“Get Off My Girl”: Viral Video Shows Couple Struggling With Walmart Security After Allegedly Swapping Price Tags 38%

By Akil Rashid63%

7/15/2026, 12:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.8% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,277 faulty-reasoning hits from 710 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.8% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,726 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.70% of the article peer group.

A viral video shared on X appears to show a confrontation between a couple and Walmart security after they were allegedly caught swapping price tags on merchandise. 
X is divided in the comments section under a video that has gone viral with over 3 million views since it’s been posted. 
The video shows the altercation of a woman and her boyfriend after getting caught swapping price tags on items by Walmart security. 
Many X users are saying that the level of force against the woman by the police officer was uncalled for. 
While others agree that the officer’s actions fit the crime because the woman was resisting even after being allegedly caught. 
Female gets caught swapping the price tags on walmart store items. 
Her & boyfriend fights with police & security. pic.twitter.com/ib1bRC2UmO 
- LRHN cash (@LRHN_Cash) July 14, 2026 
The encounter begins at a self-checkout station. 
The woman can be seen scanning items at a self-checkout station when a Walmart police officer approached her with his arm outstretched, as if motioning for her to step aside. 
She pulled away, shouting, “Stop touching me!” 
As she continued to resist, the officer immediately grabbed her around her waist and began lifting her up and away from the checkout station. 
There was a struggle, then he placed both arms around her torso and threw her to the floor. 
She continued to put up a fight, but the hefty officer simply lay on top of her and pinned her to the floor with his weight. 
As he struggled to contain her, he said, “I told you to stop.” 
In the midst of all this, she managed to pull out her smartphone and tried to record the altercation. 
But when he saw that, he tried to grab the phone out of her hand, then he pinned down that free hand. 
One X user responded to the situation and wrote, “Why did he pin her down like that ? 
No matter what her offense is he should’ve been gentle with her, it’s not like she can beat him.” 
Another commenter agreed, “That was very disturbing. 
As guilty as she may be he had enough people around him to help detain/arrest her in a better manner. 
He could have even tased her first instead. 
Instead he immediately went to choking and body slamming her.” 
Should Walmart Security Be Allowed to Use Excessive Force Against Women? 
As the officer kept her pinned under his weight, he asked her repeatedly, “Are you gonna stop?” 
When she realized that she couldn’t move, she yelled to get him off of her. 
Then, as soon as he relented, she went back to struggling and resisting while yelling, “Get his big a** off of me! 
Bro, get off of me, please. 
Get off of me!” 
By this time, another Walmart security guard came to assist. 
As they got her to her feet, she continued to resist, and the hefty Walmart officer held her in a chokehold. 
She seemed to be in distress, which is when her boyfriend came to her rescue. 
He said, “Get off my girl, bro. 
Get off my girl!” 
And that’s when the officers shifted their attention to him, and tackled him to the ground. 
Despite all this chaos, the woman continued to resist, acting erratically and shouting at the officers to stop. 
Ultimately, she threatened to sue the company for the treatment she received at the hands of the officers. 
The video appears to show employees confronting the couple over allegations of price-tag swapping. 
Other X users believe the crime deserved the punishment, “The more crimes we tolerate and accept as okay, the more criminals just think it is okay. 
The line must be drawn and it’s time for accountability.” 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the allegations made in posts accompanying the video or whether any charges were filed. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post “Get Off My Girl”: Viral Video Shows Couple Struggling With Walmart Security After Allegedly Swapping Price Tags appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.8%Akil Rashid: 5.2%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias13.8%This article: 4.2%Akil Rashid: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 11.3%Akil Rashid: 3.7%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 2.0%Akil Rashid: 4.2%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Akil Rashid: 5.6%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Akil Rashid: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 5.2%Akil Rashid: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 22.8%Akil Rashid: 8.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias22.8%This article: 2.8%Akil Rashid: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 2.8%Akil Rashid: 2.5%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error2.8%This article: 3.4%Akil Rashid: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Akil Rashid: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Akil Rashid: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 2.9%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.4%Akil Rashid: 2.5%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 3.7%Akil Rashid: 2.7%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Akil Rashid: 11.1%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.2%Akil Rashid: 2.2%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon3.2%This article: 13.5%Akil Rashid: 7.6%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion13.5%This article: 2.8%Akil Rashid: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 7.9%Akil Rashid: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.8%Akil Rashid: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof6.8%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%Akil Rashid: 4.7%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Akil Rashid: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.7%Akil Rashid: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading2.7%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Akil Rashid: 2.9%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 2.4%Akil Rashid: 3.1%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 21.7%Akil Rashid: 5.4%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice21.7%This article: 1.4%Akil Rashid: 3.8%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination1.4%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Akil Rashid: 2.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Akil Rashid: 2.2%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

710 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.5%attributed speech685writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageLRHN cash • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Dot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daily Dot

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words72% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Daily Dot: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.5 ptsWriter: 22.5%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Daily Dot: 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.