23. Its weakest claim — "Josh questions the kid's 'real Mormon' status, using appearance and residency as proof." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 66 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 66 claims analyzed: 4 scored under 40, 55 between 40 and 69, and 7 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Cop asks if he's had a drink, fishing for something. Standard interrogation tactic. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Just a cop doing cop things, trying to get a confession or an admission. Nothing tricky, just procedural. 👮♂️
Why this score: The officer is asking direct questions about alcohol consumption, which is a common line of questioning in many police interactions. It's not a 'frame' in the manipulative sense, but a straightforward attempt to gather information or establish a baseline.
Original quote: “So, you haven't had a drink today at
all? Do you never drink? Never had a
drink in your life.”
Cop claims he smells alcohol, then immediately pivots to cologne. Classic misdirection. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:05
Smells alcohol, then 'or something?' — that's a quick backtrack when the initial accusation doesn't land. 👃💨
Why this score: The officer initially states he smells alcohol ('Cruising as I smell it'), which is a loaded accusation. When the subject doesn't immediately react or confirm, he quickly shifts to 'Wearing certain cologne or something?', attempting to soften the initial claim or provide an alternative explanation for the smell, rather than admitting he might be wrong. This is a subtle way to keep the pressure on without outright retracting the initial, potentially false, accusation.
Original quote: “Cruising as I smell it.
Wearing certain cologne or something?”
Cop asserts 'We do things differently down here' to imply special authority. Big red flag. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:18
Threatening to 'push things' because 'we do things differently' is basically saying 'we make up our own rules.' 🚨🤡
Why this score: The statement 'This is Utah County. We do things differently down here. So, if I wanted to, I could push things' is a clear attempt to assert local authority and intimidate. It implies that standard legal procedures or constitutional rights might not apply, or that the officer has discretionary power to act outside typical bounds. This is loaded language designed to create fear and compliance, rather than a factual statement about legal jurisdiction. Community comments also highlight this as a problematic statement.
Original quote: “This is Utah
County. We do things differently down
here. So, if I wanted to, I could push
things.”
Claiming a specific phone call became a 'worldwide internet phenomenon' permeating 'every layer of content.' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
From a phone call to 'worldwide internet phenomenon' and 'every layer of content' is a bit of a leap, no? That's some serious hyperbole, fam. 🌍 exaggeration
Why this score: The speaker uses highly exaggerated language ('worldwide internet phenomenon,' 'permeated every layer of content and discussion') to describe the impact of a specific incident. While the story might be popular in certain online communities, claiming it has permeated 'every layer' of society is an overstatement and uses emotional, inflated language to amplify its significance without specific evidence of such broad reach.
Original quote: “We've been covering the story of how a single phone call between two drama queen grown men, Josh Johnson and Officer Tonga of the American Fork Police Department. Brick. Sorry, could you spell that for me? Yeah. Bricks and mini figs. somehow escalated into a worldwide internet phenomenon that has…”
Dodging accountability with a 'cool story' deflection. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:30
Shifting from 'wrong' to 'cool story' real quick. Classic misdirection to avoid owning the mess. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker is being called out to confirm someone was 'wrong,' but immediately pivots to 'telling a cool story and helping people.' This uses emotional language to deflect from a direct question about accountability, framing their actions as noble rather than addressing the specific point.
Original quote: “No, this person was wrong. You're saying that, right? What I really care about is telling a cool story and like helping people, you know. And”
Calling Tyler Shaw the 'primary victim' of police abuse and harassment. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Calling someone the 'primary victim' without showing the full scope of the alleged abuse is a classic emotional button. It frames the narrative immediately. 🚩
Why this score: The term 'primary victim' is emotionally charged and sets a specific narrative without providing the full context or evidence of the alleged 'abuse and harassment' at this point in the video. It's a strong statement designed to elicit sympathy and outrage before the details are presented.
Original quote: “I reintered Tyler Shaw who you'll see was the primary victim of the American Fork Police Department's abuse and harassment.”
Setting up the dramatic escalation from a fake hat to a SWAT team raid. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
Juxtaposing a 'fake UPS hat' with a 'SWAT team busting in' to highlight the absurdity and injustice. It's a classic emotional appeal. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker is using a stark contrast between a seemingly minor infraction (fake hat) and a severe police response (SWAT team, arrest at gunpoint, interrogation without due process) to evoke outrage and emphasize the perceived overreach. This framing is designed to make the audience feel the injustice of the situation, rather than just presenting facts. It's a setup for the narrative of police escalation.
Original quote: “As I mentioned, it's important to take all of this in consecutive order. I mean, how do we go from that very first phone call about a kid wearing a fake UPS hat? Two days later, a SWAT team busting in and arresting these kids at gunpoint and then holding and interrogating them for hours without due…”
Claiming police lacked authority to trespass them from a private home. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Saying the police 'does not have that authority' is a bold legal claim without any evidence presented. That's a big 'if' in a 'free country' 🇺🇸🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that the American Fork Police Department lacks the authority to issue a trespass warning from a private residence. While police authority can be challenged, this statement is presented as fact without any legal basis or explanation of why this specific department would lack such a common police power. It's a strong claim without supporting evidence.
