4 people including 2 kids found dead in North Hills  authorities begin murder investigation 32%

By Daniel Farr69%

5/28/2026, 4:19:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.4% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 372 faulty-reasoning hits from 238 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,963 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the article peer group.

A devastating late-night shooting has left four people dead, including two children, in North Hills, where authorities are conducting a homicide investigation. 
The violence unfolded on Londelius Street in the 16000–16200 block just before 8 p.m., according to the Los Angeles Police Department. 
Moments earlier, around 7:50 p.m., the Los Angeles Fire Department rushed to the same block after emergency calls reported multiple victims down inside a residence. 
When first responders arrived, they discovered four people already beyond help, all pronounced dead at the scene. 
A grim discovery that quickly turned the quiet residential street into an active crime scene. 
The deceased have been identified as a man and woman who authorities say are between 35 and 40 years old, along with a child between the age of 5 and 7 and a 4-month-old baby. 
Police are investigating the incident as a murder-suicide, ABC reports. 
North Hills resident Undreal Turner told the outlet, "It's just shocking to be in our neighborhood, something that drastic and devastating in the neighborhood. 
It's sad. 
Four people lost their lives today. 
We really need to hone in on our moms, and even dads, just to make sure, in the neighborhood, people that you know, that they're OK. 
Do they need any help? 
Do they need any assistance? 
Do they need any support?" 
This is a developing story. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 7.1%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect21.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.9%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.4%Daniel Farr: 17.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias24.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.5%Daniel Farr: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority23.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.9%Daniel Farr: 8.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion10.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Daniel Farr: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.1%Daniel Farr: 2.6%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote10.1%This article: 4.2%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 15.5%Daniel Farr: 12.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice15.5%This article: 17.2%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination17.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

238 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers54%attributed speech109writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Fire Department • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageABC • 10 words • 100.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 24 words • 100.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 2 words • 0.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 6 words • 0.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 26 words • 100.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 5 words • 100.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 5 words • 100.0% coverageUndreal Turner • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

ABC

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words7.8% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ABC: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.9 ptsWriter: 33.9%ABC: 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.