Car deal gone bad sparks Brooklyn shooting death of teen food deliveryman 58%

By Nicholas Williams58% Colin Mixson63%

4/19/2026, 1:03:03 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 929 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,348 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.30% of the article peer group.

A car deal gone bad is believed to have sparked the Brooklyn shooting death of a hard-working teen food deliveryman, police sources say. 
Steven Lantigua was trying to upgrade from the scooter he was using to make deliveries when he purchased a car earlier this month, his family says. 
But the 18-year-old victim had two problems  he didn't have a license and the car he bought didn't work, according to his father. 
"He worked a lot," Lantigua's father, Jose Lantigua, told the Daily News in Spanish. 
"He was young. 
He was focusing on making money for himself." 
The teen tried to return the car and get his money back five separate times but the seller wouldn't budge, his father said. 
"He told me he was going to take the title back to them so they would refund his money," the father said. 
Jose believed his son was out working when the teen was shot in the chest near Drew St. and Linden Blvd. in East New York about 3:35 p.m. 
April 10. 
Medics rushed him to Brookdale University Hospital, where he died. 
He was about two miles from the home he shared with his father when he was shot. 
No arrests have been made but police sources said they believe the shooting was sparked by car sale that went bad. 
"He said he went to see them about five times but they refused to give him the money back," Jose said. 
"However, my son never mentioned it to me again, because I had been advising him not to buy a car until he had his driver's license." 
Jose kept in close contact with his hard-working son  including on the day of the slaying. 
"I called a couple times and he never answered. 
I was worried," Jose said. 
"Cops told us (he was killed) 24 hours later. 
It took awhile because he didn't have ID with him." 
The victim dropped out of high school to make money working. 
He started out making deliveries by bike before upgrading to an electric scooter about four months ago, his father said. 
But Steven wanted a car. 
His father never learned how much his son paid for the lemon. 
"I don't know how much he paid because after I told him not to buy a car, he never brought the subject up again," the father said. 
While homicides are down to historic lows citywide, they are up in the 75th Precinct covering East New York this year. 
The precinct had seen five slaying this year through April 12 compared to three by the same point last year, NYPD stats show. 
Citywide, homicides are down 23%, with 65 victims so far this year through April 12 compared to 84 victims by that time last year. 
Steven's brother posted an online fundraiser to help cover his brother's funeral expenses. 
"He was a loving son, sibling, and friend who always tried to help those around him," the victim's brother wrote on the GoFundMe. 
"His absence leaves a huge void in our lives." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.5%Nicholas Williams: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Nicholas Williams: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Nicholas Williams: 5.0%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Nicholas Williams: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Nicholas Williams: 8.1%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 10.2%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 3.7%Nicholas Williams: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Nicholas Williams: 6.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Nicholas Williams: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.9%Nicholas Williams: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.8%Nicholas Williams: 6.6%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 15.1%Nicholas Williams: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal15.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.9%Nicholas Williams: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote18.9%This article: 2.3%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 4.6%Nicholas Williams: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech252writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Lantigua • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJose Lantigua • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Lantigua • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jose Lantigua

91%flagged-word coverage
227 attributed words85% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-0.4 ptsWriter: 20.6%Jose Lantigua: 20.3%20.3%Biased Writer Voice-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Jose Lantigua: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Jose Lantigua: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.