Person shot before taking gun away from attacker near Oakland waterfront 1%

By Delilah Brumer14%

8/3/2026, 7:10:19 PM

Topics: Bay Area, Crime
Keywords: East Bay, Bay Area, Crime

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 122 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 1% (26,857 of 26,966 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.60% of the article peer group.

An argument between two people in Oakland escalated into a shooting Saturday evening, police said. 
A person was shot in the 80 block of Fallon Street at about 7:15 p.m., but was able to take the gun away and pistol-whip the shooter, police said. 
They were both then taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries and detained, according to the Oakland Police Department. 
Police said they recovered a gun at the scene, which was near the Jack London Aquatic Center along Embarcadero. 
The investigation is ongoing, and authorities have not released the names of the people involved. 
The Oakland Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 3.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 1.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 1.1%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 1.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 15.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 2.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 2.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Delilah Brumer: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

122 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker68%attributed speech39writer words
0%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.