Horrific bodycam video reveals moment beloved dog is shot 4 times by LAPD officer 33%

By Ben Chapman57%

6/19/2026, 2:20:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 865 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.6% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,701 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.20% of the article peer group.

Shocking newly released LAPD bodycam footage shows the moment an officer fatally shot a beloved family dog after the animal charged toward him  a killing that has sparked outrage from neighbors, activists and the heartbroken owners. 
The video, released Friday, captures the tense confrontation inside a Canoga Park condo complex just moments after a family had been celebrating the New York Knicks' NBA championship victory. 
The shooting unfolded shortly after 8 p.m. 
Saturday when Los Angeles police officers responded to the complex after a neighbor reported hearing a woman screaming. 
“Dude that’s a big dog,” said one officer upon seeing the unleashed animal. 
The officers asked Jameson’s owner, Marie Marseille, to secure the dog repeatedly but after a moment the dog rushes out of the unit and at one of the officers standing in the outdoor hallway outside the apartment. 
The officer being rushed by the dog drew his weapon and fired four shots, killing the animal. 
Marseille collapsed in heartbreak upon seeing her dog killed. 
“Oh my God! 
Oh my God,” Marseille cried. 
“I cannot believe this is happening. 
I cannot believe this is happening.” 
A photo taken moments before he was killed showed the dog wearing a New York Knicks shirt. 
“I ain’t getting bit by that bro,” said another. 
The LAPD video shows two angles of the shooting. 
An investigation into the incident is ongoing. 
Viral cellphone video capturing the emotional aftermath of Jameson’s killing spurred fury, prompting Mayor Karen Bass to demand a full accounting of the matter. 
She released a statement Friday in response to seeing the video. 
“What I saw on the bodycam footage is disturbing and tragic. 
The Chief and I agreed that it was important to release the bodycam footage swiftly. 
While the investigation is ongoing, I am very concerned about why shots were fired and Jameson was killed,” she said. 
“This shooting makes clear that while LAPD provides officers with written guidance on the use of force and pets, this is not enough.” 
“I have directed the Police Commission President and the Chief to examine the Department’s Use of Force policy on Dog Encounters to determine best practices from around the country, and use this opportunity to update the LAPD’s overall tactics, policies, and training related to the use of lethal force to increase safety for everyone  officers, Angelenos and their pets,” the statement continued. 
An online GoFundMe for the dead dog and Marseille’s family has already raised more than $200K  as public outrage over the incident continues to grow. 
In a video statement released with the new bodycam footage, LAPD Captain Mike Bland said the department is only at the very early stages of its investigation of the shooting, which may take a year to complete. 
“Our understanding of the incident may change as this additional evidence is collected, analyzed, and reviewed,” said Bland. 
“We also do not draw any conclusions about whether the officers acted consistent with our policies in the law until all the facts are known,” he added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.4%Ben Chapman: 4.4%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Ben Chapman: 7.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 2.4%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Ben Chapman: 2.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias12.2%This article: 11.0%Ben Chapman: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias11.0%This article: 18.7%Ben Chapman: 18.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 1.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.9%Ben Chapman: 5.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.7%Ben Chapman: 1.7%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon9.7%This article: 11.0%Ben Chapman: 10.1%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 4.4%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 6.8%Ben Chapman: 1.5%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.5%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.6%Ben Chapman: 1.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Ben Chapman: 3.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 7.1%Ben Chapman: 3.3%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.1%This article: 11.6%Ben Chapman: 15.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice11.6%This article: 12.2%Ben Chapman: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination12.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Ben Chapman: 0.3%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers45%attributed speech284writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMarie Marseille • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMarie Marseille • 5 words • 0.0% coverageMarie Marseille • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMarie Marseille • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 23 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Bass • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageMike Bland • 37 words • 100.0% coverageMike Bland • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMike Bland • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karen Bass

100%flagged-word coverage
132 attributed words56% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+47.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karen Bass: 47.7%47.7%Biased Writer Voice-21.1 ptsWriter: 21.1%Karen Bass: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Karen Bass: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Karen Bass: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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