Original quote: “I believe that the first traffic stop in detention was designed to scare reckless Ben out of Utah. But it didn't work. Although Ben and Tyler were both told that they were trespassed from Josh Johnson's home, they weren't giving up because it's a free country and the American Fork Police Department…”
Speaker claims talking about God at someone's door is 'completely normal' in Mormon society based on personal experience. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:30
He's just sharing his personal experience, not making a universal claim. It's a 'from my perspective' moment. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states this is 'from my perspective,' framing it as personal experience rather than a universal, verifiable fact. This is a straightforward anecdotal observation, not a manipulative framing technique.
Original quote: “Utah, though that will be disputed by Josh, as you'll see. In the parking lot of Josh's church, this kid by his own accord is interested in going to Josh's house, knocking on his door, and speaking to him about these things, talking to him about God, which, as I discussed in the last video, is a…”
Cop asks 'What are we doing, boys?' with an accusatory tone. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:30
That 'What are we doing, boys?' is dripping with pre-judgment. Like they already know the answer. 🙄
Why this score: The officer's question isn't a neutral inquiry; it's framed to imply guilt or wrongdoing, setting an accusatory tone from the start. It's designed to elicit a confession rather than gather information.
Original quote: “Schneider. Okay. What are we doing, boys?”
Setting up a stereotype to contrast with alleged behavior. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 16:30
Using 'polite Mormon kid' to imply a specific type of behavior, setting up a narrative contrast. It's a setup, not a fact. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker is using a common stereotype of 'polite Mormon kid' to create an expectation, which will then be contrasted with the 'alleged harassment.' This is a rhetorical device to frame the upcoming information, not a direct claim about the kid's politeness.
Original quote: “because that doesn't sound like something a polite Mormon kid would do.”
Claiming they want to keep profit from an investment — Missing Context (45/100)
At 18:30
They're saying 'keep the profit' like it's a simple grab, but the full context of the investment dispute is missing. What profit? From what exactly? 🤔
Why this score: The speaker implies a simple motive of 'keeping profit' without explaining the nature of the investment, the dispute, or how 'shutting down the store' directly leads to 'keeping profit' from that specific investment. It's a loaded statement without the full picture.
Original quote: “keep the profit from”
Narrator questions Josh's sickness claim, highlighting a prior conflicting statement. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:30
The narrator points out the conflicting stories about Josh's health. It's a direct challenge to his credibility, implying he's hiding something. 🕵️♀️
Why this score: The narrator is highlighting a direct contradiction in Josh's statements: claiming sickness now versus being ready for church yesterday. This is a classic 'missing context' move because it implies Josh is deliberately omitting the truth or providing false context about his health to avoid the officer. The narrator uses the lawyer's question 'was he lying then or is he lying now?' to explicitly draw attention to this discrepancy and cast doubt on Josh's current claim.
Original quote: “Though yesterday he had told officer Tonga that he had been getting ready to go and speak at church when the fake UPS delivery kid had showed up at his door. So I wonder, as we lawyers like to ask in a trial, was he lying then or is he lying now? And what's the reason that Josh doesn't want the…”
Claiming a guy is trying to take advantage by shutting down a store, but admits not knowing the full story. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 22:30
Bro just dropped a whole accusation and then admitted he's 'not filled in on the whole story.' That's a bold move, Cotton. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is making a serious accusation about someone trying to 'take advantage' and shut down a business, but immediately undermines their own claim by stating they don't have the full context. This is classic missing context, presenting a strong narrative without all the facts.
Original quote: “I'm not filled in on the whole story, but basically this guy has 200 grand worth of of Lego sets and he's trying to take advantage of that by shutting down the store instead of paying the guy back for it.”
Accusing Ben of sending someone to harass him. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 24:30
Went from 'asked as a mediator' to 'Ben sent him to harass me' real quick. That's a leap of faith, not evidence. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker quickly dismisses the idea of the kid being a mediator and asserts with certainty that Ben sent him to harass. This is a strong, confident accusation based on the speaker's interpretation of events, rather than explicit evidence presented in the clip.
Original quote: “Yeah. No, Ben sent him to come harass me.”
The guy at the door is 'trying' to clear things up. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 26:30
The guy at the door is 'trying to clear things up' for Bishop Roberts, but the context of *what* he's clearing up is conveniently vague. 🤔
Why this score: The speaker is presenting the guy's actions as an innocent attempt to 'clear things up,' but without knowing what 'things' are, it feels like a deflection or an attempt to downplay the situation. The full context of the 'second harbor war' and Bishop Roberts is missing for the viewer.
Original quote: “It's trying”
Josh questions the kid's 'real Mormon' status, using appearance and residency as proof. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 28:30
Judging someone's faith by their shirt and address? That's not how any of this works. 🙄
Why this score: Josh attempts to discredit the kid by questioning his 'Mormon' status based on superficial observations like clothing and whether he's seen him in church, then adding 'he doesn't live around here.' This is a straw man argument, attacking a fabricated version of the kid's identity rather than addressing the actual legal situation. It's a deflection tactic to undermine the kid's credibility in the officer's eyes.
Original quote: “Implying to the officer that he doesn't think that this kid is a real Mormon like them. He thinks if he dresses in a white shirt and tie that Have you seen him in church before? No, he doesn't. No. And get his driver's license if he has one. He doesn't live around here.”
