Man Accused of Crushing Vehicle with Tractor After Dispute in Santa Maria ⁠1%

By Jack Dindia⁠23% Noozhawk Staff Writer⁠2%

8/3/2026, 7:07:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 304 faulty-reasoning hits from 186 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (28,806 of 28,851 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

A Paso Robles man was arrested early Saturday morning after he allegedly used a front-loader tractor to crush a vehicle with a female adult passenger inside in Santa Maria, according to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. 
Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Raquel Zick said deputies responded to a 9-1-1 call at 12:03 a.m. on the 1700 block of Sinton Road, where they discovered a crushed vehicle with severe damage. 
Zick said Levi Gaze, 38, allegedly “used the front loader to destroy the victim’s vehicle following a dispute” after ramming the vehicle “several times” with a tractor. 
The vehicle’s passenger escaped “without being seriously injured” before Gaze allegedly “used the bucket to further destroy the vehicle,” according to Zick. 
Gaze was taken into custody without incident while still in the front loader. 
He was booked into the Northern Branch Jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, and vandalism. 
He also was arrested on an outstanding no-bail warrant from San Luis Obispo County. 
He was being held without bail as of Monday night. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.4%Jack Dindia: 0.7%Noozhawk: 1.5%Confirmation Bias27.4%This article: 10.8%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.3%Anchoring Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 1.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.9%Noozhawk: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.3%Noozhawk: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Jack Dindia: 1.3%Noozhawk: 2.4%Framing Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.6%Noozhawk: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Jack Dindia: 8.6%Noozhawk: 3.9%Optimism Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.1%Jack Dindia: 0.5%Noozhawk: 2.3%Negativity Bias37.1%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.2%Noozhawk: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.1%Noozhawk: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.6%Noozhawk: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 3.2%Noozhawk: 3.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Jack Dindia: 1.3%Noozhawk: 0.4%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.5%Jack Dindia: 1.3%Noozhawk: 1.4%Appeal to Authority14.5%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.9%Noozhawk: 0.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 4.4%Noozhawk: 1.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 7.5%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Red Herring7.5%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.2%Noozhawk: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.0%Noozhawk: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.4%Noozhawk: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 5.1%Noozhawk: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.6%Noozhawk: 0.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.6%Unattributed Quote14.5%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.0%Jack Dindia: 1.1%Noozhawk: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice21.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 1.3%Noozhawk: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Dindia: 0.0%Noozhawk: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

186 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker26%attributed speech137writer words
Selected voice

Raquel Zick

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+55.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Raquel Zick: 55.1%55.1%Biased Writer Voice+46.3 ptsWriter: 8.8%Raquel Zick: 55.1%55.1%

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.