I Help YouTuber(s) Arrested Over Lego Videos (Part 2)
Credibility score: 58/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "I Help YouTuber(s) Arrested Over Lego Videos (Part 2)" and rated it 58/100 for credibility (a BS score of 42/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-08. Its weakest claim — "Video opens with highlight reel preview of police stop and hacked footage" — scored 50/100 and was flagged as just vibes. 35 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 35 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 25 between 40 and 69, and 10 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with highlight reel preview of police stop and hacked footage — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Teaser jumps straight into the hacked unredacted footage payoff — that's the hook, not the story.
Why this score: This opening 30 seconds is a rapid montage preview. No individual factual claims to evaluate yet — just setting up the later payoff about the leaked police footage.
Original quote: “What's up, my man? How's it going? Good. How are you? Good. My name's Officer Richardson with American Police. The reason I stopped you is the stop sign. You didn't come to quickly stop at it? I didn't. No. Since I talked with Reckless Ben about the stolen Lego situation and the ensuing harassment…”
The speaker confirms having multiple people involved, including Ben Schneider. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:30
He's already got five names confirmed! — This whole situation is clearly a cast of characters waiting to explode. 😂
Why this score: Initial setup establishes the scope of the drama. Key points: - Multiple parties involved (Ben Schneider specifically). - The speaker has direct access/contact with others in the chaos.
Original quote: “back here any way, shape, or form. Don't have Ben or Reckless Ben come because this is unending it. How many did you get? You got Ben? We got five. I know. Including Ben Schneider. Yes. Sweet. I got the chance to talk to the other guy with Ben in the videos.”
The plan requires Josh to return the Legos before receiving a 'saved the day' trophy. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 2:30
A trophy contingent on Lego repayment? That’s peak dramatic flair. — It sounds like they are setting up a perfect narrative payoff for the viewers.
Why this score: Narrative framing is clearly intentional here. Key elements: - The 'Mormon thing' (delivery package) was part of the setup. - The trophy isn't free; it’s conditional on Josh returning the $200k worth of Legos. - This whole strategy session happened immediately upon Ben landing in Utah.
Original quote: “Yeah, we did the Mormon thing, the the delivery package, all that. Basically, if Josh wants to save the day, I got him a trophy that says Joshua Johnson saved the day. And uh we'll give him this trophy, but he has to give the Legos back first. Basically, all that game planning was done at the…”
The case is blowing up online, prompting efforts to get raw bodycam footage from AFPD. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:30
They're scrambling for the *raw* footage while simultaneously getting it released by the cops themselves. Classic move. 🙄
Why this score: Contextual Observation of the investigation stage. Key factors: - High public interest ('blow up even more'). - Proactive legal action (paralegal filing a FOIA request). - The police department *already* released it, which is suspicious timing.
Original quote: “So, as I'm investigating what actually happened, this whole thing continues to blow up even more on the internet. Everyone's talking about it. Opinions are flying. So, as I'm getting ready to interview Tyler, I'm trying to get the actual raw body cam video from any source so that I could break it…”
The delivery was strategic—a follower of Reckless Ben casing their location. — OK (65/100)
At 6:30
Calling him a 'follower' is an assumption, but it fits the narrative. — It seems less random and more targeted surveillance. 👀
Why this score: Speaker's interpretation of motive. While they state he's *likely* a follower, this aligns perfectly with community sentiment that the Lego drama is political/targeted.
Original quote: “and this kid who is likely a follower of of Reckless Ben and they're just trying to see where we live. I just want to document that they delivered a fake package to our address.”
The speaker wasn't anticipating a 'scammer,' but noted the delivery driver was very young. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 8:30
He admits he wasn't expecting trouble, which makes his observation about the kid even more impactful. Classic low-key realization moment. 👀
Why this score: Subjective framing of expectation vs. reality. Key point: - The speaker acknowledges a lack of preconceived notion ('not in the mind frame'). - This sets up the contrast for the description that follows.
Original quote: “I'm not in the mind frame of expecting a scammer to show up, but he's really young.”
The YouTuber involved is named 'Reckless Ben' and looks like a skinny teen. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:30
He's calling him 'skinny,' but the hat detail is wild — GPS tape on a UPS cap? 😂
Why this score: Visual Observation suggests this description is accurate. Key points: - The speaker estimates age at *17-18*. - He notes the specific, bizarre accessory: a fake UPS hat with taped GPS. - This sets up the whole narrative around 'Reckless Ben'.