Claiming the kid was on the porch for 10 minutes after being told to leave, based on Ring camera footage. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 30:30
The speaker is confident about the 10-minute duration and the 'told to leave' part, but then says they 'don't believe he did' hear it. Pick a lane, chief. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker asserts with certainty that the kid was on the porch for 'at least 10 minutes' and that Josh 'said he didn't want to talk to you.' However, immediately after, the speaker states, 'which I don't believe he did' (referring to the kid hearing Josh say he didn't want to talk). This creates a contradiction, showing a mismatch between the confident assertion and the speaker's own doubt about a key detail. The '10 minutes' is also presented as fact from the Ring camera, but the 'told to leave' part is murky.
Original quote: “No, I opened the screen door to He's there for at least 10 minutes and before I show up. Oh, for sure. Yeah, he was at a long time. 625. You can't see the red door on the camera, but you can see him opening this one. If you want to skim through and see if that's a thing that you could find, and…”
The video sets up a contrast between officer's claim and reality. — No Frame (75/100)
At 32:30
Okay, setting the stage for the big reveal. Let's see what the cop *actually* saw versus what he *said* he saw. 🕵️♂️
Why this score: The narrator is introducing a discrepancy between the officer's perception/statement and the actual events, which will be shown via the doorbell video. This is a straightforward setup for a comparison.
Original quote: “In reality, what Officer Hawkins”
Cop uses 'whole different' to dismiss questions, implying irrelevance. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 34:30
Dismissing questions by saying 'whole different' like it makes them invalid. That's a classic dodge, chief. 🙄
Why this score: The officer uses 'whole different' repeatedly to create a sense of separation and irrelevance, attempting to shut down the line of questioning rather than address the underlying concern. It's a rhetorical tactic to deflect.
Original quote: “You're asking questions about a whole another ward from a whole different city and a whole different individual about a whole different mission.”
Accusing the police of "Mormon-style virtue signaling harassment" and baseless alcohol accusations. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 36:30
Calling it "Mormon-style virtue signaling harassment" is a loaded term, injecting motive without direct evidence. — It's a strong accusation without showing the cop explicitly saying it's about Mormon values.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'Mormon-style virtue signaling harassment' to frame the police officer's actions. While the accusation of smelling alcohol might be baseless, attributing it to 'Mormon-style virtue signaling' is an interpretation of motive rather than a direct observation of the officer's words or actions. It's a loaded way to describe the situation, implying a specific, unstated agenda.
Original quote: “harassment. Sort of a Mormonstyle virtue signaling harassment. And it's wild that it's being done by a police officer under Color of Law. When the cops encountered him, I don't know if you saw this on the body cam, but when the when the cops go up and start talking to him at Josh's front door, they…”
Cop says "We do things differently down here" — implying different rules apply. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 38:30
Oh, "we do things differently down here"? That's not a flex, chief, that's a red flag. Sounds like a threat, not a legal distinction. 🚩
Why this score: The phrase 'we do things differently down here' is loaded language, implying that standard legal procedures or rights might not apply, or that local law enforcement operates with different, potentially stricter, interpretations. It's used to assert authority and intimidate, rather than to clarify a legal point.
Original quote: “Well, this isn't Salt Lake County. This is Utah County. We do things differently down here.”
Josh claims 'they'll have an endless amount of kids' to send. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 40:30
Josh uses 'endless amount' to amp up the problem, making it sound way more dramatic than 'a few more kids.' 🙄
Why this score: The phrase 'endless amount' is hyperbole, used to emphasize the perceived futility of arresting one person if more will simply replace them. It's an emotional appeal rather than a literal statement of fact.
Original quote: “They'll have like an endless amount of kids.”
Josh insists on trespassing a car full of kids, despite no current evidence of trespassing. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 42:30
Josh is demanding action based on a 'feeling' from yesterday, not current facts. That's some real 'trust me, bro' energy for a cop. 🤡
Why this score: Josh is confidently asserting that a car is 'loaded full of kids' and should be trespassed, based on an observation from 'yesterday' and without current evidence that anyone in the car has actually trespassed. This is a clear confidence mismatch, pushing for action without present justification.
Original quote: “Hawkins tells Josh that he doesn't think they've done anything illegal yet because nobody who had been trespassed has returned. Go trespass that car that's loaded full of kids. Well, they're not on your property. I don't care. How do you know it's loaded kids? That's how it was yesterday. They had…”
Narrator questions the legal basis for the traffic stop, highlighting prior statements. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 44:30
The narrator points out the cop's previous statement, implying a lack of legal basis for the stop. It's a direct challenge to the cop's authority. 🚨
Why this score: The narrator is setting up a direct contradiction by reminding the audience of the officer's earlier admission that no illegal activity was occurring. This frames the subsequent stop as potentially unlawful, creating a narrative of police overreach. The missing context is the actual legal justification, if any, for the stop.
Original quote: “It's important to note that just prior to pulling them over, he had just finished telling Josh Johnson that there was nothing that he could do because they weren't doing anything illegal because nobody who had been trespassed had returned onto Josh's property. So, what then is the legal basis for…”
Accusing the other party of 'playing stupid' to avoid answering. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 46:30
Calling someone 'stupid' for not giving info you want? That's not how you get answers, chief. It's how you get a stare. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('play stupid') to pressure the other party into providing information, rather than asking direct questions or presenting evidence. It's a classic tactic to try and gain control of the conversation by making the other person defensive.
Original quote: “We We're going to play stupid.”
