“My Heart Just Dropped”: Ring Camera Shows Man Trying Apartment Door Seconds After Woman Enters 59%

By Jennifer58%

7/13/2026, 10:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Availability Heuristic, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 969 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,806 of 21,166 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.40% of the article peer group.

A clip is going viral showing a woman’s close encounter with a man who appears to have been following her, and the internet is breathing a sigh of relief that she made it inside safely. 
The clip even had one person saying, “My heart just dropped for real.” 
In it, a woman can be seen on a Ring camera entering her apartment, and literally a second after she closes the door behind her, a man comes up and grabs the handle, appearing to attempt to open the door. 
The X user @DailyLoud, who reshared the clip, says the woman lives in New York in the caption, writing that she “managed to lock her door just seconds before a stranger who had followed her home could reach her.” 
A woman in New York managed to lock her door just seconds before a stranger who had followed her home could reach her ? 
pic.twitter.com/EbGoIw36qP 
- Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) July 13, 2026 
In the clip, the woman can be seen entering her apartment, which is located at the top of a set of stairs. 
As she opens the door, a child already appears to be inside. 
She closes the door, and just as it completely shuts, a man can be seen on the Ring camera grabbing the handle. 
He’s dressed in what appears to be dress pants, a long-sleeve button-up shirt, and a book bag. 
He is wearing what appears to be dress pants, a long-sleeve button-up shirt and a backpack. 
As he realizes he missed his opportunity to get inside behind the woman, he looks down at his phone and then directly at the door. 
He then stands in front of the door for a few seconds before walking back down the stairs. 
The video is now serving as a warning to women and people in general to be aware of their surroundings at all times. 
While one person suggested the clip could have been staged, they added, “Staged or not, my heart just dropped for real.” 
Another person who didn’t question whether the clip was real or not called the woman’s reaction time “absolutely flawless,” adding, “A matter of literally two seconds saved her life. 
Thank God she didn’t fumble with the keys.” 
Another commenter called attention to how close the timing was, writing, “If the door had been closed even a second later, the consequences would have been obvious.” 
The way he was right behind her is terrifying, that split second literally saved her life. 
- DamiOkusanya (@Simplydamii) July 13, 2026 
Meanwhile, another person also noticed the child standing inside the doorway when the woman entered, writing, “Guess there is a child with her too, omg. 
This is so scary.” 
Other comments echoed a similar sentiment, with one person writing, “The way he was right behind her is terrifying, that split second literally saved her life.” 
The video continued to circulate on X, where commenters debated whether the encounter was genuine while others said it served as a reminder to stay aware of their surroundings. 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the circumstances shown in the Ring camera video or the claims shared in the accompanying X post. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.6%Jennifer: 5.4%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Jennifer: 5.0%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Jennifer: 1.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 8.3%Jennifer: 2.2%dailydot.com: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias8.3%This article: 9.5%Jennifer: 4.7%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Jennifer: 0.4%dailydot.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Jennifer: 10.3%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Jennifer: 4.2%dailydot.com: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error11.9%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 2.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 1.8%dailydot.com: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 2.6%dailydot.com: 1.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 2.9%dailydot.com: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.2%Jennifer: 9.2%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.8%Jennifer: 3.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.8%This article: 11.4%Jennifer: 8.4%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion11.4%This article: 4.4%Jennifer: 1.1%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 20.2%Jennifer: 2.1%dailydot.com: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.6%Jennifer: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.8%Burden of Proof4.6%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.0%Jennifer: 6.0%dailydot.com: 7.3%Anecdotal11.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 24.8%Jennifer: 2.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.8%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.0%Jennifer: 6.8%dailydot.com: 4.9%Unattributed Quote11.0%This article: 2.4%Jennifer: 3.7%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 6.4%Jennifer: 4.9%dailydot.com: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 4.2%Jennifer: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer: 1.1%dailydot.com: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers14%attributed speech468writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDailyLoud • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDailyLoud • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSimplydamii • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

DailyLoud

85%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words60% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Unattributed Quote+80.3 ptsWriter: 4.5%DailyLoud: 84.8%84.8%Biased Writer Voice-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%DailyLoud: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%DailyLoud: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%DailyLoud: 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.