Original quote: “I think. Had a fake UPS hat on, like he had tape GPS on his hat. Um, skinny. Probably 17, I guess. 18 would be my guess. So, the YouTube guy is named Reckless Ben, and he he probably has this”
Brian threatened the manager with murder after YouTube 'destroyed' their business. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 12:30
A threat of murder over Lego? — That’s peak drama right there. 🔪
Why this score: Escalation is wild. The speaker claims YouTube 'destroyed' the business first, leading to this direct threat from Brian Mansel to the manager. This sounds like a massive PR nightmare.
Original quote: “So, he's contacted YouTube people. They've they've destroyed that business. They sent a lady in there saying, "Hey, I'm going to kill you." To the manager. I'm gonna murder you. And the man to the manager is like, "Well, get killing, you know, and um obviously shouldn't kill her." But like they've…”
It's 'always good to ask' about fingerprinting the box because these YouTubers are wild. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
He’s basically saying they are *intentionally* making this dramatic. It's a performance! 😂
Why this score: Speaker Opinion/Observation. This isn't a hard fact, but it summarizes the entire situation perfectly. The speaker is calling out the inherent theatricality of these 'YouTuber' confrontations.
Original quote: “Uh all right, figure. I mean, I didn't know. But no, absolutely. It's it's one of those things where um it's always good to ask cuz Well, you I don't know. I don't like these guys are crazy. like their YouTube things. They just do crazy stuff.”
If the YouTubers return, he won't guarantee they'll behave; he'd 'try to just keep it.' — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 16:30
He's not promising them a good boy status! — Sounds like the legal team is already bracing for chaos. 😂
Why this score: High level of skepticism from the speaker regarding future behavior. Key points: - The promise isn't absolute ('I wouldn't put it past them'). - 'Try to just keep it' implies a best-case scenario, not a guarantee.
Original quote: “like their YouTube things. They just do crazy stuff. So, I wouldn't put it past them to put something in the box, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Outside. I just kicked it outside. I don't um if you could also just document the the rubber chickens as well. Yeah, sure. Um and then, uh again, just…”
Speaker is very angry and worried the subjects might leave before help arrives. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 18:30
He sounds genuinely furious about this whole situation. — 'Really pissed' doesn't even begin to cover it; the stakes are high here 😤.
Why this score: High emotional investment shown by the speaker. Key points: - Expresses immediate frustration ('really pissed'). - Shows anxiety over timing ('What if they're gone by then?'). - The request for a 'plate' shows tactical thinking about documentation.
Original quote: “Five. What if they're gone by then? Uh if you can get a plate, I would do that. Um I'm I'm I'm really pissed.”
The situation is 'hard' because they were only recording, so a charge of 28 should suffice. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 20:30
He thinks just getting the '28' is the end of it. — But that sounds way too neat for this whole mess; there's always more drama.
Why this score: The charge seems minimal given the context presented. Key issues:
- The speaker downplays the incident by focusing only on *recording*.
- Community feedback suggests this is just the tip of the iceberg (e.g., 'police corruption').
- A simple citation like '28' doesn't address the underlying dispute or officer conduct.
Original quote: “Hard cuz uh he's just saying that they were recording. So there's nothing criminal that they were doing. Just get the 28 for it. Should be good.”
The person is being questioned about why they were filming the house/person. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 22:30
They're already sweating over 'why' — it sounds like the initial accusation was just a flimsy pretext. 🤔
Why this score: The questioning is aggressive. The officer immediately pivots from 'recording your house' to demanding recent photos, suggesting they are trying to establish motive or context for the recording before even getting to the core issue of *why* he was filming Reckless Ben.
Original quote: “They said that you were recording your house. Would you mind pulling up your pictures and then going to the bottom? Yeah, going to the bottom. Yeah. And just show me showing me your most recent. So, let's see. I do have a picture of the house, but not specifically like for that. Just a cool house.…”
The officer claims he failed to stop *before* the line despite his belief and video evidence. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 24:30
He's saying the footage proves him right! But they still say he didn't stop *before* the line. Classic ambiguity 🤔.
Why this score: The core dispute is timing and interpretation. The speaker asserts visual proof ('footage shows I stopped'), but the officer has a specific technical objection ('didn't do it before the line').
- This is where the legal argument starts: *when* does stopping legally occur?