Officer Hawkins claims the driver was trying to "detangle" after being seen. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 48:30
He's saying "they tried to detangle" like it's a fact, but it's just his interpretation of someone turning around. That's a leap, chief. 🤡
Why this score: Officer Hawkins presents his interpretation of the driver's actions (turning around and then trying to 'detangle') as a definitive fact, implying guilt or evasiveness. This is a confidence mismatch because he's stating a conclusion based on limited, observable actions, rather than direct evidence of intent. He's inferring motive without actual proof.
Original quote: “Hey, Fran, you want to talk to the
driver and see if he's saying anything?
>> Is he here to pick him up?
>> Yep. I watched him uh he tried to get in
this car at first and they turned around
and saw me, so they tried to detangle,
but I saw it already.”
Claiming police ignored all body cam rules, no specifics yet. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 50:30
Just dropped a blanket 'none of that was done' without showing the 'that' yet. Big claim, no immediate receipts. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker states 'none of that was done' immediately after listing several requirements for body cam usage (articulating reasons for muting, resuming recording, documenting interruptions, maintaining audit records). This is a broad assertion without presenting specific evidence for each point at this exact moment, creating a confidence mismatch.
Original quote: “Here, none of that was done.”
Cop admits he pulled them over just to scare them. Straight up confession. — No Frame (75/100)
At 52:30
The speaker is directly quoting an admission from the officer. No spin, just the facts from the audio. 🎤
Why this score: This is presented as a direct quote from the officer, which is then used as the basis for the legal argument. It's a clear statement of fact within the context of the video's narrative, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “One of the most important things Hawkins said during that conversation was his admission that the reason that he pulled Ben and Tyler over was that he wanted to scare them.”
The speaker highlights a key admission from Hawkins. — No Frame (75/100)
At 52:30
Setting up the big reveal, no tricks here, just the setup for the punchline. 🎤
Why this score: The speaker is introducing a direct quote or admission from one of the involved parties, framing it as 'one of the most important things.' This is a straightforward setup for a factual claim or a crucial piece of evidence in the narrative.
Original quote: “One of the most important things Hawkins”
Hoping Mormon community pressure will make him 'do the right thing'. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 54:30
Leveraging 'Mormons are nice people' to imply community pressure is the moral hammer. That's a specific kind of manipulation. 🔨
Why this score: The speaker is attempting to use the perceived ethical standards and community pressure of the Mormon faith to influence the individual's actions. This is an appeal to social and religious norms, framing 'doing the right thing' as something dictated by community rather than legal or personal conviction. It's an emotional button push, trying to guilt-trip through group identity.
Original quote: “Mormons are nice people, you know? So, it's like uh we're like maybe they can cuz it a Mor like his community probably thinks it's ethically bad what he did. Maybe if his community will pressure him to do it, he'll feel community pressure and finally do the right thing.”
The Utah harassment code is 'not good' but they still have one. The pivot is real. 🤡 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 56:30
Went from 'no harassment code' to 'we do have one, but it's not good' in like two seconds. The goalposts are doing sprints. 🏃♀️💨
Why this score: The speaker initially implies there's no harassment code in Utah, then immediately corrects to say there is one, but it's 'not good.' This is a volume game where a strong initial claim is quickly walked back, but the initial impression might stick. It's a classic rhetorical move to create a sense of difficulty or lack, then soften it.
Original quote: “They feel like they should be charged with harassment, but they lament that the Utah State Code for Harassment is apparently extremely difficult to prove, and they just don't have the evidence to charge it. >> We do have an harassment code, but it's not good.”
Claiming Utah's harassment code is bad/hard to prove — then contradicting it. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 56:30
First, 'no harassment code in Utah,' then 'it's extremely difficult to prove,' then 'we do have one, but it's not good.' Pick a lane, chief! 🛣️🤡
Why this score: The speaker initially states that Utah doesn't 'really have a harassment code,' then shifts to saying it's 'extremely difficult to prove,' and finally admits 'we do have an harassment code, but it's not good.' This is a classic volume game, making a strong, negative statement, then quietly walking it back or qualifying it, leaving the initial impression to linger.
Original quote: “Cuz our current harassment code doesn't We don't really have a harassment code in Utah. Um, I just read, what did I just read? I read one. I was there. >> They feel like they should be charged with harassment, but they lament that the Utah State Code for Harassment is apparently extremely difficult…”
Claims cops can lie about failed sobriety tests for drug DUIs because blood tests take months. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 58:30
He's asserting cops 'can just lie' about sobriety tests, which is a big leap from 'might be a possibility.' That's a confident accusation. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker moves from a potential scenario to a definitive statement that officers 'can just lie' about field sobriety tests. While it's true that blood tests take time, directly accusing officers of lying without specific evidence for this particular case is a strong, unverified assertion. It's presented with high confidence but lacks direct proof in this context.
Original quote: “So then they can just lie and claim that the person failed the field sobriety tests and arrest them anyways because the innocent victim can't just instantly test their blood alcohol level right there on the scene.”
Claiming cops always have a 'fallback' drug allegation — a broad generalization. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 58:30
Saying 'always have the fallback' is a huge generalization, like every cop has the same playbook. That's a bold claim without specific evidence for *every* case. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker asserts that police 'always' have a fallback drug allegation, implying a universal tactic. While this might happen, stating it as an 'always' is an overstatement and lacks the nuance of individual case specifics or departmental policies. It presents a specific scenario as an absolute truth.
Original quote: “Unless, as we've seen in some of my prior fake DUI arrest videos, they always have the fallback allegation that the person is just on drugs.”
