“I’ve Got My Glock Right Here”: Man Threatens Window Washers Over Mix-Up of Addresses 24%

By Haley48%

7/13/2026, 4:45:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 793 faulty-reasoning hits from 547 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,648 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.10% of the article peer group.

A video posted to X shows a confrontation after a window washing company mistakenly cleaned the wrong house, prompting the homeowner to call police and reference a firearm. 
A window washer accidentally cleaned the wrong home, and instead of kindly talking through the mistake, the home owner threatened him with gun violence and called the police. 
A window cleaning crew accidentally cleaned the wrong house after mixing up the address. 
They apologized, explained the mistake, and weren’t even asking to be paid for the work. 
Instead of accepting the explanation, the homeowner said he’d already called the police and told… pic.twitter.com/excQc5P5zU 
- Clown World ? 
(@ClownWorld) July 13, 2026 
According to the video, the window washing company mistakenly cleaned the homeowner’s windows after confusing the address with a neighboring property. 
Instead, he called police and said, “I’ve got my Glock right here.” 
“You called the police, though?” 
asks one of the men who work for the window washing company. 
The man responds, “Absolutely. 
I’ve got my glock right here.” 
The video continues with the man explaining the situation. 
There was a miscommunication between himself and the window washer that was sent to clean the home. 
He was supposed to be working on the next door neighbor’s windows, but was mixed up with the address. 
He wasn’t asking the man to pay for the work, but that didn’t stop him from threatening him. 
Even as he explained it was a simple mistake, the tension continued to be an issue. 
“We cleaned your whole house, right, on accident?” 
asks the man with the window washing business. 
The homeowner replies, “What the fu*k?” 
The window cleaner continued by saying they were supposed to be cleaning Stephanie’s house. 
By saying the next-door neighbor’s name, he may have been trying to diffuse the situation. 
It didn’t work. 
The Homeowner Was Not Happy About the Window Washers’ Mistake 
The homeowner remained hostile until the video abruptly ended. 
We’re not shown how this situation ended up working out. 
X users had a lot to say in the comment section. 
Many were on the same page: the homeowner may face serious consequences for his response. 
“Depending on the state yelling and brandishing your firearm can get you arrested, don’t know why he would announce that, it’s not like he heard noise downstairs and wants to make sure it’s family instead of an intruder,” wrote one user. 
Another added, “Threats to use lethal force in the absence of a threat should be followed by a felony conviction and prison.” 
Some didn’t understand how the window cleaners didn’t catch their mistake earlier in the process, questioning the video’s validity. 
“Modern cell phones put you at the correct location. 
This is fake. 
No such thing as wrong address anymore. 
Plus you check with the homeowner on arrival. 
Fake fake fake.” 
While some users blamed the homeowner for his reaction, others wondered how the window cleaners made the mistake and didn’t notice their mix-up. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post “I’ve Got My Glock Right Here”: Man Threatens Window Washers Over Mix-Up of Addresses appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.1%Haley: 3.3%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Haley: 3.8%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 1.5%Haley: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Haley: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 7.3%Haley: 6.1%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Haley: 1.7%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 7.5%Haley: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 29.1%Haley: 9.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias29.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Haley: 3.1%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error11.9%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Haley: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.2%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 7.5%Haley: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.6%Haley: 8.8%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.8%Haley: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.8%This article: 8.8%Haley: 6.3%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 1.1%Haley: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.8%Haley: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof6.8%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Haley: 6.3%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 1.3%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.3%This article: 10.2%Haley: 2.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.5%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.5%This article: 0.0%Haley: 4.2%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.2%Haley: 2.7%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 3.9%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.2%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.5%

547 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.5%attributed speech506writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Daily Dot

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Daily Dot: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%The Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%The 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.