BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Representativeness Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.3% saturation with 237 hits. Analysis detected 1,455 faulty-reasoning hits from 756 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.6% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,376 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

The District Attorney’s Office and Houston Police Department have announced an independent probe of federal immigration agents’ fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo last week, but neither immediately sent investigators to the scene  a break from past practice that experts said will hamper their attempts to review the incident. 
Salgado’s killing by U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during a traffic stop in Magnolia Park last Tuesday has roiled the city, with residents holding vigils and protests and demanding action from political leaders. 
The Department of Homeland Security is investigating the incident, but District Attorney Sean Teare said he has begun an independent probe. 
Houston Mayor John Whitmire  after initially saying the city lacked the jurisdiction to get involved  also has directed Houston police to support Teare’s efforts and to offer resources to federal authorities. 
READ MORE: Whitmire tells HPD to offer resources for federal ICE shooting probe 
Yet Houston police spokesperson Ericka Ramirez confirmed HPD sent only traffic control officers to the scene, not investigators, after an ICE agent fatally shot Salgado just before 7 a.m. in the 6800 block of Canal Street a week ago. 
Ramirez explained the decision by saying federal authorities had claimed jurisdiction over the scene. 
But HPD homicide investigators historically responded immediately to all officer-involved shootings in the city, said Charles McClelland, who served as HPD chief from 2010 to 2016 and long worked in the department’s homicide division. 
“It would not surprise me if somebody in the HPD chain said, ‘nope, this is a federal shooting. 
We’re not going to get involved in this political mess,’” said Jay Coons, a Sam Houston State University criminology professor. 
“But now that you’re saying, ‘We should probably do an investigation,’ you should’ve responded just like you would to any other shooting. 
And now you’re playing catch-up.” 
READ MORE: Mayor Whitmire backs federal probe, says Houston won’t launch separate ICE shooting investigation 
An investigator and prosecutor from the District Attorney’s office also typically respond immediately to any officer-involved shooting in Harris County, a Teare spokesperson said. 
But they are always sent after a law enforcement agency calls to report the shooting, spokesperson Courtney Fischer said, and this is the first time anyone in the office can recall that no agency called. 
Prosecutors went to the scene Wednesday morning, she said, when they realized no agency was going to call them. 
Teare said at a Monday press conference that ICE’s lack of transparency was “unacceptable.” 
Shootings by federal agents are always complex for local police and prosecutors, because federal authorities can claim jurisdiction over the investigation, said Coons, who retired as a captain at the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in 2018. 
But it’s still important for local offices to dispatch their own investigators as quickly as possible to preserve the scene and gather evidence, he said. 
Doing so can often be the difference between making a prosecution and not being able to bring charges. 
Some evidence, such as security cameras, deletes every 24 hours or so, he said, and other evidence is only collectable in the immediate aftermath of a shooting, such as shell casings. 
A limited role 
During an impassioned public comment session at City Hall on Tuesday, Whitmire reiterated his support for a transparent, independent investigation, and said audio of the 911 call, Houston Metro bus camera footage and other resources had been provided to the DA’s office. 
He also said Teare and HPD Chief Noe Diaz were meeting with FBI officials Tuesday. 
But a spokesperson for FBI Houston confirmed the office was only looking into ICE agents’ allegation that Salgado struck an agent with the van he was driving  a claim witnesses have disputed. 
The DHS Office of the Inspector General is investigating the shooting itself, an ICE spokesperson said. 
In a Tuesday statement, the FBI said federal prosecutors and the Texas Rangers also attended the meeting, but did not list DHS or ICE as attendees. 
“During today’s meeting, FBI leadership welcomed questions and received valuable feedback from our local, state and federal leaders,” the statement said. 
“We will continue to provide relevant case updates to our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners.” 
Salgado was shot during what federal officials called a “targeted enforcement” operation, but ICE later acknowledged he was not the person agents were seeking. 
After another fatal shooting by ICE agents in Maine this week, reports stated federal officials instructed ICE agents to suspend most vehicle stops across the country. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.1%Matt deGrood: 4.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.1%Confirmation Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Matt deGrood: 4.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 12.4%Matt deGrood: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic12.4%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 1.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Matt deGrood: 10.5%Houston Chronicle: 4.4%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt deGrood: 0.7%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Status Quo Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Matt deGrood: 1.3%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Optimism Bias8.9%This article: 5.8%Matt deGrood: 2.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 31.3%Matt deGrood: 12.3%Houston Chronicle: 5.2%Negativity Bias31.3%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Matt deGrood: 1.5%Houston Chronicle: 2.1%Halo Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Matt deGrood: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Ad Hominem2.4%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.2%Matt deGrood: 4.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.1%Appeal to Authority21.2%This article: 2.9%Matt deGrood: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.8%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.8%Matt deGrood: 5.1%Houston Chronicle: 3.4%Hasty Generalization11.8%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.2%Matt deGrood: 3.0%Houston Chronicle: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.1%Matt deGrood: 2.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 3.4%Houston Chronicle: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Matt deGrood: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Matt deGrood: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote2.4%This article: 3.4%Matt deGrood: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 11.0%Matt deGrood: 1.7%Houston Chronicle: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice11.0%This article: 5.6%Matt deGrood: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 1.3%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 2.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt deGrood: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Matt deGrood: 2.1%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

756 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers56%attributed speech331writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageEricka Ramirez • 39 words • 100.0% coverageEricka Ramirez • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCharles McClelland • 34 words • 0.0% coverageCharles McClelland • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJay Coons • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJay Coons • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJay Coons • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCourtney Fischer • 35 words • 0.0% coverageCourtney Fischer • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSean Teare • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJay Coons • 36 words • 0.0% coverageJay Coons • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJay Coons • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJay Coons • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageFBI Houston • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 26 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 21 words • 100.0% coverageFBI • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sean Teare

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words3.3% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+97.3 ptsWriter: 2.7%Sean Teare: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Sean Teare: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Sean Teare: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Sean Teare: 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.