Bank robbery suspect arrested by Oakland police 12%

By Darwin BondGraham17%

7/20/2026, 3:00:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 211 faulty-reasoning hits from 298 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.2% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,464 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.90% of the article peer group.

A man who allegedly robbed the same bank in Oakland twice in the span of a week has been arrested. 
On Monday, OPD spokesperson Paul Chambers said Michael Savage was arrested on July 17 by robbery investigators. 
A man who allegedly robbed the same bank in Oakland twice in a week is in custody. 
On the morning of July 9, a man entered the Wells Fargo Bank on 9th Street and Franklin, held and employee at knifepoint, and then fled with an undisclosed sum of cash, according to police. 
The same man, police allege, returned on July 15 and robbed the bank a second time. 
Police said they used surveillance footage, witness statements, and physical evidence to determine both robberies were committed by the same person. 
On Monday, customers were lined up outside the bank to use its ATM. 
A security guard stood watch next to them. 
Savage was charged by the DA today with felony robbery and false imprisonment. 
He has not entered a plea or been arraigned yet. 
An uncommon type of crime 
Bank robberies have become much rarer. 
There were 260 robberies of banks and other financial institutions in California in 2025. 
That was 0.6% of the total robberies committed that year. 
That’s down from the 1,233 bank robberies committed in 2005, which was about 2% of all robberies in California. 
Some theories about why bank robberies have become less common: 
The rise of the internet has presented criminals with less-risky opportunities to defraud people 
More surveillance technology, especially in and around banks, has helped catch more suspects 
More banks have hardened their buildings and booby trapped their cash, making heists more difficult 
Federal criminal penalties for robbing a bank got harsher starting in the 1990s and 2000s 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%Darwin BondGraham: 2.7%Berkeleyside: 2.1%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.0%Berkeleyside: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Darwin BondGraham: 1.6%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.8%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Darwin BondGraham: 3.0%Berkeleyside: 3.2%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.7%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.7%Berkeleyside: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.8%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 3.7%Berkeleyside: 3.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.2%Berkeleyside: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.6%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.6%Berkeleyside: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Darwin BondGraham: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.8%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.0%Darwin BondGraham: 2.7%Berkeleyside: 3.2%Appeal to Authority7.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.8%Berkeleyside: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.8%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Hasty Generalization2.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.8%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 2.5%Berkeleyside: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.7%Berkeleyside: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.5%Darwin BondGraham: 2.2%Berkeleyside: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.5%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.2%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.2%Berkeleyside: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 1.3%Berkeleyside: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%Darwin BondGraham: 1.6%Berkeleyside: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.4%Berkeleyside: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 3.4%Berkeleyside: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.3%Berkeleyside: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.6%Berkeleyside: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.0%Berkeleyside: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.5%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.7%Berkeleyside: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darwin BondGraham: 0.1%Berkeleyside: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

298 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.7%attributed speech281writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Chambers • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Chambers

0%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words100% of attributed speech46% 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.