KQED76%

‘I Thought I Was Going to Die’: Video Shows Mass Force at California Women’s Prison 0%

By Madi Bolaños0%

4/15/2026, 12:00:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 330 hits. Analysis detected 667 faulty-reasoning hits from 995 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 25,985 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Surveillance footage newly obtained by KQED sheds light on a mass use-of-force incident at the Central California Women’s Facility in 2024. 
The incident resulted in discipline for more than 40 staff members, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and $1.9 million in payouts to some of the women injured during the incident. 
On the morning of Aug. 2, 2024, officers relocated more than 150 women to the dining hall in order to conduct a large-scale search of their cells. 
The women were held there for hours without access to food or medication, as tensions built and temperatures rose above 100 degrees, according to court filings. 
Officers deployed chemical agents, batons and physical force on dozens of incarcerated people. 
The surveillance footage, obtained through a public records request to CDCR, provides the first detailed view of how the incident unfolded. 
CDCR has not released officers’ body-camera video or disciplinary records requested by KQED. 
Previously leaked footage edited and made public by a former correctional lieutenant turned YouTuber provided only limited insight into the incident. 
Angelina Hernandez, who was inside the dining hall at the time and has since been released, said watching the footage again was emotional. 
“I really thought I was going to die that day,” Hernandez said. 
“These officers are supposed to protect us, not attack us.” 
Dozens of officers file into the chow hall around 12:30 p.m. and form what appears to be a skirmish line, many holding pepper spray canisters at the ready, the footage shows. 
Over several minutes, more officers join the formation, growing to what appears to be 40 to 50 officers positioned across the room. 
While there is no audio captured on the surveillance footage, things appear tense with some of the incarcerated women gesticulating and shouting at the line of officers. 
An officer appears to yell and gesture for the women to step back. 
As they begin to move, multiple officers start deploying pepper spray and throwing grenades filled with mace, also known as OC (oleoresin capsicum). 
The women crouch down and run to the wall on the other side of the room as officers advance and continue to spray them repeatedly. 
Kenneth Jimenez, a retired lieutenant who reviewed the footage, said officers must be facing an imminent threat in order to justify deploying force. 
Jimenez is familiar with use of force policy, which he taught to both peace officers and civilians across the state. 
“I don’t see anybody approaching in a threatening manner,” he said as he watched the video. 
“I don’t see anything that’s imminent,” Jimenez added that instead of using force officers could have instead restrained a small number of individuals and removed them from the scene. 
CDCR did not answer specific questions about whether the force used was excessive, but said policies were violated that day and that “corrective action” was taken. 
About five minutes after officers began to deploy pepper spray and OC grenades, a woman appears to be struggling with some kind of physical impairment as another woman holds her up from behind. 
As they move forward, an officer sprays them at close range. 
That moment could be interpreted differently depending on what officers perceived, according to Jimenez. 
“If it’s articulated that they thought she was attacking them, then they wouldn’t be outside of policy because she was moving towards them,” he said. 
Both incarcerated women are then taken to the ground and surrounded by multiple officers. 
It is a chaotic moment that is difficult to make out because CDCR has blurred the faces of the incarcerated women. 
While several officers appear to be restraining the women on the ground, officers also punch and use batons on them. 
Hernandez recalled her confusion as officers gave them loud and contradictory orders. 
And she said that, no matter what they did, the officers continued to spray them and throw OC grenades. 
“They threw so many bombs at us that day,” she said. 
“It was even funny.” 
After the officers cornered the women against the wall, they zip-tied their hands behind their backs and walked them outside. 
Surveillance cameras overlooking the outdoor yard captured officers again using chemical agents around 12:40 p.m. 
Incarcerated women crouch while others run for safety after officers deployed pepper spray and OC grenades during a 2024 use-of-force incident at the Central California Women’s Facility. 
The footage appears to show a woman starting to cough and another woman getting up to walk over to her. 
Officers throw multiple OC grenades toward the group, prompting the women to run in the opposite direction, where they get hit again by a different set of officers. 
“I just didn’t see the necessity for a grenade,” Jimenez said. 
“Everyone just joined the party.” 
Several women are later seen being carried or transported on stretchers to medical staff. 
CDCR settled a $1.9 million lawsuit in March filed by 13 women who were hurt that day. 
Another class-action lawsuit tied to the incident alleges that officers denied incarcerated women medical treatment and used excessive force. 
CDCR did not respond to a detailed list of questions about specific moments in the video. 
The agency said that the 41 staff members who were disciplined received punishments ranging from transfers to termination. 
In a statement, California Correctional Peace Officers Association President Neil Flood said large-scale responses are common in prison emergencies, which he described as “chaotic, fast-moving and dangerous.” 
He added that while the union supports accountability when policy violations are found, it also expects disciplinary actions to follow due process protections for officers. 
At least five officers have filed a legal action arguing that the agency unfairly disciplined and transferred them following the incident. 
They allege that CDCR reassigned them to other prisons without due process and without being given the opportunity to challenge those actions before the State Personnel Board. 
CDCR has denied their claims. 
That petition is still pending. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 2.2%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 1.7%CalMatters: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 2.8%CalMatters: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Madi Bolaños: 8.0%CalMatters: 6.0%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Madi Bolaños: 1.2%CalMatters: 3.4%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.2%Madi Bolaños: 10.0%CalMatters: 6.2%Negativity Bias33.2%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 1.2%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Madi Bolaños: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 3.4%Madi Bolaños: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.6%CalMatters: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.0%Madi Bolaños: 4.1%CalMatters: 3.0%Appeal to Authority7.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 1.7%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 1.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 3.9%CalMatters: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.3%Madi Bolaños: 6.5%CalMatters: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion3.3%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 2.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 3.0%CalMatters: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.5%Madi Bolaños: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 4.6%Madi Bolaños: 3.7%CalMatters: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madi Bolaños: 0.1%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

995 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech741writer words
Selected voice

Neil Flood

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words20% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Neil Flood: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Neil Flood: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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