NBC News⁠99%

Officer accidentally shoots colleague during 'horseplay' ⁠98%

6/12/2026, 3:53:12 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 83.9% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 818 faulty-reasoning hits from 205 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 96.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (548 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 97.50% of the video peer group.

ItĀ happensĀ inĀ aĀ flash,Ā aĀ momentĀ ofĀ carelessĀ levityĀ quicklyĀ takingĀ aĀ turn.Ā 
NewlyĀ releasedĀ dashcamĀ videoĀ showsĀ PasadenaĀ policeĀ jokingĀ aroundĀ duringĀ anĀ eveningĀ shiftĀ changeĀ inĀ SeptemberĀ whenĀ suddenlyĀ oneĀ pullsĀ hisĀ department-issuedĀ firearmĀ inĀ aĀ quickĀ draw,Ā appearingĀ toĀ aimĀ itĀ atĀ theĀ driver.Ā 
ThenĀ aĀ bang,Ā gunĀ smoke,Ā crackedĀ glass.Ā 
TheĀ driverĀ accidentallyĀ firesĀ throughĀ theĀ windshield,Ā woundingĀ aĀ colleague.Ā 
OfficerĀ down,Ā butĀ farĀ fromĀ theĀ lineĀ ofĀ duty.Ā 
>>Ā TheĀ shootingĀ resultedĀ fromĀ officersĀ engagedĀ inĀ unsafeĀ andĀ outĀ ofĀ policyĀ horseplayĀ involvingĀ loadedĀ firearms.Ā 
>>Ā InĀ aĀ videoĀ statement,Ā PasadenaĀ PoliceĀ ChiefĀ GeneĀ HarrisĀ saysĀ theĀ officerĀ wasĀ seriouslyĀ injuredĀ butĀ recoveredĀ andĀ thatĀ disciplinaryĀ measuresĀ wereĀ taken.Ā 
>>Ā HorseplayĀ and/orĀ failureĀ toĀ adhereĀ toĀ safetyĀ rulesĀ andĀ standardsĀ ofĀ professionalĀ conductĀ willĀ notĀ beĀ tolerated.Ā 
>>Ā AndĀ tonightĀ theĀ cityĀ tellingĀ NBCĀ NewsĀ theĀ officerĀ inĀ theĀ carĀ wasĀ relievedĀ ofĀ hisĀ positionĀ andĀ isĀ noĀ longerĀ withĀ theĀ department.Ā 
TheĀ policeĀ chiefĀ sayingĀ theĀ incidentĀ isĀ stillĀ underĀ criminalĀ investigation,Ā butĀ theĀ DistrictĀ Attorney'sĀ OfficeĀ tellingĀ NBCĀ NewsĀ theyĀ haveĀ yetĀ toĀ receiveĀ theĀ case.Ā 
Well,Ā theĀ policeĀ departmentĀ reckonsĀ withĀ anĀ embarrassingĀ momentĀ thatĀ defiesĀ policyĀ andĀ ignoresĀ safety.Ā 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%NBC News: 2.1%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%NBC News: 2.9%Availability Heuristic29.8%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 83.9%NBC News: 6.4%Framing Effect83.9%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.7%NBC News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%NBC News: 7.0%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%NBC News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error24.9%This article: 4.9%NBC News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias4.9%This article: 7.3%NBC News: 1.5%In-Group Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%NBC News: 0.5%Primacy Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%NBC News: 3.2%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 32.2%NBC News: 3.2%Hasty Generalization32.2%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 66.3%NBC News: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion66.3%This article: 8.8%NBC News: 0.8%Begging the Question8.8%This article: 13.2%NBC News: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.2%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.7%NBC News: 0.5%Burden of Proof12.7%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.6%NBC News: 1.5%Anecdotal16.6%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%NBC News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.4%NBC News: 1.8%Unattributed Quote23.4%This article: 2.9%NBC News: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 2.9%NBC News: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NBC News: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

205 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker33%attributed speech137writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageChief Gene Harris • 24 words • 0.0% coverageChief Gene Harris • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageChief Gene Harris • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chief Gene Harris

100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote-35.0 ptsWriter: 35.0%Chief Gene Harris: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Chief Gene Harris: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Chief Gene Harris: 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.