Hershey's is an international jaggernaunt and unless Mr Beast is using only a handful of other chocolatier's chocolate his chocolate base is 97% chance a Hershey sourced product (they also contract for Cadbury in US ) Mr. Beast can't even begin to put a dent in Hershey's Market share though his chocolate are pretty good(I have tried them.....on a hunch from what Ive tastedI think its Christopher's casting chocolate and not Hershey's)
I personally agree with upper echelons take on the rubix cube offer being illegal manipulation of the outcomes of a game show. And i think the “Beast game” incidents as well as the Ava, discord leaks, really puts them in hot water.
Just goes to show that mr beast has no integrity, cant take criticism, has a fragile ego and surrounds himself with yes men. The clip with Keith Lee was all I needed to watch to know that he couldn’t take Keith’s integrity as a food reviewer and his preferences. He was visibility shaken and baffled that Keith decided to stick to his own integrity instead of reciprocating the “huge favor” he is giving Keith by putting him on his platform etc.
I think the issue here is that kids, which is his main audience, does not know his videos are fake. Sure, we can say it's fake since we grew up with WWE, but we are not the main audience. But kids nowadays cannot tell, just like we believed WWE back in the day. And the fact that he never retracted that his videos are real is also a problem for those kids. Meanwhile in WWE they admitted it was fake to make it clear.
@little_dandelion Here, there was a parasocial relationship alleged with at least one minor, now an adult and something must be done about this. We cannot allow content providers to prey on children in private discord chats and whatsapp or wherever across the internet. I don't care if it is a straight or trans woman or a gay or straight man on social media, no one should prey on their minor audience in any inappropriate way. IYKYK
The reason the guy is wearing the fake cop outfit is reference to a popular creator called idubbz who made content of exposing or talking about youtube creators. He would call it content cop he used a fake police outfit to do it I just now realized why he wear it lol.
While yes proving a crime is the ultimate goal of the video. The other goal is tear down the child friendly image of Mr beast. I do think you need to be held to a higher standard when dealing with kids
i thought i was up to date on most of this stuff, but i somehow missed the shadman stuff entirely and MAN was i not ready to hear that name out of nowhere lmao. Not just the shadmen, but the shadwomen and shadchildren too :(
Andrew is slightly wrong here, Shad never drew Keem's daughter in a explicit way that I can find, related to a president. After some deliberation and talking to some of his friends, Shad did take down the pictures of Keem's daughter from his site, but the internet is forever and they are still out there. He did however, draw a depiction of Hillary Clinton being a looli, and performing acts on a president that was hinted at being Trump. He also drew a real life child doing explicit things, and that's what ShadBase got deleted for, after her lawyers went after him. This is not a defense of any of his actions, just merely an explanation of someone who watched everything unfold.
what i learned in student council meetings is we weren't allowed to encourage gambling by making people pay and have a chance to not get anything or everything. So instead we let the students buy some candy and a raffle comes with it so they aren't losing money but also get a chance to win. So i agree with you that they are buying a shirt but getting a chance to win more
I feel like you were not really genuine in watching the video. You do know the audience is young children, right ? Not college graduates adults such as yourself with 20 years of being an adult experience.... The video you watched is non-monetized...
Remember that this content of mr beast is aimed to children, they specifically fish in that pond, in Europe, McDonalds was fined, sued and obliged to change very important aspects of their business like their menu and marketing strategies for a fraction of what this dude is doing. McDonalds brainwashed kids making them customers for life , a life full of diseases related to a very poor diet that they pushed into their system since day one in this world, their junk food was advertised as something healthy, convenient at a good price but they went a step far deeping into psychosocial aspects used in marketing like the reinforcement of a positive image by using their charitable works and sponsorships of the biggest events in the world, that meant that when you bought a Happy meal you contributed to fighting causes like the famine in Ethiopia or whatever , kids simply didn't have a chance . At least in Europe something was done about this , IDK in USA but comparing it to mr beast at least McDonalds has the excuse of being the first big brand being caught and they could argue that they didn't know and bla bla bla. That is not the case for mr beast who is doing the same and more using legal loopholes and the cracks of operating in a platform like YT . I don't care if he is a criminal or not , the jail or a sentence doesn't makes you better or worst person it's you, your actions and circumstances , and at the end that's all that matter.
Wouldn't Mr. Beast have to argue in court that his lotteries were covered under the criminal statute in order to win a defamation suit where he's claiming he was accused of a crime?
You don't have to accuse someone of committing a crime to defame them. Any untrue statement can be defamation if it is heard by a third party and causes the person damage. It's easier when the defamation is accusing a person of a crime because damages are assumed to have occurred, but if Mr. Beast can prove that this video caused him to lose money and that the claims are untrue (and that the guy had reason to know they weren't true) then he could win a defamation suit even if nothing he's being accused of is illegal.
@@themajesticamericanwoodcoc1951 Mr Beast is a public figure to the extent that he would have to prove that the statements were made with malicious intent to win except in cases of the accusations of a crime, at least to my understanding of US law on it.
@@FailedBard In the context of defamation law, actual malice just means knowledge of the falsity of the statement or a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was false. This guy is holding himself out as a former employee with inside knowledge of how Mr. Beast operates. Several things he references are first hand knowledge of conversations he either engaged in or was present to hear. For a claim like that he 100% knows if it's false because he has first hand knowledge. For something like the "only signing XL shirts" claim there's less of a case for actual malice since he seems to be basing that off of reddit posts (although you could argue reporting posts from pseudonymous redditors like they're fact is a reckless disregard for the truth but that tends to be more that you had cause to believe it was false but ignored it rather than you just didnt do enough research into the truth beforehand).
Also, this is all just stuff I'm getting from years of watching a bunch of different lawtubers and the fact that they seems to cover a surprisingly large amount of defamation cases. There may be state specific differences but this my understanding of the law based on all that.
@@themajesticamericanwoodcoc1951 It looks like Canda uses the same watered down definition of malice since 1995 as the US does. That's interesting; I thought it still required (at least here) that in regards to a public figure it had to both be provably false and made with the intention to harm the person reputationally. There's a character assassination defamation part here that falls moreso under what I was thinking that also covers half truths and out of context quotes used to damage a reputation, that I'm curious if it has a similar counterpart in the US.
