Townhall⁠93%

North Carolina Career Criminal Arrested Again for Randomly Assaulting Women ⁠74%

By Amy Curtis⁠96%

8/7/2026, 1:30:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Indoctrination, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.7% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 883 faulty-reasoning hits from 418 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (8,232 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.10% of the article peer group.

Di-Quan Schafar Hunt has a lengthy rap sheet. 
Hunt has 14 prior arrests, including one from June 2019 where he pleaded guilty to discharging a weapon into occupied property and a felony probation violation. 
He was sentenced to 20-36 months but was released less than a year later, in June 2020. 
In March of this year, Hunt was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed weapon. 
He only received short prison sentences credited as time served. 
Now Hunt has been arrested again for randomly assaulting white women and filming the attacks. 
One of his victims was hospitalized with serious injuries. 
Here's more: 
A North Carolina career criminal is accused of randomly punching and hospitalizing a woman while chasing down another victim in a separate attack as he posted the disturbing footage across social media. 
Di-Quan Schafar Hunt was arrested Thursday for committing the alleged assault in a residential neighborhood on the 400 block of East Boulevard in Charlotte, NC, on July 30, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said. 
Police busted Hunt, 32, when the department was presented with several videos on his social media page, where the brute posted about his physical confrontations. 
Hunt was recording himself talking about a “real issue” that happened on July 21st when he crossed paths with the unidentified woman holding a get-well balloon. 
The sad part is some judge will probably cut Hunt loose yet again. 
Imagine if a white man was attacking black women and randomly filming it. 
Cities would burn. 
Here is some of that footage, but be warned it may be hard for some viewers to watch: 
That's evil. 
Hunt is being evaluated at a medical facility. 
They're going to deem him mentally incompetent, just like they're doing with Decarlos Brown, Jr. who killed Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte's light rail. 
If these criminals are mentally ill, that's even more reason to keep them in prison, because they're unpredictable and dangerous in society. 
How much longer can we tolerate judges and prosecutors giving violent criminals slaps on the wrist? 
How many more innocent people have to be victimized, hurt, or killed before the Left gets serious about locking up criminals? 
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda. 
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.3%Amy Curtis: 7.9%Townhall: 5.5%Confirmation Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Amy Curtis: 3.0%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.7%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 9.5%Townhall: 10.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 34.7%Amy Curtis: 14.8%Townhall: 13.2%Negativity Bias34.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Amy Curtis: 3.4%Townhall: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.3%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 5.0%Townhall: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Amy Curtis: 1.1%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 3.1%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 7.7%Townhall: 5.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.9%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.3%Townhall: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.3%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma10.3%This article: 3.1%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.7%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Amy Curtis: 15.1%Townhall: 9.4%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.9%Amy Curtis: 1.4%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon7.9%This article: 16.3%Amy Curtis: 9.7%Townhall: 10.4%Appeal to Emotion16.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.4%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.8%Amy Curtis: 1.9%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof3.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.7%Townhall: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.5%Townhall: 3.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.0%Townhall: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.8%Amy Curtis: 21.8%Townhall: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice21.8%This article: 21.3%Amy Curtis: 7.4%Townhall: 5.1%Indoctrination21.3%This article: 8.1%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.1%This article: 17.0%Amy Curtis: 21.2%Townhall: 13.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias17.0%This article: 11.2%Amy Curtis: 6.1%Townhall: 5.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.2%

418 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers11%attributed speech371writer words
Selected voice

Townhall VIP

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words30% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +91.1 ptsWriter: 8.9%Townhall VIP: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.5 ptsWriter: 24.5%Townhall VIP: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-24.0 ptsWriter: 24.0%Townhall VIP: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Townhall VIP: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Townhall VIP: 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.