Speaker denies drinking alcohol, despite police claims. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 60:30
Police assumed drinking because he was with a 'Mormon kid,' which is just a wild leap in logic. Stereotypes doing overtime. 🤡
Why this score: The police's assumption that the speaker had been drinking because he was with a 'Mormon kid' (implying Mormons don't drink, so if he was with one, they must have been drinking together) is a huge logical leap based on stereotypes, not evidence. The speaker's confident denial directly contradicts this baseless assumption.
Original quote: “That's super funny. I've never taken a sip of alcohol in my entire life. And we”
Police searching for 'anything' to charge kids after a dog alert. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 60:30
The 'anything' part really paints a picture of cops just fishing for charges. Sounds like a witch hunt. 🎣
Why this score: The phrase 'anything that they can use to charge these kids' implies a predatory intent on the part of the police, suggesting they are not looking for specific evidence of a crime but rather any minor infraction to justify their actions. This uses loaded language to evoke a sense of injustice and overreach, rather than simply stating the legal process.
Original quote: “That way, they can then search the car and then possibly find something, anything that they can use to charge these kids.”
Officer accuses driver of drug use despite passing all sobriety tests, then calls for K-9 unit. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 62:30
Dude passed every test, blew zeros, and the cop's still on his 'drug' theory? That's not suspicion, that's a hunch on steroids 🤡
Why this score: The officer's continued assertion of drug use, despite the driver passing multiple field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer with 'flying colors,' shows a significant mismatch between the evidence presented and the officer's confidence in his initial suspicion. He's just doubling down.
Original quote: “So he pulls you out of the car. He reads you your Miranda rights. What happens next? >> He then tells me I'm on drugs. And then I'm like, "Oh, I'm willing to talk then. I've never done drugs in my life." He's like, "Really? You haven't done drugs?" Cuz I can see it in your eyes. And he shines a…”
Officer Hawkins' body cam was muted, losing crucial audio, despite him claiming it was recording. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 62:30
The officer said he was recording, but the body cam was muted. That's not just 'missing context,' that's a whole damn cover-up in the making. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker highlights a critical piece of information: the officer's body camera was muted during a key interaction, despite the officer stating it was recording. This omission of audio evidence, especially when contradicted by the officer's own words, creates a significant gap in accountability and context for the events described. It's not just 'missing' context, it's context that was actively suppressed.
Original quote: “One of the worst things about this entire situation is that during this entire time period, Officer Hawkins body cam was still muted. And since he was out of his cruiser during this period, this important audio was actually completely lost forever, destroyed by officer Hawkins. Even though Hawkins…”
The drug dog sniff extended the stop time, violating the Fourth Amendment. — No Frame (75/100)
At 64:30
The timeline of the stop and the dog's arrival is laid out clearly, showing a potential Fourth Amendment violation. The math checks out. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker provides specific times (19:18 stop, 19:50 dog arrival) to illustrate the 30+ minute delay. This directly supports the claim of an extended stop, which is a known Fourth Amendment issue under *Rodriguez v. United States*. The argument is well-supported by the presented facts and legal precedent.
Original quote: “Note that the stop was initiated at around 1918 and the drug dog was brought in to sniff around the car at 1950, over 30 minutes after the detention began. Even before they started with the drug dog, Tyler had finished the field sobriety tests, and they have him just there sitting on the curb…”
Claiming the police used a 'scam' with the dog alert to justify a search. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 66:30
Calling the dog alert a 'scam' is strong language, implying deliberate deception by the police. — It's a loaded term for a situation that could also be an error.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'scam' to describe the police's use of the drug dog's alert, suggesting intentional manipulation. While the outcome (no drugs found) raises questions about the dog's accuracy or the handling of the situation, labeling it a 'scam' injects a strong, negative emotional charge that goes beyond simply stating the facts. It frames the police action as inherently dishonest rather than potentially mistaken or mismanaged.
Original quote: “they're searching the car? >> I was pretty calm actually. I was still scared cuz like obviously I'm being accused of something I've never done in my life. I'm interacting with cops. I'm not used to interacting with cops. So, I was still pretty scared, but also I was like pretty calm because I've…”
Claiming 100% certainty about no drugs, then immediately questioning the dog's alert. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 66:30
Starts with '100% no drugs' then pivots to 'mystery reason' for the dog's alert. The certainty just evaporated. 💨
Why this score: The speaker asserts absolute certainty ('100%') about the absence of drugs, which is a strong, definitive statement. However, they immediately follow this by introducing doubt about the police dog's alert, suggesting either the dog was wrong or never alerted. This creates a 'volume game' where a strong claim is made, then subtly undermined or complicated, allowing the speaker to have it both ways.
Original quote: “We now know 100% that there were no drugs in the car because none were found even after a very thorough search. But for some mystery reason, this dog allegedly alerted to drugs in the car. Either the dog was wrong or the dog never actually alerted to drugs. Either way, the American Fork Police…”
Cop claims 'substances in the vehicle' without showing them. Classic fishing expedition 🎣 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 68:30
Claiming 'substances' without showing any. That's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off. 🤡
Why this score: The officer states 'substances in the vehicle' as a reason for a search, but doesn't present any evidence of these substances. This is a common tactic to establish probable cause for a search without immediate proof, leaving the viewer to wonder what 'substances' are actually being referred to, or if they exist at all.
Original quote: “substances in the vehicle.”