2:15:06 chocolate is actually healthy, it’s the stuff we mix with it that makes it unhealthy but having just the coco (which is what makes chocolate chocolate) is actually fine. The MB chocolate what I have problems with is he said it’s a healthy bar and is healthier than Hersheys and he specifically says the brand. The make a bar healthy it needs very low sugar and fat (basically 0) so it’s not a healthy bar but it can still be healthier than Hershey if it’s lower in fat,sugar and calories. MB bar has more sugar and calories than a whole can of coke and double that of Hershey.
Ah, yes. Back when super popular RUclipsrs had balls and knew how to push boundaries while calling out BS. Good times. These same people today would be mocked ruthlessly by their younger selves.
@@Purplepentapus_sasly old new idubbz lives under new youtube reign. problem always comes back to how terrible youtube has become. very difficukt to be edgy and still earn a living unless your a fake communist who loves horses
I had a interview with Mr. Beasts interviewer and my own adult kids and 1 teen told me not to go.I didnt and glad i did not go. Take that as you want but that NDA is very real and the words are very to a point. Hundreds who bought bars and spun the wheel won things my own neighbor daughter won a tee shirt a wheely board and sticks. They never sent them and when she wrote they responded they would send it and never did. Online hundreds were CHEATED out of what they won. The tee shirts were not autographed by hin when they were told it would be autographed by MR BEAST!!!! There is allot but we all know he will hire lawyers and he will walk no matter what.
90 minutes in and I've heard him condescendingly say "it's not illegal!" a countless times and it's gotten annoying a long time ago. We KNOW they're not illegal, guess what, sexting a minor seems to not be illegal either but we don't let that fly in the society. But I guess Legal Mindset doesn't think we should complain because again... "it's not illegal!" Edit: He is sweeping HARD. "I'm sure mrbeast had a clause there" well if the youtuber needs to show it then so should you if you're gonna dismiss him like that.
@@Kittzu he's a lawyer, he's analyzing this from a legal perspective, plus the guy whose video he's reviewing was trying to sell Mr B's actions as illegal, so Mindset is just reiterating a point.
@@Purplesubmarinerperhaps this isn’t the right content for a “legal channel” then? But it’s easy to grift in this topic so Mindset is wise to cover it nonetheless.
@@Purplesubmariner Not at the start one definition of fraud is "A piece of trickery; a trick.". The start was focused on fake stuff then he got into forgery and competition rigging.
1:24:06 the problem is the guy was allegedly poor and his character in the competition is the typical sport film trope of the underdog beating all odds but MB paid him the mansion for appearing on the vid. They maintain the idea his just a poor guy MB bumped into but he’s actually a friend and the challenges are set up for him to triumph. This isn’t necessarily bad as if it’s a show or entertainment but the problem people have is they use this guy as an example to entice people to try and enter vids to be like him but ends up being another stepping stone for him. Again this isn’t necessarily bad if the contestants know it’s fake but if there’s any who think they can win then it’s a problem because they can’t. There was a vid of RUclipsrs playing hide and seek and the lady who won the competition was told by MB to pretend she didn’t win so Logan Paul can win even though he was already disqualified by that point.
Says he knows how videos work. Complains about the buildup to the actual illegal fraud and ignores his chat saying he is getting to it. Also fraud doesn't need to be illegal one such definition "A piece of trickery; a trick.".
I _accidentally_ watched one of Jimmy's videos, following a meme RUclips Short, because I became curious about the origin and authenticity of it. So, I'm watching along and all seems like fun and games, building up to this climactic spectacle, when Jimmy pulls out this little boy and sad music starts playing and he goes on about how this child has cancer, like _"I'M DOING THIS FOR _*_YOU,_*_ LIL' BILLY! 😩"_ (disclaimer, the name of the child was probably not Billy). This is of course not illegal, but as a viewer, I felt like the segment was irrelevant and only served to paint himself as this noble savior and any backlash towards Jimmy, could potentially be turned on you, for not supporting child cancer organizations. I got 3 things out of that video. *1:* The main event was entertaining to watch, even though it was only a handful of seconds, packed into a probably 15+/-minute video. *2:* Hoping that the child appearing in the video, albeit irrelevant to the content I came to consume, was able to get proper treatment and live a long and happy life. And *3:* Jimmy is a complete narcists with savior complex and I would not be interested in further of his content, but of course, allow any other person to do so, if they enjoy this type of content, not berate them for it and go on about my daily life. Ever since the "I worked for Mr.Beast- etc." video dropped, people have been very interested to see lawyers dissect it and clarify the legality of it all, so thank you for your time!
Yeah right! He's trying to appear like a "hero", "perfect man" and he said "i want to make the world better" and yet he didn't care about his friend Kris situation 😶
Around 2:47:00 "This might shock you, but Legal Mindset isn't my name. I could have my secretary sign it for me." Look, if Secretary Mindset was an attractive Asian lady. I'd rather have her signature than Andrews anyways.
Aren't people harmed when they think their contributions are going to help people and then don't? IDK what Mr. Beast is, even. But I'm guessing it's for online obsessed children.
50:45 wouldn’t The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, title 47, part 97 defines broadcasting as "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed". Put mr beast back under that risk?
1:11:37 There's a difference saying "Like and Subscribe to get more videos" and "Like and Subscribe. You might win a PS5 or a million dollars." Especially to kids. Also, the scripting his videos doesn't matter. Except showing a pattern of behavior. He said his videos are never scripted. "Because there's like a million things and it would be impossible." If they actually are scripted, then he lied. If he later started scripting them, He said it would be impossible to script and has never said the opposite. It's safe to assume his stance haven't changed, which means he lied by omission. If he lied about that, what else has he lied about? Is he really putting cash in the packages when people buy a hoodie right away? The crap he does to fake videos might not be illegal, but it's definitely skeezy and kids probably shouldn't be watching it (or be on the internet at all without supervision).
I've only ever seen clips every now and then so I don't know them very well, but I thought the content cop videos didn't have accusations of illegal activities. I thought they just called out unethical but typically legal things other creators did. Am I wrong on that one?
@@Roberthomas Right, I agree there. Just thinking on whether that's a good idea to do or not. I think if you're going to be making strong claims of illegal activity, probably best not to play too much into the entertainment angle. If you're just criticizing someone as being a jerk or being very fake with their presentation then I don't think it's as risky.
oh yeah, the stuff about fake drama is not gonna do anything, its rumored that people invent and script drama between each other while also sometimes dragging unwilling participants on purpose by forcefully overreacting to bullshit.
the guy with the huge pupils (aside from the fact that he's looking so crazily at the camera) i think it could be because of the lighting. i've noticed before in videos that people's pupils get huge when they're in a dark room like that.
