Vallejo police investigation underway following incident ⁠58%

By KTVU Staff⁠10%

7/20/2026, 4:31:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 48.9% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 409 faulty-reasoning hits from 174 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (11,178 of 26,447 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.

A police investigation is underway in Vallejo following an incident Monday afternoon. 
Authorities have not said what they are investigating. 
Aerial and ground video from the scene showed a large police presence near Mahogany Drive and Broadway. 
The incident appeared to be centered near an alley behind an auto repair shop around 1:15 p.m. 
Video from the scene showed a body beneath a yellow tarp. 
However, police have not confirmed a fatality and have not released information about what transpired. 
Reports suggest that one person in a vehicle wanted in connection with a robbery was involved and that shots were fired. 
Police have not confirmed those reports. 
However, officers were seen placing multiple evidence markers around the scene and near a gray sedan. 
One witness told KTVU they heard what sounded like two different guns being discharged. 
The witness said they first heard six shots from what appeared to be a smaller-caliber weapon, followed by nine shots from what sounded like a larger-caliber firearm. 
The investigation remains ongoing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%KTVU Staff: 0.9%KTVU: 2.0%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.2%KTVU: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 48.9%KTVU Staff: 3.9%KTVU: 2.6%Availability Heuristic48.9%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.2%KTVU: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%KTVU Staff: 2.4%KTVU: 3.9%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.6%KTVU: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%KTVU Staff: 3.7%KTVU: 5.0%Negativity Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.8%KTVU: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.9%KTVU: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.6%KTVU: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.2%KTVU: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.7%KTVU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 3.4%KTVU: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%KTVU Staff: 1.2%KTVU: 2.1%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.1%KTVU: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.3%KTVU: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.4%KTVU: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.3%KTVU: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.1%KTVU Staff: 0.9%KTVU: 0.4%Burden of Proof12.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.6%KTVU Staff: 1.9%KTVU: 2.2%Anecdotal23.6%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 46.6%KTVU Staff: 1.8%KTVU: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)46.6%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.0%KTVU Staff: 2.3%KTVU: 1.8%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.2%KTVU: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.9%KTVU Staff: 1.4%KTVU: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice25.9%This article: 12.1%KTVU Staff: 1.9%KTVU: 1.7%Indoctrination12.1%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 1.1%KTVU: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.0%KTVU: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KTVU Staff: 0.5%KTVU: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

174 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.0%attributed speech160writer words
Selected voice

KTVU

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%KTVU: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+80.6 ptsWriter: 19.4%KTVU: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%KTVU: 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.