Cop claims 'substances' in the vehicle, vague as hell 🚨 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 68:30
Just 'substances'? That's a classic move to keep things conveniently undefined. What kind of substances, chief? Tylenol? 😂
Why this score: The officer uses the vague term 'substances' without specifying what they are or how they were detected. This creates an impression of wrongdoing without providing concrete evidence, making it difficult to challenge or verify. It's a classic tactic to justify a search without full disclosure.
Original quote: “substances in the vehicle.”
Feeling bad about cops digging through a messy car with Hot Cheetos. 🌶️🚗 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 70:30
He's using the 'nasty car' and 'Hot Cheetos' to evoke a bit of cringe and sympathy for the cops' plight. 😂
Why this score: This is a humorous appeal to emotion, making light of a tense situation by focusing on the mundane (and gross) details of his car. It's not a factual claim, but a way to lighten the mood and create a shared, slightly uncomfortable feeling.
Original quote: “I feel so bad that they're digging through a nasty dirty car. It's like some girl spilled hot Cheetos back there like a few days ago. So, there's just hot Cheetos sitting on the floor.”
Complaining about a dirty car, setting up an emotional button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 70:30
Dude's worried about his messy car, trying to get some pity points from the cops. Classic move to humanize himself. 😭
Why this score: The speaker is using the 'dirty car' as a relatable, slightly embarrassing detail to evoke empathy from the officers, potentially softening their approach. It's a minor emotional button to make himself seem more human and less like a 'suspect'.
Original quote: “I usually keep my car clean, but like the last 5 days, we just back and forth everywhere. It's been a mess, dude. So, that car is filthy.”
Narrator claims K9 officer gaslights Tyler, saying the interview is for dog training. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 72:30
Calling it 'gaslighting' before the officer even speaks is a strong accusation — sets the tone hard before the evidence. 🚩
Why this score: The narrator uses 'gaslights him' to describe the officer's actions, which is a highly charged term. While the officer's subsequent explanation might be questionable, labeling it 'gaslighting' upfront biases the viewer's interpretation before the full context is presented. It's an emotional button pushed early.
Original quote: “After nothing was found in the car or on their persons, the K9 officer then goes over to Tyler and he completely gaslights him. He claims to be doing a postarch interview that is unrelated to the investigation just to help with his dog training.”
The officer's 'fishing expedition' questions are a common tactic to find reasons for problems. — No Frame (75/100)
At 74:30
The video accurately describes how police use broad questions during stops to look for incriminating evidence. It's a known tactic. 🎣
Why this score: The speaker explains that police can ask unrelated questions during traffic stops as long as it doesn't prolong the stop, which is generally true under current legal interpretations. This isn't a framing trick, but an explanation of a legal loophole.
Original quote: “Um, but overheard you say you've had quite a few people in in and out of your car. Just like throughout like the last like three or four weeks. Yeah. Four weeks. He then begins to elicit or try to elicit all sorts of potentially incriminating questions looking for any reason to cause Tyler…”
Claiming cops fabricate facts for reports — a serious accusation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 76:30
Calling it 'fabricating facts out of thin air' is strong language, implying deliberate deception. — It's a heavy charge without showing the exact 'fabrication' yet.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'fabricating facts out of thin air' to describe police actions. While the subsequent explanation about the dog sniff might support the idea of manipulating circumstances, the initial phrasing is designed to evoke a strong negative reaction before the full evidence is presented. This is a common tactic to frame the narrative early.
Original quote: “In other words, they're basically fabricating the facts out of thin air that they would later use to put in their police report as justification for doing all of these things that they already knew that they wanted to do.”
Officer Hawkins claims Tyler's eyes show both constriction and dilation, indicating drug use. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 78:30
Constriction AND dilation at the same time? That's not how eyes work, chief. That's just making shit up. 🤯
Why this score: The officer claims to observe both 'constriction' and 'dilated' pupils simultaneously, which is a contradictory and medically impossible statement. Pupils either constrict (get smaller) or dilate (get larger) in response to light, drugs, or other stimuli, but they cannot do both at the exact same moment. This represents a false equivalence or a misunderstanding of basic physiology, used to support the accusation of drug use.
Original quote: “Well, like help me understand. So your eyes for example, right? Right. There's a constriction which is dilated and then you notice it.”
Narrator claims cops went to extreme lengths to find something on the kids. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 78:30
The narrator uses 'extreme lengths' and 'jam up these kids' — strong words without showing the actual 'lengths' 🚩
Why this score: The language is highly emotive and accusatory, painting the police actions in a negative light without providing specific, verifiable details of these 'extreme lengths' or how they were disproportionate. It's designed to evoke a specific emotional response from the viewer.
Original quote: “extended before the drug dog even got there. It just goes to show the lengths that these cops went through to find something, anything to jam up these kids for Mr. Johnson. >> Okay. Well, hopefully we get done and get you guys out of here. Yeah. And what what's going So you can't really say…”
Speaker claims asking about Adderall is 'junk science' and would make someone 'more not under the influence' with 'fighter pilot reflexes'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 80:30
Saying Adderall makes you 'more not under the influence' with 'fighter pilot reflexes' is a wild oversimplification of a controlled substance 🚀💊.
Why this score: The speaker is making a broad, exaggerated claim about Adderall's effects, suggesting it would make someone 'more not under the influence' and give them 'fighter pilot level reflexes'. While Adderall can improve focus for those with ADHD, it's a controlled substance with potential side effects and impairment risks, especially if misused or taken by someone without a prescription. Equating it to a performance enhancer that makes you 'more sober' is a false equivalence and misrepresents its pharmacological effects and legal implications.