There is so much bad behavior to point out and the proof is put there, the mess is beyond words or even numbers, lots of people will loose it all, the bad kind in this case and that's awesome on my book 😬
One bad argument that was made here I think is that because the majority thought he was committing fraud therefore he wasn’t committing fraud. That would be like saying because the majority of people knew Al Capone was committing fraud therefore he wasn’t committing fraud because everyone knew it. Also I think he’s missing the bigger claim here. Which is that for contests that he advertises would be played by randomly selected followers were won by people under his employment and close friends. People that he was paying ie not selected random followers. And in a contest, manipulating a shot clock or a game clock would be fraudulent since it was a contest. (They don’t edit the time clock in NFL games in post.) The earlier fakery was just pointing out his character.
Sweden has no age of consent as long as the persons having sex is of a similar age, it's legal. It is illegal for people over the age of 15 to have sex with people under the age of 15. But if there is a wide discrepancy in age it's also illegal to have sex with someone under 18.
Idea for a LegalMinset giveaway or loot box, maybe a "1-time Pro Bono" coupon? Doubt the winner would even use it but would be funny to say we have you on call 🤣
I think a big issue people aren’t getting is the difference between what is moral and what is legal. A lot of immoral things are completely legal in this country and so it looks like Mr Beast is “getting away with it” but he most likely hasn’t committed a crime in the first place only acted in a potentially immoral way. The courts can’t and are not supposed to solve every problem if Mr Beast is doing immoral things (and it looks like he might) then it’s up to the individuals to hold him accountable usually by not buying his products, participating in his videos, as well as watching them. But that takes effort and work especially if you are one of the parents of his child audience. It’s much easier to point and shout “why hasn’t the law done anything about him!?” Then take in into your own hands (in an appropriate manner).
Yep, and Mindset spends much of this video saying “it’s not technically illegal” when the guy is making mostly moral judgment. And before I see “this is a legal channel tho,” perhaps this isn’t appropriate topic for the channel. But the grift must flow, and EFAPing a popular video brings in the dough.
I have no idea if Andrew will see this but I hope he does because i'd love to pick his brain. 1. Defamation. Defamation has a high burden of proof including maliciousness. Could he use this video as evidence that after seeing what he did he truly believes what he's saying and there isnt maliciousness behind it? 2. The contests. I know Andrew said that nothing has been charged especially with the internet but Mr. Beast is the biggest independent creator on the platform. Do you think this could be the sleeping dragon that is awoken and gets the FCC to starting turning their head to begin regulation? 3. The outfit. If this would go to court for point 1, do you think that could potentially be a sticking point against him since he didn't directly stating that he's making a throwback to Content Cop as a series?
do you know what you sounds like to me? he has a lots of power, dont try to mess with him. also why are you cosplaying to be cop, it is copyright. go to jail and mind your own business.
FCC only has jurisdiction over the public airwaves. There's a whole list of words frequently used on the internet that the FCC won't let you say on radio.
"I am better than the biggest American brand, therefore I'm the best at chocolate" may be legal to say but is both patently wrong and offensive to Europe, especially the entire nation of Switzerland and "nation" of Belgium.
Nice breakdown. One point - it's totally ok for regular people to not know how TV, film, media is put together. They are entertained, believing it is totally genuine is absolutely fine, people aren't idiots for not knowing how post production works. Doesn't really matter, but they're not "idiots". if they then start trying to make documentaries or reports about something without first educating themselves about the topic, that's a different issue.
This is why I don’t like being in chatrooms where borderline jokes/edgy humor are the norm. Theres always the possibility that at least one person isn’t joking around. Unless I know the person well, I’m not going to take any chances.
For frivolous reality style TV, I'm not surprised that a lot of these videos are staged or altered in some way. When I was young I learned TV news interviews and nature documentaries will have things faked. An establishing shot when an interviewer knocks on someone's door? They've just had a meeting on how to greet each other. A cheetah steps on a twig and startles a gazelle? The snap sound was added in post and the reaction from the gazelle was from a totally different moment that looked better. Many young people, though, probably have no idea this is how TV/RUclips works.
2:05:06 if age is irrelevant then why is there laws about the way you market a product to children such as mascots and 80s cartoons being long expensive adds. There have been times shows and food have gotten into trouble for manipulative marketing towards children and the situation was about the tactics being used only work on children.
Also, why there is a censored RUclips for kids, where advertising products is not allowed? Just let kids see all videos if advertising to kids lotteries is ok.
Ahh, so if you murder thousands of people, or steal from thousands of people or do ANYTHING bad, so long as you do something FAR MORE GOODER, you shouldn't be perceived as evil or bad - logic according to the commenter, @Weird.
I’ve watched a few of his videos in the past and always felt like there was something fake about them, nothing I could put my finger on but enough that I stopped watching them
Congress has already debated years ago on the matters of whether or not drawings, and depictions were considered as illegal pornography. In the end both Houses of congress agreed they were not, because the drawings aren't from an actual model posing in nudity. There exists a 1 in 135 chance of a person having a doppleganger. In a research they studied 32 doppelgangers, and discovered that a certain part of the genetic code attributed to matching facial features. What is the relevance of this regarding drawings, and depictions? is the very fact that an artist painting, or drawing of a random depiction of a person place, or thing, is more likely to be a replication of an actual person, place, or thing that exists, or has existed in real world reality at some point. Meaning a person, place, or thing in itself cannot be copyrighted outside of an actual rendered copy of the underlying person, place or thing, that is the object of a particular ownership.
Fictional characters aren't real. But drawing real children doing actual inappropriate sexual behavior is COUNTED as CP. By real children, I mean REAL Children with REAL Identities and Faces.
so herein we reawaken the question, if you do charity but its all out of pure cynical self interest, is it laudable? is it only the end result that matters or does intent matter as wel?
He probably didn't start with the better arguments, because he's not a lawyer and doesn't actually understand enough to know what the better arguments were.
I agree man. There's a lot of scummy stuff done with the advertising Mr Beast does for money, but his "exposed video" doesn't actually reveal anything not already known. Also there's no way to erase his "former" employee bias. He has no reciepts or at least doesn't show any of them. He also dresses up like he's IDubbs(for more attention..). I don't think it's wrong to take the video with a grain of salt. Just my opinion.
