Man killed in Fuller Park shooting 14%

By Sun-Times Wire5%

7/18/2026, 2:26:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 60.8% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 134 faulty-reasoning hits from 74 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.2% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,971 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.70% of the article peer group.

A man was killed in a shooting early Saturday in Fuller Park on the South Side. 
Davon D. 
Stanley, 25, was standing outside in the 4800 block of South Princeton Avenue when someone opened fire around 2:55 a.m., Chicago police said. 
Stanley was shot in the head and was taken to Provident Hospital of Cook County, where he was pronounced dead, police said. 
No arrests have been made. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.5%Sun-Times Wire: 12.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias59.5%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 60.8%Sun-Times Wire: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority60.8%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 60.8%Sun-Times Wire: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote60.8%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

74 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech51writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageChicago police • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chicago police

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+56.9 ptsWriter: 43.1%Chicago police: 100.0%100.0%

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.