Original quote: “Yeah. So they pulled you over for not stopping at a stop sign. Do you think that you stopped? I I think I stopped. Yeah. I mean, you look at the footage, it shows that I stopped. I definitely stopped, but they say I didn't do it before the line.”
The driver was stopped for a stop sign violation (1084), but felt the stop was justified. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 26:30
He's convinced he stopped at the sign, which is a huge point of contention here. — But '1084' sounds way more official than just saying 'a ticket.' 🤔
Why this score: Driver Assertion regarding traffic stop legitimacy. Key points: - The driver firmly believes they obeyed the stop sign. - They were cited for a violation, specifically 1084. - This sets up the whole legal argument about whether the initial stop was valid.
Original quote: “I was confused cuz I definitely believe that I stopped at the stop sign. Those boxing gloves? Yeah. So, we got like a a purge mask. We've got a bunch of camera equipment. We film YouTube videos. Oh, dope. Sweet. Yeah. Oh, you don't need my registration, dude. No. Uh, if you have insurance and then…”
They claim the police lack grounds to detain them because they are filming documentaries. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 28:30
The cops clearly don't have a solid charge yet — 'don't think you have anything to hold us.' 🤔
Why this score: Initial Assertion of legal standing. Key points:
- The speakers assert the police lack sufficient grounds for detention.
- This is framed as a direct challenge to the officers' authority at that moment.
Original quote: “good. I don't think you have anything to hold us. So, we're we're here to film. We film uh like documentaries. Okay. And there's Are you filming right now? Yeah, we are. Shout out YouTube,”
He explicitly states he doesn't care about his public appearance. — Opinion (65/100)
At 30:30
This is pure deflection. He says 'don't care,' but the whole narrative is built around *being* seen by people.
Why this score: Weak conviction. This statement feels like a defense mechanism rather than a genuine belief. It sets up the next point perfectly.
Original quote: “I don't care if I look good.”
Everyone is being trespassed from the property where they just met two women. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 32:30
Trespassing everyone? Sounds like a power move. — They're basically locking down the whole block because of this Lego drama! 🙄
Why this score: Property Lockdown is happening right there. Key points: - The two involved women are new contacts. - Everyone present is being officially trespassed from the property. This suggests a serious, immediate conflict.
Original quote: “Okay. The two females that are involved. Um, so do you have their information? So, because the thing is is that everybody today is being trespassed from that property. Okay. Yeah, we just barely met those people today. Okay.”
The initial collection attempt involved dropping off a box of rubber ducks, which clearly annoyed the owner. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 34:30
Rubber ducks as an opening move? — That's peak passive-aggressive negotiation strategy. 😂
Why this score: Specific Detail Reaction. This isn't a fact, it's the speaker reacting to *their own* team's tactic (or maybe someone else's). It adds flavor to the collection attempt story.
Original quote: “You say politely, but starting off with by dropping off a box with rubber ducks in it. Huh. That doesn't go over well. We didn't do that. Yeah, we didn't. That wasn't me. But Okay.”
Even though they plan to 'politely force,' the opponent might refuse to cooperate. — Solid (80/100)
At 36:30
They admit their polite approach is just a preamble to coercion. They know this isn't going to be smooth sailing. 🤔
Why this score: Anticipated Resistance is the core idea here. The speaker acknowledges that 'polite asking' often means nothing when there's money/legal pressure involved. It’s realistic legal maneuvering.
Original quote: “But at the end of the day, you can't force anybody to do anything. Yeah, we were going to politely We're going to force him. We're going to politely ask. No, I know. But I'm just saying like showing up here, even if he's not showing up to court and everything like that, highly likely he's probably…”
The initial goal was a settlement payment to avoid the defendant going to jail. — Solid (75/100)
At 38:30
Hoping for a handshake deal instead of court drama is standard operating procedure. Smart move. 🤔
Why this score: Agreement first was the stated plan before escalating to police involvement. - This shows they were trying to de-escalate from 'just pay' to 'pay or jail time,' which is classic legal strategy.
Original quote: “and then have you guys on your way. We were just hoping we could like reach an agreement where he pays the family and that way he doesn't have to go to chicken cuz then we be like, "Hey, we'll call the police." That's that's respectable. That's that was genuinely our plan.”