I think we should be careful and call Shadman by the full name Every time I hear shad I think of the FNT Shadiversity sword guy Shadman is shady Shad is a loveable guy
It may be tax evasion in some countries, but it depends on where you live... If you receive it here, you will have a lot of things to explain and you probably have to stay in jail for a long time...
44:23 You're assuming all bfs gfs sleep together? I have known many couples who were 14/18 or 15/19, but the difference is that those relationships did not involve sexual conduct. My own male friends as a teen in high school were an average of 4 years older than me. None of it was criminal.
1:18:04 So defamation per se is the only type of defamation? The false statement does not need to be an allegation of a crime. Per se just means you do not need to establish quantum as an element of the tort - so upfront. You still have to establish it at the end for an award though. But it would make it easier to sue for a Dollar, to be able to say that you have a judgement - and that you have been utterly vindicated.
Hajimemashite onamae wa? Yeah i took 2 semesters of japanese and that and writing my name in katakana is all i remember Have fun in Japan (nihango? I think that means the language not the country) friend!
That video had a lot of speculation and moral judgements but not much that could be used to pin down Mr. Beast in court. I think a lot of people are letting their emotions get the better of them and are forgetting that just because something is immoral doesn't mean it's illegal or vice versa.
I think it's moreso the immoral aspect that has people pissed, his whole persona is being this philanthropist who helps people and does cool things and hosts game shows and comes off as this fun guy, while the reality is he's basically a con man operating under rather gray legal measures that at most would be a fine/slap on the wrist.
@@geekmechanic1473 Because there is no such thing as a good Ultra rich people, like people describe about Beast, People who are at the top of pyramid manage to get there because they are opportunistic.
The signature is a little misleading, I read it as the T shirt would be signed with the signature of the crew member who signed it, not "I'm lazy fake my signature". For a guy who claims to respect others maybe take the time to write a mb logo.
That guys eyeballs while filming himself under his bed at the start of this "expose" vid at around the 57min mark lol! Why is he hiding under his bed to start his film tho?!
Whether his audience are children is irrelevant in regards to whether he committed fraud, yes; it is however incredibly relevant IF participation in any giveaway is considered gambling. At least theoretically. If anything would happen even assuming it was gambling is a different question. I got no clue about US child gambling laws tbh, and I don't think it's realistic he'd be sued by people in most other places. English speaking fanbases are only really global if they are older than his because kids don't speak ESL yet, so I'd guess his fanbase is overwhelmingly American and Canadian with a chunk of the remains from other English speaking countries, so as long as he's not violating child gambling laws as they tend to generally look in members of the US and commonwealth, assuming they are similar throughout each, he'll be fine.
don't know about you but I have as most men an integrated a...ole detector you see someone's face and you immediately know if it's someone you want to interact with or not, mr beast is in the 2nd category and the guy on the right of him in the lottery part with the closeup straight to the extremely suspect person, never seen someone with that kind of face not doing something bad, seriously he's looking left and right as in a fight or flight scenario it's obvious same at 1min48 it's written on his forehead "dishonest do not interact with me" IN MY OPINION that's what I need to add no ?
11 out of 10 nutritionists agree that chocolate bars are healthier than working for Nijisanji
As a nutritionist, I agree with this
As a non-nutritionist, I also agree with this
Just chocolate is very healthy. What isn't is all the added sugar for candy
As a chocolate bar, I agree with this
Does this mean I can intake as much Hershey and Ferrero Rocher as much as I want?
Wait, hol'up, I'm a member now? I didn't notice that someone gifted me in today's stream. Whoever you're, thank you.
This should get pinned =)
I guess sometimes it happen
Yay 😂 I've had that surprise me before too.
I also want to thank the person who renew my membership on this stream, thank you
I'm a bit surprised no one commented on MrBeast directly asking his followers to mess with their competitors (Hersheys) product display in stores.
That is shitty to do, but I don't know if it is criminal
@@ElektronDeForzaseems criminal...
Asmongold brought that up, not sure about other people.
unfair competition
Hershey's is an international jaggernaunt and unless Mr Beast is using only a handful of other chocolatier's chocolate his chocolate base is 97% chance a Hershey sourced product (they also contract for Cadbury in US )
Mr. Beast can't even begin to put a dent in Hershey's Market share though his chocolate are pretty good(I have tried them.....on a hunch from what Ive tastedI think its Christopher's casting chocolate and not Hershey's)
I personally agree with upper echelons take on the rubix cube offer being illegal manipulation of the outcomes of a game show.
And i think the “Beast game” incidents as well as the Ava, discord leaks, really puts them in hot water.
Just goes to show that mr beast has no integrity, cant take criticism, has a fragile ego and surrounds himself with yes men. The clip with Keith Lee was all I needed to watch to know that he couldn’t take Keith’s integrity as a food reviewer and his preferences. He was visibility shaken and baffled that Keith decided to stick to his own integrity instead of reciprocating the “huge favor” he is giving Keith by putting him on his platform etc.
Never seen even 1 beast video, ever
Same here!🙋🏻♂️
i mean, are you aged 7-12?
if not, then you're not his target audience...
@@_JoeVer I didn't know that either so... I mean, thanks for educating me on beast? I guess?
Same, if random shorts and collabs don’t count
Me neither. I’ve heard of him but I’ve never seen a video.
I think the issue here is that kids, which is his main audience, does not know his videos are fake. Sure, we can say it's fake since we grew up with WWE, but we are not the main audience. But kids nowadays cannot tell, just like we believed WWE back in the day. And the fact that he never retracted that his videos are real is also a problem for those kids. Meanwhile in WWE they admitted it was fake to make it clear.
Predators target the easy preys. The easiest are the most vulnerable.
@little_dandelion Here, there was a parasocial relationship alleged with at least one minor, now an adult and something must be done about this. We cannot allow content providers to prey on children in private discord chats and whatsapp or wherever across the internet. I don't care if it is a straight or trans woman or a gay or straight man on social media, no one should prey on their minor audience in any inappropriate way. IYKYK
The reason the guy is wearing the fake cop outfit is reference to a popular creator called idubbz who made content of exposing or talking about youtube creators. He would call it content cop he used a fake police outfit to do it I just now realized why he wear it lol.
