ICE Keeps Using The Same Justification For Killing Drivers ⁠63%

By Sophie Hurwitz⁠63%

7/9/2026, 3:08:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,320 faulty-reasoning hits from 558 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠63% (8,114 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.90% of the article peer group.

On Tuesday morning, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican immigrant and a three-decade Houston resident. 
It was the second ICE-involved shooting this week alone—and since the start of Donald Trump’s second term, federal immigration agents have shot and killed at least ten people . 
Now, as hundreds march in Houston and Salgado’s family demands an impartial investigation, DHS is using a familiar playbook: they are blaming Salgado for his own death by asserting he “weaponized his vehicle.” 
Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, held a press conference Wednesday calling for an independent investigation into his father’s death. 
“I want to tell you about my dad,” Ronaldo Salgado said. 
“He was a hardworking family man. 
He was also a man of routine.” 
Every day, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo got up before dawn and drove to work on a construction site, just as he had done for 35 years. 
“At 6:45 a.m., he should have been picking up the last of his guys before heading to North Houston to finish up construction on some houses,” Ronaldo Salgado continued at the press conference. 
By 6:55 his father had been shot by ICE agents who followed him in an unmarked car. 
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said had Lorenzo Salgado Araujo had attempted to evade arrest and “ weaponized his vehicle ,” echoing the language used in the hours after an ICE agent shot and killed Renée Good in her car in Minneapolis in January. 
DHS, at the time, alleged that Good, too, had “weaponized her vehicle.” 
Independent investigators disputed that characterization , but the officer who killed Good was never indicted. 
Before Renée Good, there were Carlito Ricardo Parias and Marimar Martinez. 
Both were shot at by federal agents in 2025 , and were then accused of trying to ram those agents with their vehicles. 
Both survived. 
Ruben Ray Martinez, who was shot by an ICE agent in March of 2025, was killed. 
The agent who shot him in the heart said Martinez was using his car as a weapon. 
It’s a narrative that law enforcement agencies frequently employ to justify fatally shooting of unarmed motorists. 
A New York Times investigation found that US police officers killed over 400 unarmed drivers between 2015 and 2021. 
In many of those cases, the officers involved said they fired because the vehicle itself was a weapon. 
The data shows that ICE is no exception. 
In 2024, journalist Lila Hassan identified 18 ICE shootings that involved a moving vehicle between 2015 and 2021. 
Over that same time period, public records show ICE agents shooting at least 59 people total and killing at least 23. 
Not a single indictment resulted from any of those incidents. 
Since that study, ICE’s budget has ballooned by tens of billions of dollars—and its internal oversight offices have been gutted. 
The killings haven’t stopped . 
Lorenzo Salgado Araujo “did not deserve to die,” Ronaldo Salgado said on Wednesday. 
“He did not deserve to be reduced to a headline of Mexican man shot and killed by ICE.” 
Salgado learned of his father’s passing, he said, from a video on social media. 
He recognized him immediately. 
“Not from his appearance, but from his voice, crying for help as he lay on the street bleeding out.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 6.2%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias20.4%This article: 3.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 16.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 5.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.4%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.9%This article: 28.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 13.0%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias28.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 7.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.6%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 3.1%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 7.9%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization16.3%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon2.7%This article: 15.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.9%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion15.9%This article: 5.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 6.6%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.5%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 5.4%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal12.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 14.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection14.3%This article: 14.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.6%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 2.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.9%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

558 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech336writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 11 words • 100.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 47 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLila Hassan • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 18 words • 100.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRonaldo Salgado • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ronaldo Salgado

86%flagged-word coverage
145 attributed words65% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 18.5%Ronaldo Salgado: 12.4%12.4%Quote-first Misdirection-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Ronaldo Salgado: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+2.5 ptsWriter: 5.1%Ronaldo Salgado: 7.6%7.6%Politically Left Leaning B-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Ronaldo Salgado: 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.