NYPD officer hit by stolen car, suspect shot in Bronx: sources ⁠24%

By Rocco Parascandola⁠54% Roni Jacobson⁠62%

6/22/2026, 12:39:44 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 74.2% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 337 faulty-reasoning hits from 159 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (15,628 of 20,408 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.60% of the article peer group.

A NYPD officer was rammed with a stolen car and a suspect was shot in an incident in the Bronx on Sunday night, a police source said. 
The officer, who was in uniform, was injured just before 6 p.m. at East Fordham Road and Webster Ave. in Fordham, according to police. 
Authorities could not immediately confirm how the officer was hurt, but a police source said the officer had followed a stolen car from Manhattan and was pinned under the car when attempting to pull it over in the Bronx. 
The officer is in stable condition at St. 
Barnabas Hospital, according to the source. 
During the incident a police officer shot a suspect, who was taken in stable condition to Jacobi Medical Center, the source said. 
A second cop is being treated for tinnitus at St. 
Barnabas Hospital. 
This is a developing story. 
Check back for more information. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Rocco Parascandola: 4.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic24.5%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rocco Parascandola: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 7.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 10.8%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 74.2%Rocco Parascandola: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority74.2%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 7.6%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 24.5%Rocco Parascandola: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.5%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 49.7%Rocco Parascandola: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote49.7%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.7%Rocco Parascandola: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice32.7%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rocco Parascandola: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rocco Parascandola: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

159 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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