Yeah I got it afterwords but it missed totally st first
@@LegalMindset totally honest with you I didn't realize why he was wearing one until you pointed it out. Then I realized oh it's a call back.
What we do here is go back-back-back-back.
RIP idubbz
While yes proving a crime is the ultimate goal of the video. The other goal is tear down the child friendly image of Mr beast. I do think you need to be held to a higher standard when dealing with kids
Im 90% sure he chose the cop outfit due to content cop
“Healthy chocolate bars” lmao 😂
i thought i was up to date on most of this stuff, but i somehow missed the shadman stuff entirely and MAN was i not ready to hear that name out of nowhere lmao.
Not just the shadmen, but the shadwomen and shadchildren too :(
Andrew is slightly wrong here, Shad never drew Keem's daughter in a explicit way that I can find, related to a president. After some deliberation and talking to some of his friends, Shad did take down the pictures of Keem's daughter from his site, but the internet is forever and they are still out there. He did however, draw a depiction of Hillary Clinton being a looli, and performing acts on a president that was hinted at being Trump. He also drew a real life child doing explicit things, and that's what ShadBase got deleted for, after her lawyers went after him. This is not a defense of any of his actions, just merely an explanation of someone who watched everything unfold.
Always informative + entertaining.
Gotta love a legal mindset.
Cancelling people for talking to Shadman is like cancelling people for driving a Mercedes or for dressing in Hugo Boss or Coco Chanel.
Similar to Cancelling McDonald's because a Jew made that Franchise that has Zero correlation in the Israel-Hamas Conflict.
what i learned in student council meetings is we weren't allowed to encourage gambling by making people pay and have a chance to not get anything or everything.
So instead we let the students buy some candy and a raffle comes with it so they aren't losing money but also get a chance to win.
So i agree with you that they are buying a shirt but getting a chance to win more
I've finally watched Mr. Beast content. Too bad for him it was on channels trying to tkae him down
I feel like you were not really genuine in watching the video. You do know the audience is young children, right ? Not college graduates adults such as yourself with 20 years of being an adult experience....
The video you watched is non-monetized...
I can't believe your real name isn't Legal Mindset. Unsubscribed!!!😡
@@neku2741 😭
His true name are Legally Longman however his stand true name remain a mystery.
Lmao! 😂😂
Mentis Lex, the bane of all not legally registered LLCs 😊
I really hate Jimmy fake smile. Now i got a legitimate reason to hate him.
Remember that this content of mr beast is aimed to children, they specifically fish in that pond, in Europe, McDonalds was fined, sued and obliged to change very important aspects of their business like their menu and marketing strategies for a fraction of what this dude is doing.
McDonalds brainwashed kids making them customers for life , a life full of diseases related to a very poor diet that they pushed into their system since day one in this world, their junk food was advertised as something healthy, convenient at a good price but they went a step far deeping into psychosocial aspects used in marketing like the reinforcement of a positive image by using their charitable works and sponsorships of the biggest events in the world, that meant that when you bought a Happy meal you contributed to fighting causes like the famine in Ethiopia or whatever , kids simply didn't have a chance .
At least in Europe something was done about this , IDK in USA but comparing it to mr beast at least McDonalds has the excuse of being the first big brand being caught and they could argue that they didn't know and bla bla bla. That is not the case for mr beast who is doing the same and more using legal loopholes and the cracks of operating in a platform like YT .
I don't care if he is a criminal or not , the jail or a sentence doesn't makes you better or worst person it's you, your actions and circumstances , and at the end that's all that matter.
It's a good thing that I consider McDonald's burgers tastes bad. But now I like Burger King lol
Wouldn't Mr. Beast have to argue in court that his lotteries were covered under the criminal statute in order to win a defamation suit where he's claiming he was accused of a crime?
You don't have to accuse someone of committing a crime to defame them. Any untrue statement can be defamation if it is heard by a third party and causes the person damage. It's easier when the defamation is accusing a person of a crime because damages are assumed to have occurred, but if Mr. Beast can prove that this video caused him to lose money and that the claims are untrue (and that the guy had reason to know they weren't true) then he could win a defamation suit even if nothing he's being accused of is illegal.
@@themajesticamericanwoodcoc1951 Mr Beast is a public figure to the extent that he would have to prove that the statements were made with malicious intent to win except in cases of the accusations of a crime, at least to my understanding of US law on it.
@@FailedBard In the context of defamation law, actual malice just means knowledge of the falsity of the statement or a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was false. This guy is holding himself out as a former employee with inside knowledge of how Mr. Beast operates. Several things he references are first hand knowledge of conversations he either engaged in or was present to hear. For a claim like that he 100% knows if it's false because he has first hand knowledge. For something like the "only signing XL shirts" claim there's less of a case for actual malice since he seems to be basing that off of reddit posts (although you could argue reporting posts from pseudonymous redditors like they're fact is a reckless disregard for the truth but that tends to be more that you had cause to believe it was false but ignored it rather than you just didnt do enough research into the truth beforehand).
Also, this is all just stuff I'm getting from years of watching a bunch of different lawtubers and the fact that they seems to cover a surprisingly large amount of defamation cases. There may be state specific differences but this my understanding of the law based on all that.
@@themajesticamericanwoodcoc1951 It looks like Canda uses the same watered down definition of malice since 1995 as the US does. That's interesting; I thought it still required (at least here) that in regards to a public figure it had to both be provably false and made with the intention to harm the person reputationally.
There's a character assassination defamation part here that falls moreso under what I was thinking that also covers half truths and out of context quotes used to damage a reputation, that I'm curious if it has a similar counterpart in the US.
2:15:06 chocolate is actually healthy, it’s the stuff we mix with it that makes it unhealthy but having just the coco (which is what makes chocolate chocolate) is actually fine. The MB chocolate what I have problems with is he said it’s a healthy bar and is healthier than Hersheys and he specifically says the brand. The make a bar healthy it needs very low sugar and fat (basically 0) so it’s not a healthy bar but it can still be healthier than Hershey if it’s lower in fat,sugar and calories. MB bar has more sugar and calories than a whole can of coke and double that of Hershey.
Just in case nobody said it in chat, the police uniform was a reference to idubzzz old series called content cop
Ah, yes. Back when super popular RUclipsrs had balls and knew how to push boundaries while calling out BS. Good times. These same people today would be mocked ruthlessly by their younger selves.