Original quote: “But Officer Hawkins doesn't want the truth. He wants something very different. And he claims that he can see what he calls constriction in Tyler's eyes. Even the other officer standing right there next to Tyler knows that it's [ __ ] and he doesn't even take an opinion on it. There's a construction…”
Narrator claims Officer Hawkins is ignoring obvious sobriety and seeing 'constriction' that's BS. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 80:30
Calling the officer's claim 'total BS' and 'cop junk science' is definitely loaded language, even if it feels right. 🔥
Why this score: The narrator uses strong, emotionally charged language ('total BS', 'cop junk science') to dismiss Officer Hawkins's claim about eye constriction. While the sentiment may be understandable given the context, the phrasing itself is designed to evoke a strong negative reaction rather than present a neutral assessment.
Original quote: “He could not even be more polite. He couldn't be more cooperative. He couldn't be more obviously sober. But Officer Hawkins doesn't want the truth. He wants something very different. And he claims that he can see what he calls constriction in Tyler's eyes. Even the other officer standing right…”
Accusing the officer of gaslighting and intimidation tactics to chase someone out of town. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 82:30
Calling it a 'fishing expedition' and 'designed to scare and intimidate' without showing the direct evidence of intent. That's some heavy-handed narration. 🎣
Why this score: The speaker is interpreting the officer's actions and assigning motives ('not interested in the truth', 'gaslighting', 'scare and intimidate') rather than just presenting the actions themselves. While the actions might lead one to this conclusion, stating it as definitive fact without direct proof of intent is loaded language.
Original quote: “He's not interested in the truth. He's more interested in gaslighting and interrogating Tyler about Ben because this isn't really a drug investigation at all. It's a fishing expedition. Or more accurately, it was just something designed to scare and intimidate them to chase Ben out of Utah and out…”
Narrator claims Hawkins isn't interested in truth, just gaslighting and intimidation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 82:30
Calling it a 'fishing expedition' and 'designed to scare and intimidate' paints a very specific, negative picture of the officer's intent. — Strong words doing heavy lifting.
Why this score: The narrator uses highly charged language like 'gaslighting,' 'fishing expedition,' and 'scare and intimidate' to characterize the officer's actions. While the officer's methods might be questionable, these terms are interpretive and present a specific, accusatory narrative rather than just stating facts. It's designed to elicit an emotional response from the viewer.
Original quote: “clearly innocent and he offers to even take any sort of drug test. But Hawkins isn't interested in that. He's not interested in the truth. He's more interested in gaslighting and interrogating Tyler about Ben because this isn't really a drug investigation at all. It's a fishing expedition. Or more…”
Officer speculates about other suspects, shifting blame based on dog alert. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 84:30
Officer goes from 'dog alerted' to 'probably Chad or Christian' real quick. That's a leap, not evidence. 🐕➡️🤷♂️
Why this score: The officer is making a speculative jump from a dog alert (which indicates *something* was present) to confidently naming specific individuals as 'probably' responsible, without presenting any further evidence. This is a confidence mismatch, as the certainty of the conclusion doesn't align with the presented evidence.
Original quote: “Um, and that that tells me if it's not you guys. Uhhuh. Um, then it's probably Chad or Christian, whatever his name was.”
Narrator highlights officer's intimidation tactics. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 84:30
Calling it the 'real plan' and 'scare and intimidate' frames the officer's actions as malicious intent. It's a strong interpretation of the situation. 🚩
Why this score: The narrator uses emotionally charged language ('real plan', 'scare and intimidate') to characterize the officer's intentions, rather than just stating the officer's actions. This guides the viewer's perception of the interaction as inherently negative and manipulative.
Original quote: “And then Hawkins shifts back to the real plan of this detention to scare and intimidate. He threatens Tyler that he's walking a very dangerous line.”
Cop threatens Tyler with federal charges for impersonating a UPS guy, using it as leverage. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 86:30
Using a potential federal crime as a threat to control behavior. That's not policing, that's intimidation 🚨
Why this score: The officer is leveraging the possibility of federal charges (impersonating a UPS worker) not to genuinely pursue justice, but to intimidate Tyler into leaving Josh alone. This is a clear use of an 'emotional button' – fear of severe legal consequences – to manipulate the situation rather than address it impartially. It's a power play, not a legal warning.
Original quote: “Yeah. And your and your buddy already told me that you're the one that showed up yesterday in the UPS gear trying to have him sign something. That right there is a federal crime. I understand that. Yeah. He threatens Tyler that if he doesn't leave Josh alone that he may end up making sure that…”
Cop claims impersonating a UPS guy is a federal crime, threatening charges. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 86:30
Threatening federal charges for impersonating UPS is a bit of a stretch, especially without actual fraud or intent to defraud. It's not as clear-cut as he's making it sound. 😬
Why this score: While impersonating a federal agent (like a postal worker) is a federal crime, simply wearing a UPS uniform and asking for a signature without intent to defraud or commit another crime isn't automatically a federal offense. It's often handled as a misdemeanor or civil issue unless more serious elements are present. The cop is using the 'federal crime' label to intimidate, implying a severity that might not apply to this specific scenario.
