Houston cop brags about using N-word and beating up a Black person in shocking racist viral video 16%

By Owen Scott0%

4/22/2026, 4:27:09 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Quote-first Misdirection, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59.3% saturation with 348 hits. Analysis detected 1,354 faulty-reasoning hits from 587 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,574 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

A former officer with the Houston Police Department has been relieved of her duties after bragging about using the N-Word in a now-viral video, according to a report. 
The cop, named in various reports as Officer Ashley Gonzalez, also boasted in the clip about an incident in which she beat up a Black person. 
An investigation into the video has been launched, and Gonzalez has been relieved of her duties, sources from the department told KPRC-TV. 
The clip, which shows Gonzalez ranting to the camera while sitting in her car, has been widely condemned by members of the local community. 
“The amount of times that I will always and forever say that I f*****g hate [racial slur],” the former cop says. 
“‘Oh, we were slaves,’” she added in a mocking voice. 
“I don’t give a f***, [racial slur], like for a f*****g reason you guys were f*****g slaves.” 
The woman went on to say that she “whooped the f*** out of that [racial slur’s] a**,” recounting an alleged incident involving the unnamed man and her purse. 
“Y’all don’t know how good it felt to say [racial slur] out loud,” she said. 
“Oh my God, I felt like I was back in the Marine Corps, [racial slur].” 
The police officer goes on to say that she grabbed a man by the neck while hurling the racial slur at him. 
“I felt like the world just stopped, like, it was just peace,” she added, before uttering the slur several more times. 
Sources from the HPD told KHOU 11 that Gonzalez graduated from the police academy in January 2024. 
The channel also confirmed that Gonzalez has served four years with the USMC. 
Records from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement obtained by Fox 26 stated that Gonzalez had spent eight hours completing a “cultural diversity course.” 
Gonzalez also spent three hours working on an “implicit bias in social justice” course. 
Community activist Dr. 
Candice Matthews told KHOU 11 that the language used in the video caused “discord between the community and law enforcement.” 
“And that’s not what we want,” she said. 
“In fact, it also caused a discord between Hispanics and African Americans.” 
Matthews added that her team is urging anyone who has had contact with Gonzalez to come forward and that they are investigating possible civil rights violations. 
Police policy documents obtained by the outlet state that officers are required to act “without prejudice” and are prohibited from posting any content on social media that would harm the department or city. 
Bishop James Dixon, the president of the Houston branch of the NAACP, described the video as depicting a “sick mindset.” 
“And here’s a young lady with her future ahead of her,” he told the outlet. 
“She’s ex-military, she has talent, she has gifts and skills. 
“And yet, she undermined her own credibility with this racist ideology.” 
The Houston Police Officers’ Union said that it was “extremely disturbed” by the video in a statement shared on Facebook. 
“In no way does the HPOU or its leadership condone or tolerate racist behavior from any of our officers,” Douglas Griffith, the union president, said in the statement. 
According to the HPOU, the HPD “prides itself as being the most diverse police department in the nation.” 
The Afro American Police Officers League accused the officer of “spewing hatred, racism and de-humanizing Black people,” in its own statement. 
The Independent has contacted the HPD for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.3%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias59.3%This article: 4.8%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 8.5%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.2%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority2.2%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 13.8%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion13.8%This article: 1.9%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 5.5%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 4.8%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque4.8%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.5%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote16.5%This article: 19.3%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection19.3%This article: 32.0%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice32.0%This article: 3.4%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination3.4%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

587 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers36%attributed speech378writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageCandice Matthews • 20 words • 100.0% coverageCandice Matthews • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCandice Matthews • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCandice Matthews • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Dixon • 20 words • 100.0% coverageBishop James Dixon • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Dixon • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Dixon • 11 words • 100.0% coverageHouston Police Officers’ Union • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDouglas Griffith • 28 words • 100.0% coverageHouston Police Officers’ Union • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAfro American Police Officers League • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Douglas Griffith

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words13% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+77.5 ptsWriter: 22.5%Douglas Griffith: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Douglas Griffith: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-25.7 ptsWriter: 25.7%Douglas Griffith: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Douglas Griffith: 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.