@@MundaneThingsBackwards old idubzzz would tear new idubzzz to shreds, it would be a cold blooded murder
@@Purplepentapus_sasly old new idubbz lives under new youtube reign.
problem always comes back to how terrible youtube has become. very difficukt to be edgy and still earn a living unless your a fake communist who loves horses
I had a interview with Mr. Beasts interviewer and my own adult kids and 1 teen told me not to go.I didnt and glad i did not go. Take that as you want but that NDA is very real and the words are very to a point. Hundreds who bought bars and spun the wheel won things my own neighbor daughter won a tee shirt a wheely board and sticks. They never sent them and when she wrote they responded they would send it and never did. Online hundreds were CHEATED out of what they won. The tee shirts were not autographed by hin when they were told it would be autographed by MR BEAST!!!! There is allot but we all know he will hire lawyers and he will walk no matter what.
The complaint on the Mr beast videos is not a matter of them being illegal, but rather immoral.
90 minutes in and I've heard him condescendingly say "it's not illegal!" a countless times and it's gotten annoying a long time ago. We KNOW they're not illegal, guess what, sexting a minor seems to not be illegal either but we don't let that fly in the society. But I guess Legal Mindset doesn't think we should complain because again... "it's not illegal!"
Edit: He is sweeping HARD. "I'm sure mrbeast had a clause there" well if the youtuber needs to show it then so should you if you're gonna dismiss him like that.
@@Kittzu he's a lawyer, he's analyzing this from a legal perspective, plus the guy whose video he's reviewing was trying to sell Mr B's actions as illegal, so Mindset is just reiterating a point.
@@Purplesubmarinerperhaps this isn’t the right content for a “legal channel” then? But it’s easy to grift in this topic so Mindset is wise to cover it nonetheless.
@@Purplesubmariner Not at the start one definition of fraud is "A piece of trickery; a trick.". The start was focused on fake stuff then he got into forgery and competition rigging.
1:24:06 the problem is the guy was allegedly poor and his character in the competition is the typical sport film trope of the underdog beating all odds but MB paid him the mansion for appearing on the vid. They maintain the idea his just a poor guy MB bumped into but he’s actually a friend and the challenges are set up for him to triumph. This isn’t necessarily bad as if it’s a show or entertainment but the problem people have is they use this guy as an example to entice people to try and enter vids to be like him but ends up being another stepping stone for him. Again this isn’t necessarily bad if the contestants know it’s fake but if there’s any who think they can win then it’s a problem because they can’t. There was a vid of RUclipsrs playing hide and seek and the lady who won the competition was told by MB to pretend she didn’t win so Logan Paul can win even though he was already disqualified by that point.
Says he knows how videos work. Complains about the buildup to the actual illegal fraud and ignores his chat saying he is getting to it. Also fraud doesn't need to be illegal one such definition "A piece of trickery; a trick.".
I _accidentally_ watched one of Jimmy's videos, following a meme RUclips Short, because I became curious about the origin and authenticity of it. So, I'm watching along and all seems like fun and games, building up to this climactic spectacle, when Jimmy pulls out this little boy and sad music starts playing and he goes on about how this child has cancer, like _"I'M DOING THIS FOR _*_YOU,_*_ LIL' BILLY! 😩"_ (disclaimer, the name of the child was probably not Billy). This is of course not illegal, but as a viewer, I felt like the segment was irrelevant and only served to paint himself as this noble savior and any backlash towards Jimmy, could potentially be turned on you, for not supporting child cancer organizations.
I got 3 things out of that video. *1:* The main event was entertaining to watch, even though it was only a handful of seconds, packed into a probably 15+/-minute video. *2:* Hoping that the child appearing in the video, albeit irrelevant to the content I came to consume, was able to get proper treatment and live a long and happy life. And *3:* Jimmy is a complete narcists with savior complex and I would not be interested in further of his content, but of course, allow any other person to do so, if they enjoy this type of content, not berate them for it and go on about my daily life.
Ever since the "I worked for Mr.Beast- etc." video dropped, people have been very interested to see lawyers dissect it and clarify the legality of it all, so thank you for your time!
Yeah right! He's trying to appear like a "hero", "perfect man" and he said "i want to make the world better" and yet he didn't care about his friend Kris situation 😶
Around 2:47:00 "This might shock you, but Legal Mindset isn't my name. I could have my secretary sign it for me." Look, if Secretary Mindset was an attractive Asian lady. I'd rather have her signature than Andrews anyways.
Aren't people harmed when they think their contributions are going to help people and then don't? IDK what Mr. Beast is, even. But I'm guessing it's for online obsessed children.
50:45 wouldn’t The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, title 47, part 97 defines broadcasting as "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed". Put mr beast back under that risk?
Wait a sec. I'm baffled. I'm shocked. I'm in disbelief. You're telling me the Kardashians show was FAKE ? OMG!!!
1:11:37 There's a difference saying "Like and Subscribe to get more videos" and "Like and Subscribe. You might win a PS5 or a million dollars." Especially to kids.
Also, the scripting his videos doesn't matter. Except showing a pattern of behavior. He said his videos are never scripted. "Because there's like a million things and it would be impossible." If they actually are scripted, then he lied. If he later started scripting them, He said it would be impossible to script and has never said the opposite. It's safe to assume his stance haven't changed, which means he lied by omission. If he lied about that, what else has he lied about? Is he really putting cash in the packages when people buy a hoodie right away?
The crap he does to fake videos might not be illegal, but it's definitely skeezy and kids probably shouldn't be watching it (or be on the internet at all without supervision).
Actual chocolate is healthy... 100%. What isn't healthy is the SUGAR that is in chocolate candy
He’s wearing a cop costume because he’s doing a Content Cop. Remember when idubbbz used to wear a shitty cop costume?
I still remember an old youtube series called "retarded policeman" before that
I've only ever seen clips every now and then so I don't know them very well, but I thought the content cop videos didn't have accusations of illegal activities. I thought they just called out unethical but typically legal things other creators did. Am I wrong on that one?
@@Keeki95 I didn’t see every content cop but I don’t think that matters. This is clearly in the style of a content cop.
@@Roberthomas Right, I agree there. Just thinking on whether that's a good idea to do or not. I think if you're going to be making strong claims of illegal activity, probably best not to play too much into the entertainment angle. If you're just criticizing someone as being a jerk or being very fake with their presentation then I don't think it's as risky.
It’ll be the biggest false advertising lawsuit since The Never ending Story.
oh yeah, the stuff about fake drama is not gonna do anything, its rumored that people invent and script drama between each other while also sometimes dragging unwilling participants on purpose by forcefully overreacting to bullshit.
Next Mr Beast video could be 1$ vs 1000000$ Lawyer
Something can be legal and still wrong at the same time.
the guy with the huge pupils (aside from the fact that he's looking so crazily at the camera) i think it could be because of the lighting. i've noticed before in videos that people's pupils get huge when they're in a dark room like that.
There is so much bad behavior to point out and the proof is put there, the mess is beyond words or even numbers, lots of people will loose it all, the bad kind in this case and that's awesome on my book 😬
One bad argument that was made here I think is that because the majority thought he was committing fraud therefore he wasn’t committing fraud. That would be like saying because the majority of people knew Al Capone was committing fraud therefore he wasn’t committing fraud because everyone knew it.
Also I think he’s missing the bigger claim here. Which is that for contests that he advertises would be played by randomly selected followers were won by people under his employment and close friends. People that he was paying ie not selected random followers. And in a contest, manipulating a shot clock or a game clock would be fraudulent since it was a contest. (They don’t edit the time clock in NFL games in post.)
The earlier fakery was just pointing out his character.
Sweden has no age of consent as long as the persons having sex is of a similar age, it's legal.
It is illegal for people over the age of 15 to have sex with people under the age of 15.
But if there is a wide discrepancy in age it's also illegal to have sex with someone under 18.
Idea for a LegalMinset giveaway or loot box, maybe a "1-time Pro Bono" coupon? Doubt the winner would even use it but would be funny to say we have you on call 🤣
2:41:00 wouldnt the million dollar winner have to pay tax on the car and the house?
100%%%
Out of all things that will screwed Mr. beast for money, it’s saying his chocolate cookies are healthy
I think a big issue people aren’t getting is the difference between what is moral and what is legal. A lot of immoral things are completely legal in this country and so it looks like Mr Beast is “getting away with it” but he most likely hasn’t committed a crime in the first place only acted in a potentially immoral way. The courts can’t and are not supposed to solve every problem if Mr Beast is doing immoral things (and it looks like he might) then it’s up to the individuals to hold him accountable usually by not buying his products, participating in his videos, as well as watching them. But that takes effort and work especially if you are one of the parents of his child audience. It’s much easier to point and shout “why hasn’t the law done anything about him!?” Then take in into your own hands (in an appropriate manner).
Ava Chris Tyson on the other hand. Strong chance a crime has been committed and should be investigated.
Yep, and Mindset spends much of this video saying “it’s not technically illegal” when the guy is making mostly moral judgment. And before I see “this is a legal channel tho,” perhaps this isn’t appropriate topic for the channel. But the grift must flow, and EFAPing a popular video brings in the dough.
@@flashdrc that doesn’t really apply to the topic as the video in question was trying to frame at least half of the controversy as a legal issue.
I have no idea if Andrew will see this but I hope he does because i'd love to pick his brain.
1. Defamation. Defamation has a high burden of proof including maliciousness. Could he use this video as evidence that after seeing what he did he truly believes what he's saying and there isnt maliciousness behind it?
2. The contests. I know Andrew said that nothing has been charged especially with the internet but Mr. Beast is the biggest independent creator on the platform. Do you think this could be the sleeping dragon that is awoken and gets the FCC to starting turning their head to begin regulation?
3. The outfit. If this would go to court for point 1, do you think that could potentially be a sticking point against him since he didn't directly stating that he's making a throwback to Content Cop as a series?
do you know what you sounds like to me? he has a lots of power, dont try to mess with him. also why are you cosplaying to be cop, it is copyright. go to jail and mind your own business.
I'm hoping there is a class action lawsuit again him.
FCC only has jurisdiction over the public airwaves. There's a whole list of words frequently used on the internet that the FCC won't let you say on radio.
"I am better than the biggest American brand, therefore I'm the best at chocolate" may be legal to say but is both patently wrong and offensive to Europe, especially the entire nation of Switzerland and "nation" of Belgium.
Nice breakdown. One point - it's totally ok for regular people to not know how TV, film, media is put together. They are entertained, believing it is totally genuine is absolutely fine, people aren't idiots for not knowing how post production works. Doesn't really matter, but they're not "idiots".
if they then start trying to make documentaries or reports about something without first educating themselves about the topic, that's a different issue.
This is why I don’t like being in chatrooms where borderline jokes/edgy humor are the norm. Theres always the possibility that at least one person isn’t joking around. Unless I know the person well, I’m not going to take any chances.
The Discord server in question had plenty of, if not majority minor members. This would have been the same Discord server that LavaGS participated in.
For frivolous reality style TV, I'm not surprised that a lot of these videos are staged or altered in some way. When I was young I learned TV news interviews and nature documentaries will have things faked.
An establishing shot when an interviewer knocks on someone's door? They've just had a meeting on how to greet each other. A cheetah steps on a twig and startles a gazelle? The snap sound was added in post and the reaction from the gazelle was from a totally different moment that looked better.
Many young people, though, probably have no idea this is how TV/RUclips works.
There is a difference between editing and altering.
2:05:06 if age is irrelevant then why is there laws about the way you market a product to children such as mascots and 80s cartoons being long expensive adds. There have been times shows and food have gotten into trouble for manipulative marketing towards children and the situation was about the tactics being used only work on children.
Also, why there is a censored RUclips for kids, where advertising products is not allowed? Just let kids see all videos if advertising to kids lotteries is ok.
I knew there was going to be someone in chat malding about LM calling Kirsche a spicy cat girl not knowing the reference.
Ahh, so if you murder thousands of people, or steal from thousands of people or do ANYTHING bad, so long as you do something FAR MORE GOODER, you shouldn't be perceived as evil or bad - logic according to the commenter, @Weird.
I love the guy’s video intro. But then, I’m not old.
Lmaoo Why TF I watch some randoms for 3 hours 💀💀 but I like ur voice honestly it's kinda entertaining to listen
I’ve watched a few of his videos in the past and always felt like there was something fake about them, nothing I could put my finger on but enough that I stopped watching them
Charles Manson didn’t kill anybody. Perfect mistake to make the point👍🏻
So tldr: Mr. Beast actions being criminal is possible, but tenuous. The moral aspect is pretty much despicable though.
again, jimmy is lying.
Congress has already debated years ago on the matters of whether or not drawings, and depictions were considered as illegal pornography.
In the end both Houses of congress agreed they were not, because the drawings aren't from an actual model posing in nudity.
There exists a 1 in 135 chance of a person having a doppleganger.
In a research they studied 32 doppelgangers, and discovered that a certain part of the genetic code attributed to matching facial features.
What is the relevance of this regarding drawings, and depictions? is the very fact that an artist painting, or drawing of a random depiction of a person place, or thing,
is more likely to be a replication of an actual person, place, or thing that exists, or has existed in real world reality at some point.
Meaning a person, place, or thing in itself cannot be copyrighted outside of an actual rendered copy of the underlying person, place or thing, that is the object
of a particular ownership.
Fictional characters aren't real.
But drawing real children doing actual inappropriate sexual behavior is COUNTED as CP.
By real children, I mean REAL Children with REAL Identities and Faces.
so herein we reawaken the question, if you do charity but its all out of pure cynical self interest, is it laudable? is it only the end result that matters or does intent matter as wel?
He probably didn't start with the better arguments, because he's not a lawyer and doesn't actually understand enough to know what the better arguments were.
Wait... so Survivor rigs things, but that's not the same as Mr Beast? Huh? How did you get to that conclusion?
I hope he can afford property taxes on that free house
If the give away was illegal then gdq would be fucked.
The intro music is fire when you play it at 1.75 speed. I'm locked in.
"Soliciting, enticing, seducing or luring". What if it's the minor who initiates and presses the sexual advances? Does this still apply?
MrBeast has gained 2m subs after the video dropped.
I agree man. There's a lot of scummy stuff done with the advertising Mr Beast does for money, but his "exposed video" doesn't actually reveal anything not already known. Also there's no way to erase his "former" employee bias. He has no reciepts or at least doesn't show any of them. He also dresses up like he's IDubbs(for more attention..).
I don't think it's wrong to take the video with a grain of salt. Just my opinion.
that's a based take,let's see how this goes after 3 months
I think we should be careful and call Shadman by the full name
Every time I hear shad I think of the FNT Shadiversity sword guy
Shadman is shady
Shad is a loveable guy
"Warm it up, Kris"
My question would be if his claims are true and it is illegal but they don't enforce it is it still defamation and can be sued for breach of NDA?
I know what VTuber I wanna be now.
Imma be the payed raccoon, and I’ll be a rich raccoon because I was in MrBeast video 😐
RUclips might not want this kind of videos out there, but sure they are putting a ton of adverts on it.
I’ve been saying he’s a diddler or diddler adjacent for the last decade. Sucks being correct on this one.
His face gives off that impression
Isn't mailing money illegal?
It may be tax evasion in some countries, but it depends on where you live... If you receive it here, you will have a lot of things to explain and you probably have to stay in jail for a long time...
44:23 You're assuming all bfs gfs sleep together? I have known many couples who were 14/18 or 15/19, but the difference is that those relationships did not involve sexual conduct. My own male friends as a teen in high school were an average of 4 years older than me. None of it was criminal.
Chris is Mr Beasts friend in real life. you are not that good a friend without have some degree of similar interests.
1:18:04 So defamation per se is the only type of defamation? The false statement does not need to be an allegation of a crime. Per se just means you do not need to establish quantum as an element of the tort - so upfront. You still have to establish it at the end for an award though. But it would make it easier to sue for a Dollar, to be able to say that you have a judgement - and that you have been utterly vindicated.
Good Morning! What a hilarious surprise this morning. 😂 That starting vid.
Andrew's intros once again are proving that he's having the most fun with this youtube shit
Lawyers can’t go 5 minutes without victim blaming, I can tell you are just hoping for MrBeast collab.
Hajimemashite onamae wa?
Yeah i took 2 semesters of japanese and that and writing my name in katakana is all i remember
Have fun in Japan (nihango? I think that means the language not the country) friend!
newgrounds gang
Are there cases where minors are knowlingly involved in baiting adults, until one finally bites, to take down?
That video had a lot of speculation and moral judgements but not much that could be used to pin down Mr. Beast in court. I think a lot of people are letting their emotions get the better of them and are forgetting that just because something is immoral doesn't mean it's illegal or vice versa.
I think it's moreso the immoral aspect that has people pissed, his whole persona is being this philanthropist who helps people and does cool things and hosts game shows and comes off as this fun guy, while the reality is he's basically a con man operating under rather gray legal measures that at most would be a fine/slap on the wrist.
@@Ballade90And people who naively think like that are stupid.
@@ReyouDongAhow so?
@@geekmechanic1473 Because there is no such thing as a good Ultra rich people, like people describe about Beast, People who are at the top of pyramid manage to get there because they are opportunistic.
@@ReyouDongA most of them are children so...
law law maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn "lawyer yapping" XD
The signature is a little misleading, I read it as the T shirt would be signed with the signature of the crew member who signed it, not "I'm lazy fake my signature". For a guy who claims to respect others maybe take the time to write a mb logo.
See. Colleen Ballinger
46:06 what about the picture is prohibited? Is it also depicting a real underage person?
That guys eyeballs while filming himself under his bed at the start of this "expose" vid at around the 57min mark lol!
Why is he hiding under his bed to start his film tho?!
Whether his audience are children is irrelevant in regards to whether he committed fraud, yes; it is however incredibly relevant IF participation in any giveaway is considered gambling. At least theoretically. If anything would happen even assuming it was gambling is a different question. I got no clue about US child gambling laws tbh, and I don't think it's realistic he'd be sued by people in most other places. English speaking fanbases are only really global if they are older than his because kids don't speak ESL yet, so I'd guess his fanbase is overwhelmingly American and Canadian with a chunk of the remains from other English speaking countries, so as long as he's not violating child gambling laws as they tend to generally look in members of the US and commonwealth, assuming they are similar throughout each, he'll be fine.
don't know about you but I have as most men an integrated a...ole detector you see someone's face and you immediately know if it's someone you want to interact with or not, mr beast is in the 2nd category and the guy on the right of him in the lottery part with the closeup straight to the extremely suspect person, never seen someone with that kind of face not doing something bad, seriously he's looking left and right as in a fight or flight scenario it's obvious same at 1min48 it's written on his forehead "dishonest do not interact with me" IN MY OPINION that's what I need to add no ?
Finally someone who knows what they're saying