NYPD officer denies ‘intentionally’ pointing gun in subordinate’s face amid alleged sex harassment 39%

By Molly Crane-Newman0%

6/23/2026, 9:42:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.4% saturation with 301 hits. Analysis detected 1,352 faulty-reasoning hits from 784 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.7% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,348 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.00% of the article peer group.

An NYPD officer Tuesday denied “intentionally” pointing a loaded gun in a subordinate’s face amid an alleged campaign of sexual harassment and refused to quit the force via a no-jail plea deal. 
“Not guilty, ma’am,” Officer Quilbvio Espinal, 35, said at his Manhattan Supreme Criminal Court arraignment when asked how he wished to plead to felony charges of second-degree menacing and one count of official misconduct stemming from the March 26 incident inside NYPD headquarters. 
Assistant District Attorney Jana Loeb said the alleged victim, a civilian employee, was sitting at her desk inside the Information Security Office at 1PP in lower Manhattan in the presence of another colleague when Espinal aimed his weapon at her point-blank. 
“The defendant stood up, drew his NYPD-authorized off-duty firearm, pointed it toward civilian No. 2, then slowly raised it up, in line with her body, until it was pointing at the ceiling,” Loeb said. 
“The defendant paused with his firearm raised, and then slowly brought the firearm back down to his side, all the while keeping it pointed directly toward Civilian No. 2 across from him.” 
The prosecutor said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office would drop the official misconduct charge if Espinal agreed to plead guilty to menacing in exchange for resigning from the NYPD, serving two years’ probation with counseling, and completing 10 days of community service. 
Espinal rejected the offer. 
The alleged victim in the case, Megan Kwan, who was not named in charging papers, reported the incident the same day, and Espinal was arrested and suspended for 30 days without pay. 
A DCPI spokesperson told the Daily News on Tuesday the officer has since remained suspended, though with pay, adding, “As required by Civil Service Law section 75, the NYPD can only suspend someone without pay for 30 days. 
Afterwards, we can keep them out suspended but they are required to be paid by law.” 
Kwan has claimed in graphic detail in a related lawsuit that the incident culminated two years of relentless sexual harassment by Espinal, who has been on the force a decade. 
The 25-year-old Kwan, who was hired at the NYPD after a June 2021 internship program, alleges the officer pulled a gun on her after she made a recommendation about a project he was working on in front of his supervisor, and he became embarrassed. 
Jumping to his feet before Manhattan Justice Felicia Mennin on Tuesday, Espinal’s attorney Robert Gottlieb said he wanted to make his own “statement of facts,” vociferously pushing back against the allegations in both the criminal and civil cases. 
He characterized correspondence between Espinal and Kwan that Kwan has described as sexual harassment as evidence of a close friendship. 
“It is so atrociously absurd because we have seen the text messages between the alleged victim here and our client, who had an incredibly close relationship for months and months,” Gottlieb said. 
“This is all about money because this so-called victim has already filed a lawsuit seeking monetary damages.” 
Responding to Gottlieb’s statement, Mennin said that nothing could be regarded as fact unless proven at trial. 
“Bottom line is, it's worth nothing,” the judge said. 
Mennin re-ordered Espinal to stay away from Kwan. 
Outside the courthouse with his arm slung around a frowning Espinal, Gottlieb told the Daily News his client did not “intentionally” stick a gun in his colleague’s face. 
He declined to elaborate, or say whether Espinal removed his weapon from its holster. 
“He never intentionally pointed a loaded gun at anybody,” Gottlieb said. 
“We're not discussing it. 
The facts regarding the gun and what he supposedly did were grossly false, grossly false.” 
In a statement, DA Bragg said, “Nobody should have to experience the kind of menacing and dangerous behavior alleged in this troubling incident.” 
Kwan’s pending civil suit names as defendants the NYPD, Espinal, and Lt. 
Jayson Valentin, who she alleges participated in sexual harassment that included the two men denigrating her over being Asian and partially deaf. 
She claims the lieutenant pressured her to withdraw her complaint about Espinal. 
She is seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial over claims of sexual harassment, racial harassment, disability-based harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. 
Reached for comment, Kwan’s attorney, John Scola, criticized Gottlieb’s defense strategy. 
“My client showed extraordinary bravery in standing up to a sworn officer who pointed a loaded gun at her, only to have his attorney try to drag her name through the mud,” Scola said. 
“We commend the New York County District Attorney's Office for refusing to be distracted by these cowardly tactics and pursuing justice on her behalf.” 
Espinal is due back in court Sept. 
10. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 3.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 9.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.5%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 38.4%Molly Crane-Newman: 15.6%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias38.4%This article: 9.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias9.7%This article: 1.4%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error1.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias4.0%This article: 9.6%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem9.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 5.5%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Molly Crane-Newman: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.5%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.5%This article: 3.1%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon3.1%This article: 7.3%Molly Crane-Newman: 12.9%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.7%This article: 4.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque4.8%This article: 1.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.1%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.2%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy2.2%This article: 3.6%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 1.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.7%This article: 6.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 6.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

784 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers56%attributed speech343writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageOfficer Quilbvio Espinal • 43 words • 0.0% coverageJana Loeb • 41 words • 0.0% coverageJana Loeb • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJana Loeb • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 38 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 32 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 17 words • 0.0% coverageFelicia Mennin • 17 words • 0.0% coverageFelicia Mennin • 9 words • 0.0% coverageFelicia Mennin • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gottlieb • 15 words • 100.0% coverageAlvin Bragg • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Scola • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Scola • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Scola • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Scola

100%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words16% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%John Scola: 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.