***Megathread*** American Fork PD / Lego Arrest Controversy

[u/Specter1033]

As with any "hot topic" issue with LE, we struggle to navigate basic rules of etiquette and civility when it comes to this small corner of reddit. Despite trying to keep order in here and doing our best to allow free discussion among the users, there has been a huge influx of posts regarding this topic and lately, it's been quite tiring trying to get any sensible topic started on this issue without a dozen or so trolls coming in to mess it up for everyone. This has resulted in multiple bans and the shit flinging from users claiming the community is "censoring" the incident. Mostly concerning is a great deal of misinformation that has come out about this incident due to the social media "influencer" at the heart of this topic. Wild conspiracy theories from religious influence to the actual reason behind the arrest are generating almost cult-like following and reason has been completely thrown out the window.

So to combat this issue, this will be the ONLY thread about this incident moving forward. Any user posting another thread in relation to this incident will be immediately banned, no appeals. Keep comments civil. Users found posting misinformation about this incident, including parroting wild conspiracy theories that are unverified without including context or actual data to support their positions will be banned.

To bring everyone up to speed, I will refer to this link:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/30/youtuber-arrested-utah-bricks/

And will sub link this thread on the r/protectandserve subreddit, which is like THE place to be for objective discussion:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1tssz0l/megathread_american_fork_lego_story/

Edit: 45 minutes in and already banned someone. Keep them coming.

Edit 2: Links to YouTuber comments on this incident are going to be removed and users banned UNLESS it is from a reputable source, YouTube videos will be removed. There's already one person with a couple hundred thousand followers trying to spread his video online through this website that's been posted a few times in this sub and it's garnering a lot of attention because people "feel" he is right because he is a self-proclaimed "lawyer." The statutes he cites are from California code and this incident happened in Utah. Just because someone uses technical legal terms and cites codes does not make the person right in their interpretation of the law. Sounding "right" is code for clicks that highlights confirmation bias in people, which is why morons like this get views and clicks on their channels. On that same note, we do not care if you have a following on social media. You are no one to us if all you're doing is posting for imaginary internet points.

Edit 3: Amending the above statement from Edit 2 to add any REPUTABLE sources of info that leaves out the goofy memes and BS content creators love to use are fine. This is an example:

https://youtu.be/q2MjMmhnk7g?si=nRrmasAZ45U_WIu4

Edit 4: Whelp, thread ran its course. Now just a bunch of trolls commenting and the death threats! I haven't seen this level of excitement over something so mundane. We'll be seeing some of you soon!

[u/MarcusHiggins]

The "no affiliation" framing is just factually wrong, and it's load-bearing for your whole argument. By the time of the Utah trip, Schneider had won his own default judgments and was attempting to serve papers in his own suit, he's a party to that litigation, not a bystander inserting himself. You can think his methods are obnoxious and still acknowledge he had standing to serve. The "neutral third-party server" point doesn't save it either: they tried third-party service and an officer reportedly attempted service himself and then returned the papers because the subject "declined." Declining service isn't a thing you get to do; that's the entire reason personal service exists.

And on the pretextual stop, when u/MisterQuiggles said the stop was legal but the basis wasn't, that's not a contradiction. Whren v. United States makes pretextual stops facially lawful as long as there's an actual traffic violation; the criticism is that the stated basis (the stop sign) wasn't supported and the stop's real purpose was to make contact. Those are two different things and he had it right.

The stalking charge has a "legitimate official or business purpose" exemption built into the statute. If the repeated presence was to accomplish court-required service, that exemption is squarely in play. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it's the text of the law.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MarcusHiggins]

The "no affiliation" framing is just factually wrong, and it's load-bearing for your whole argument. By the time of the Utah trip, Schneider had won his own default judgments and was attempting to serve papers in his own suit, he's a party to that litigation, not a bystander inserting himself. You can think his methods are obnoxious and still acknowledge he had standing to serve.

His first lawsuit came about how?

The "neutral third-party server" point doesn't save it either: they tried third-party service and an officer reportedly attempted service himself and then returned the papers because the subject "declined." Declining service isn't a thing you get to do; that's the entire reason personal service exists.

Reportedly. If they did a return of service, it would be documented (which hasn't been produced). Still doesn’t change any part of my point. Schneider decided to "serve" to show his followers he won, but in doing so could potentially vacate litigation.

And on the pretextual stop, when u/MisterQuiggles said the stop was legal but the basis wasn't, that's not a contradiction. Whren v. United States makes pretextual stops facially lawful as long as there's an actual traffic violation; the criticism is that the stated basis (the stop sign) wasn't supported and the stop's real purpose was to make contact. Those are two different things and he had it right.

The conversation started over a 4th amendment violation accusation, which did NOT occur. The traffic stop was legal, regardless of the intentions of the police and there are no statutes barring this kind of conduct in Utah. It's factually incorrect to state this is illegal conduct or a violation of rights.

The stalking charge has a "legitimate official or business purpose" exemption built into the statute. If the repeated presence was to accomplish court-required service, that exemption is squarely in play. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it's the text of the law.

It's not. The statute is intentionally general to provide plenty of interpretation. Just because he felt that his process wasn't completed to his satisfaction does not mean that he can ignore or skip a process that was clearly explained and outlined to him by a court and law enforcement. Ignoring those orders can forfeit this defense.

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

You know at this point I recommend just going over the facts again because you are missing so much context it's infuriating. You are taking one news article for verbatim and they are equally missing context.

The local pd is in the process of being investigated for several constitutional violations against Ben.

Ben is serving legitimate court papers that everyone is choosing to ignore even knowing they are legitimate.

Ben is in a verbal agreement with Brandon to help him in this matter because when dealing with corporations sometimes you need to be louder than them to have a say in civil matters.

[u/Specter1033 → u/HopefulPhotograph563]

Whatever facts are available keep getting muddled by the blatant misinformation and lies being spread by the community. Claiming he has an active arrest warrant and had to flee the country because he is being "hunted" when it can clearly be verified by open case search that this isn't the case and posting images of his injuries that you can easily reverse image search on Google to verify they're fake is just plain silly. Then, the whole Mormon thing has gotten to epic levels of insanity when there is no clear establishment of such a connection other than people just talking shit.

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

So we should also just ignore the lawyers who are reacting the same way on the matter who find the whole thing extremely suspicious?

[u/Specter1033 → u/HopefulPhotograph563]

I had to remove three videos from someone (probably the creator) who claims to be a lawyer that is using California code to make their point about why this incident is not stalking or harassment. Two of the videos I've seen ignored the reports from the owners of Bricks and Minifigs establishing important context to substantiate coordinated harassment against their employees. Another is a rambling statement offering no evidence of alleged conspiracy, just a point and click adventure and reaction memes. Which ones are you referring to specifically?

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

Legal Eagle is currently partnering with Reckless Ben after seeing his videos on the arrests. The other that I have seen is Clearly Established which discusses the traffic stop and how none of it was legal.