Original quote: “Yeah. And your and your buddy already told me that you're the one that showed up yesterday in the UPS gear trying to have him sign something. That right there is a federal crime. I understand that. Yeah. He threatens Tyler that if he doesn't leave Josh alone that he may end up making sure that…”
Claiming no federal statute for impersonating a UPS guy, but it's more nuanced. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 88:30
He's right there's no specific 'UPS guy' law, but it's not a free pass for fraud. The context matters, my dude. 📦
Why this score: The speaker correctly states there's no specific federal statute for impersonating a UPS guy. However, the crucial missing context is that using such impersonation to commit another crime, like fraud or trespassing with intent, absolutely can lead to federal charges. It's not the uniform, it's the intent and the follow-through that gets you. The video's narrator acknowledges this immediately after, but the initial framing is a bit misleading.
Original quote: “While there are federal crimes for impersonating federal officers or members of the military, for instance, I've found no federal statute criminalizing the impersonation of a UPS guy.”
Officer admits wanting to scare him, then warns him about 'thin line' — classic intimidation tactics. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 90:30
Cop admits to wanting to 'scare him a little bit' and then drops the 'walking a thin line' threat. Just straight-up intimidation, no pretense. 🚨
Why this score: The officer's own words from the body cam footage confirm the intent to intimidate. The follow-up warning about 'walking a thin line' reinforces this, using vague threats to maintain control and fear, rather than addressing any actual legal infractions. It's a power play.
Original quote: “that officer Hawkins said that he wanted to scare you. I was going to scare him a little bit and let him go is all I really was going to do. But Were you scared? Oh, yeah. I was intimidated for sure cuz I never really interact with police officers. So, this being like my first week full-blown…”
Cop implies Tyler is responsible for any past passenger's potential drug drops. Wild leap. 🤡 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 90:30
Connecting Tyler to hypothetical drug drops from '20-some people' over three days is a massive stretch. That's not how culpability works. 💀
Why this score: The officer is trying to hold Tyler responsible for the actions of '20-some people' who may have been in his car over several days, suggesting he'd be arrested for something a past passenger might have dropped. This creates a false equivalence between Tyler's current situation and the potential, unproven actions of others, without any direct evidence linking him to illegal substances.
Original quote: “he's trained on illegal substances. So Tyler is saying that he had 20ome people in his car the last 3 days because of all you YouTubers that are coming through. Oh, so if one of them had dropped say cocaine or methamphetamine and we found it today, you both would be arrested for it.”
Speaker claims officers are on a "power trip" and he's now scared of the police. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 92:30
He's painting a picture of fear and abuse of power, which is a classic emotional appeal. It's his personal experience, but it's designed to get you on his side. 😬
Why this score: The speaker is sharing his personal feelings and interpretation of the officers' motives ('power trip,' 'love power'). While these are his subjective experiences, they are presented to evoke sympathy and outrage from the audience, leveraging an emotional connection rather than presenting verifiable facts about the officers' conduct or departmental policy. It's a personal narrative meant to sway opinion.
Original quote: “it just feels like some of them are on a power trip. They just love power, especially Officer Hawkins who's just accusing me of being on drugs, even though he knows I'm not on drugs. Um, and and now I'm kind of scared of the American Fort Police Department. And it used to be like, oh, if I ever…”
Officer muted body cam, destroying evidence and showing untrustworthiness. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 94:30
Calling it 'destroying evidence' is a strong take, even if it's a policy violation. The language is doing heavy lifting here. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker uses 'destroying both the evidence' and 'not an honest, trustworthy police officer' which are emotionally charged phrases. While muting a body cam is certainly suspicious and likely a policy violation, the phrasing goes straight for the jugular, implying intent and moral failing without explicitly stating it's a constitutional violation itself (which the speaker acknowledges it isn't, but then immediately pivots to 'untrustworthy').
Original quote: “the investigating officer, Officer Hawkins, muted his body cam, destroying both the evidence of Tyler's innocence as well as evidence of the officer's constitutional violations. While this is not in and of itself a constitutional violation, it is most likely a policy violation and it's also…”
Claiming "numerous violations" of constitutional rights based on body cam footage. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 96:30
Saying "numerous violations have been documented" with the confidence of a judge, but that's for the courts to decide, not a YouTube video. ⚖️
Why this score: The speaker asserts that "numerous violations have been documented" by the body cam footage. While the footage might show concerning interactions, declaring them 'violations' is a legal conclusion that typically requires judicial review, not just a video. It's a confident assertion presented as fact before any legal ruling.
Original quote: “Heck yeah. Thank you. Whether you're a resident of California or American Fork, Utah, and whether you're a Mormon or not a Mormon, we are all equally protected under the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution. And as I've discussed in this video, as well as the last video, numerous…”
Arranging 'one of the best civil rights lawyers in the nation' for specific individuals. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 96:30
Claiming 'one of the best civil rights lawyers in the nation' without naming them or showing any proof. Big talk, no receipts. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker makes a very strong, subjective claim about the quality of the lawyer ('one of the best in the nation') without providing any specific name, credentials, or evidence to support this high praise. It's a confident assertion designed to reassure viewers, but it lacks the concrete details that would justify such a definitive statement.
Original quote: “For that reason, I've helped to arrange for one of the best civil rights lawyers in the nation to get involved. And I'm not sure yet about Ben because he's in a bit of a different situation. But Tyler as well as Sheldon, who you'll hear from in my upcoming part 4 video. He was the kid who got…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →