Vincent Stoetzel remembered for family, service after Mason shooting 55%

By Jennifer Edwards Baker0% Annie Elming0%

7/24/2026, 11:46:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 306 faulty-reasoning hits from 233 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 55% (10,024 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

The man killed at a Mason lumber business is being remembered as a young father who dedicated his time to giving back. 
Vincent Stoetzel, 29, was identified by Warren County Coroner Dr. 
Russell Uptegrove as the man killed Wednesday, July 22, at Carter Lumber on Reading Road. 
Stoetzel was shot “approximately 22 times” by David Cohen, according to court records. 
Those who knew Stoetzel say he was a positive light for everyone that he encountered. 
“He dedicated his summers to doing volunteer outreach,” said Stacey Smith, who grew up with Stoetzel. 
“He always wanted to show God’s love in practical ways, so handing out bottles of ice-cold water, volunteering at free car washes, offering to pray for people.” 
Smith said Stoetzel was a young father who loved his family. 
“I could see him instilling his values into his kids just based on his posts, wanting to connect with God, wanting to pray for people, wanting to help people, wanting to connect with people in all sorts of ways,” Smith described. 
Stoetzel’s accused killer, David Cohen, is charged with aggravated murder. 
The shooting happened around 1:15 p.m. 
Wednesday at Carter Lumber. 
Cohen fled the scene, but he was later taken into custody at gunpoint near mile marker 35 on westbound Interstate 275. 
Cohen will be back in court on July 27 for a bond hearing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 5.9%The Enquirer: 2.8%Confirmation Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 4.9%The Enquirer: 2.9%Availability Heuristic14.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 3.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 2.1%The Enquirer: 7.7%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 17.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 5.9%The Enquirer: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 5.9%The Enquirer: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 7.7%The Enquirer: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 29.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 38.3%The Enquirer: 4.1%Halo Effect29.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.3%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 1.4%The Enquirer: 2.9%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 21.9%The Enquirer: 3.6%Hasty Generalization17.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 3.9%The Enquirer: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 17.9%The Enquirer: 2.2%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 1.9%The Enquirer: 1.3%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Edwards Baker: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

233 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Smith • 16 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Smith • 27 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Smith • 11 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Smith • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stacey Smith

83%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words100% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Stacey Smith: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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