The issue is 'all civil,' meaning the lawyer can't force payment through criminal means. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 40:30
He keeps hammering on the 'civil' point — but they’re clearly already in a legal battle. 🙄
Why this score: The distinction is semantic. While it *is* civil, saying he can't help is weak. - He stated: "It's all civil." - The reality is that the criminal charge of 'property theft of over 100,000' gives him massive leverage in the civil court.
Original quote: “Yeah. And that is really terrible to hear. Yeah. Um but I I genuinely would just leave it. So any other questions for me? You can't do anything to help then as far as this go. It's all civil. We could Okay. So it's all civil. All has to be handled in court.”
It's weird that local cops, especially in a Mormon community, fixated on 'rubber duck' knock-and-talk. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 42:30
Wait, the *entire* department mobilized over rubber ducks? — That level of local hyper-focus is peak absurdity. 🦆
Why this score: Observation/Commentary. The speaker finds it strange that a routine 'consensual encounter' (rubber duck delivery) escalated into a massive police response within a community known for being orderly.
Original quote: “So, not only is that sort of activity not illegal, it's actually a central component of how law enforcement investigates criminal allegations across the entire country. So, it's sort of weird to me that here the police latched on to the incident of Tyler showing up with a package of rubber ducks at…”
The car definitely didn't stop before the stop sign, making the initial prompt questionable. — Solid (75/100)
At 44:30
He’s right to question it! — If they weren't worried *before*, why pull over now? 🤔🚩
Why this score: Logical fallacy in the initial stop.
- The speaker asserts no prior concern.
- This forces the viewer to accept that the stop was reactive, not proactive.
- It perfectly sets up the 'officer bias' narrative.
Original quote: “for sure did not stop prior to traffic. ... Is there any universe where any reasonable police officer would be concerned with this driving that we see and then be prompted to go perform a traffic stop for the reason of not stopping at a stop sign?”
Police admitted nothing criminal happened; just a '28' code was issued. — Solid (75/100)
At 46:30
Admitting 'nothing criminal' is huge — but they still slapped him with that '28' charge. 🤔
Why this score: The admission itself is the key point here. The speaker confirms the officer admitted *no crime* occurred, which strongly supports the narrative of an unjustified stop. - The reference to '28' implies a specific infraction code they were using.
Original quote: “was made was actually admitted over the police officer's unredacted radio. He's just saying that they were recording. So, there's nothing criminal they were doing. Just get the 28 for it. Should be good.”
Josh also claimed Ben was publicly watching/filming the house over the Lego dispute. — Solid (75/100)
At 48:30
Wait, so it's not just the package? He was *watching*! This is getting wild. 😮👀
Why this score: Secondary Allegation from Josh Johnson regarding Ben’s behavior. - The specific action cited is watching/filming Josh's home on a public roadway. - This ties the dispute directly to the location, which is probably why they pulled them over.
Original quote: “What else did Josh alleged? That Ben was outside his home on a public roadway watching, possibly filming his home as a result of this Lego business dispute in Oregon. However, Ben and Tyler”
The real reason was IDing the car owner; that alone isn't enough for detention. — Just Vibes (70/100)
At 50:30
He nailed it—the *reason* is weak! But calling it a clear violation of Rodriguez? That’s a strong legal assertion. 🧐
Why this score: The speaker identifies the core issue: The stop was for ID verification (a valid reason), but he argues that *that alone* doesn't justify the detention length, referencing *Rodriguez v. United States*.
Original quote: “The real reason for the stop is that the officers wanted to identify the registered owner of the vehicle that Ben was riding in. They admitted this. Unfortunately for them, that's not in and of itself a lawful basis for the detention. In what I believe is a clear violation of Rodriguez versus…”
No actual crime evidence exists; Officer Tonga coordinated with complainant Josh Johnson. — Solid (80/100)
At 52:30
They're right, the bodycam footage shows collusion. It wasn't just 'harassment,' it was orchestrated by Tonga and Josh Johnson. 🧐
Why this score: Coordination confirmed between Officer Tonga and complainant Josh Johnson. Key points: - The speaker explicitly states there is *no evidence of crimes* committed initially. - The unredacted footage proves the officer worked *in coordination* with the accuser, not just responding to a complaint. - This strongly suggests the initial 'crime' charge was manufactured or heavily influenced.
