Suspect wounded during large gathering in Fuller Park ⁠1%

By Deanese Williams-Harris⁠0%

7/18/2026, 12:44:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,811 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

A suspect was wounded overnight when his gun discharged during a struggle with officers at a large gathering overnight in the Fuller Park neighborhood, Chicago police said. 
Shortly after 12:30 a.m., tactical officers responded to a call of a large gathering in the 5300 block of South Princeton Avenue where they order the crowd to disperse multiple times, Chicago police said. 
At the same time, officers were conducting an investigatory stop for a firearm, when a struggle with a suspect ensued and the suspect’s weapon discharge. 
The suspect suffered a wound to the left thigh, police said. 
Officers rendered medical help to the suspect before he was taken to UChicago Medicine where he was listed in good condition and arrested. 
A firearm was recovered at the scene. 
The suspect was placed into police custody at the hospital. 
The Investigative Response Team was investigating the shooting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 5.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 6.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 8.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 7.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deanese Williams-Harris: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers47%attributed speech81writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageChicago police • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChicago police • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chicago police

0%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words85% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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