The Blaze80%

Video: Suspect opens fire on Texas SWAT team serving arrest warrant; but cops shoot back  1 right through his own windshield 41%

By Dave Urbanski35%

7/21/2026, 11:45:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.7% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 437 faulty-reasoning hits from 314 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.8% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,536 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

The San Antonio Police Department over the weekend released video of an officer-involved shooting that occurred last month. 
Police said just after 5 p.m. 
June 16, four SWAT officers responded to execute an arrest warrant. 
Officers arrived in an unmarked vehicle and located the suspect inside his parked vehicle, police said, adding that officers pulled up in front of the suspect's vehicle and saw he was holding a gun. 
Police said the suspect then began shooting at the officers. 
With that, all four officers discharged their firearms numerous times, police said. 
The police video of the shootout is below: 
During the shootout, the suspect as well as one officer were struck by gunfire, police said, adding that both the officer and the suspect were taken to a hospital for treatment. 
No bystanders were injured, police said. 
The 35-year-old suspect  Roman Pena  was charged with four counts of aggravated assault against a peace officer, police said. 
The officers involved have eight to nine years of service with the San Antonio Police Department, officials said, adding that the department's Shooting Team and Internal Affairs Unit are conducting separate, concurrent inquiries. 
In addition, police said that as with all officer-involved shootings, the District Attorney's Office is reviewing this incident. 
As you might imagine, a number of observers who viewed the police video had things to say about what went down. 
The following are a few highlights: 
"Strong work; I pray for a speedy recovery of the officer and a speedy trial and conviction of the perp," one commenter wrote . 
"Agg[ravated] assault?" 
another commenter asked . 
"How about attempted murder. 
Ridiculous." 
"We have THE best SWAT team," another commenter declared . 
"Great job, men." 
"GOT 'EM!!!!" 
another commenter exclaimed . 
"F**K HOMICIDAL CRIMINALS!!!" 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Dave Urbanski: 1.8%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Dave Urbanski: 4.5%Blaze Media: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.5%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.1%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Dave Urbanski: 5.1%Blaze Media: 9.7%Framing Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Dave Urbanski: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.8%Blaze Media: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%Dave Urbanski: 10.6%Blaze Media: 9.5%Negativity Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 1.4%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Dave Urbanski: 0.6%Blaze Media: 2.8%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.4%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Dave Urbanski: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Dave Urbanski: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.3%Dave Urbanski: 2.2%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.3%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.2%Dave Urbanski: 3.7%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority16.2%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.4%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Dave Urbanski: 1.4%Blaze Media: 9.0%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 9.9%Dave Urbanski: 4.4%Blaze Media: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion9.9%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.2%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.6%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.3%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.6%Dave Urbanski: 1.0%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.6%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.2%Dave Urbanski: 4.5%Blaze Media: 2.7%Unattributed Quote18.2%This article: 7.6%Dave Urbanski: 2.5%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection7.6%This article: 7.0%Dave Urbanski: 5.9%Blaze Media: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 2.7%Blaze Media: 4.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 0.6%Blaze Media: 7.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave Urbanski: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

314 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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