Original quote: “any crime, because as of now, though they have an angry complainant by the name of Josh Johnson demanding that the cops harass Tyler and Ben, they don't actually have any evidence of crimes being committed. Thanks to the release of the unredacted body cam footage, we now know that officer Tonga was…”
Says dropping ducks at house crosses line into harassment — Opinion (50/100)
At 54:30
Calling duck delivery harassment when Ben's the one being investigated — bold framing.
Why this score: Subjective boundary on what counts as intimidation.
- Speaker frames duck package as threat to family
- Context is retaliation after Ben's Lego investigation
- No legal standard cited for why ducks specifically cross line
Original quote: “the having people show up to your house, drop off a package with ducks in it, that's that's not cool. Especially when your family's there and everything.”
The potential charge is 'electronic surveillance harassment,' but it’s stuck at a misdemeanor level. — Solid (75/100)
At 58:30
Misdemeanor! After all the drama over Legos and warrants, they're only hitting him with *that*? Low bar set. 😒
Why this score: Charge Level is explicitly defined as a misdemeanor. Key implications:
- The specific charge being considered is 'electronic surveillance harassment.'
- Josh (presumably the subject or someone involved) is clearly disappointed, suggesting higher charges were hoped for.
- This confirms the legal scope is narrower than just general nuisance/harassment.
Original quote: “They discuss the possibility of charging him with electronic surveillance harassment, but Josh is disappointed to hear that it's only a misdemeanor.”
Josh implies he's a Mormon fulfilling his 'calling,' hoping for peace. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 60:30
The sheer relief in his voice when saying 'fulfill my calling' is palpable. He just wants to get back to church! 🙏
Why this score: Personal framing here: Josh uses the religious context (Mormonism) to frame the entire legal ordeal as a spiritual quest, which is classic deflection tactic.
Original quote: “Then Josh says something about going back to church and fulfilling his calling. once again implying to the officer that he's a Mormon, unlike Reckless Ben. All right. Well, hopefully this is the end of it and I can go back to church and go fulfill my calling and have a peaceful day.”
Unredacted footage makes the 'Mormon conspiracy' look legit and explains Utah vs. Oregon differences. — Solid (75/100)
At 62:30
He admits skepticism but concedes the unredacted footage is key — that’s a big admission! 🤔
Why this score: Skepticism overcome by evidence. Key factors: - He was initially doubtful of the 'Mormon conspiracy.' - The *unredacted footage* convinced him it's legitimate. - This explains why things are different in Utah vs. Oregon.
Original quote: “And um so uh yeah, like I said, if if you have contact um or if um he shows back up and he's he's trying to make contact with you, then um please call in and we'll have an officer respond. Okay, you're the best. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Bye. At first, I was skeptical of the whole Mormon…”
Police shouldn't arrest people for trespassing when kids are legally filming from public spots. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 64:30
They should have called him a Karen instead of just arresting him! — The logic is sound; freedom shouldn't be scary if the kids aren't breaking laws. 🙄
Why this score: Strong argument for restraint by law enforcement. Key points: - Kids have a *right to film* in public spaces. - Arrests were disproportionate, seemingly just to 'make Josh feel safe.' - This suggests police are acting as personal security detail.
Original quote: “him for trespassing. And they should have said to Josh, Josh, you're being a Karen. Just because some kids from YouTube showed up at your door with a box of rubber ducks and they're filming you from public locations where they have a right to be, you don't get to have them seized by the police,…”
Lawsuit is needed against AFPD/officers; lawyer is ready to take it. — Solid (75/100)
At 66:30
It's not just documentation; they are actively pushing for a civil suit. — The fact that a lawyer is *already interested* makes this claim much stronger than just 'needs to happen.' ⚖️
Why this score: Actionable intent backs up the opinion. Key factors: - Speaker asserts a civil lawsuit must be filed. - This targets both the AFPD and the individual officers involved. - The speaker confirms they have a lawyer *already interested* in taking on the case.
Original quote: “I'm laying out and documenting these constitutional violations because there needs to be a civil lawsuit filed against the American Fork Police Department as well as the officers involved. I already have a lawyer interested in taking on the case.”
The lawyer directs viewers to his website and social media handles. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 68:30
So he's basically saying 'follow me or miss out!' — standard closing line. 🙄
Why this score: Self-Promotion Alert. This is pure marketing speak disguised as a sign-off. Key points: - Direct call to action for followers - Provides specific handles (X/Twitter and others) for easy tracking.
Original quote: “the civil rightsawyer.com. You can follow me on X and the other socials at johnhbryanq.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →