BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Burden of Proof, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 57.8% saturation with 278 hits. Analysis detected 1,183 faulty-reasoning hits from 481 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of 75% (6,697 of 26,320 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.60% of the article peer group.

In the two days since an ICE officer shot and killed 26-year-old Colombian national Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford Monday morning, the federal government has offered a series of shifting and contradictory explanations, fueling demands that Maine authorities, not federal agencies, lead the investigation into his death. 
The first account came from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who told Sen. 
Angus King Monday that the man shot was the target of an arrest warrant based on his immigration status and had “weaponized” his vehicle. 
Hours later, that story collapsed. 
Mullin called back to say the victim was not the target of the warrant. 
Guerrero was authorized to work in the United States and had a Social Security number. 
DHS’s official statement, issued nearly 12 hours after the shooting, changed the justification again . 
Dropping the “weaponized” language, the department said the vehicle “attempted to flee the scene” and the officer fired out of concern for “public safety,” without explaining what threat the allegedly departing car posed. 
No video exists of the shooting itself as the agents were not wearing body cameras. 
A video from a local witness shows officers pulling the dying man from his car and handcuffing him, instead of providing medical aid. 
Another witness reports that Guererro’s last words were “I tried to stop.” 
King says that the rapidly-shifting explanations should disqualify the federal government from policing itself. 
“The federal authorities have very little credibility now,” he said. 
The Maine Attorney General’s Office announced a state investigation, said the officer who fired would be placed on leave, and pledged to pursue “meaningful transparency and accountability.” 
In its press release on the day of the killing, the Office said that initial statements indicated that Guerrero “attempted to flee in a vehicle in the direction of the officer.” 
The AG’s office has not made further official statements or released a correction even as DHS has backed away from that claim. 
Advocates say state involvement is essential precisely because the federal narrative keeps moving. 
The Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and Presente! 
called for a prompt, independent and transparent investigation and preservation of all footage and communications, arguing ICE must not be allowed to investigate itself or control the public narrative around a death involving its own personnel. 
Guerrero’s killing was the second time in a week ICE used deadly force, and at least the ninth death during the Trump administration. 
In Houston, DHS also claimed a man killed by ICE had “weaponized” his van, a narrative Texas officials have questioned. 
Biddeford residents and Mainers across the state have reacted with rage at ICE and support for Guerrero’s family. 
Protests have been held in towns across Maine, including at an ICE detention center in Scarborough , and a GoFundMe organized for Guerrero’s family has now raised more than $385,000. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Beacon Staff: 5.4%Maine Beacon: 5.6%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.7%Maine Beacon: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Beacon Staff: 3.0%Maine Beacon: 3.2%Availability Heuristic15.8%This article: 4.2%Beacon Staff: 1.1%Maine Beacon: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.6%Maine Beacon: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 1.5%Maine Beacon: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Beacon Staff: 9.4%Maine Beacon: 9.8%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.3%Maine Beacon: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.4%Maine Beacon: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 3.4%Maine Beacon: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 1.6%Maine Beacon: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 57.8%Beacon Staff: 9.2%Maine Beacon: 10.5%Negativity Bias57.8%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.9%Maine Beacon: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.4%Maine Beacon: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.1%Maine Beacon: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Beacon Staff: 3.8%Maine Beacon: 4.2%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.3%Maine Beacon: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.6%Maine Beacon: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.4%Maine Beacon: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Beacon Staff: 2.0%Maine Beacon: 1.5%Recency Bias17.7%This article: 9.6%Beacon Staff: 0.8%Maine Beacon: 0.7%Primacy Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 2.9%Maine Beacon: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.8%Maine Beacon: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Beacon Staff: 1.9%Maine Beacon: 1.8%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 2.9%Beacon Staff: 3.5%Maine Beacon: 2.6%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.9%Maine Beacon: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.7%Beacon Staff: 0.2%Maine Beacon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.7%This article: 14.8%Beacon Staff: 5.3%Maine Beacon: 6.5%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.1%Maine Beacon: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.0%Beacon Staff: 2.1%Maine Beacon: 1.7%Bandwagon10.0%This article: 19.5%Beacon Staff: 13.7%Maine Beacon: 14.0%Appeal to Emotion19.5%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.7%Maine Beacon: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 3.5%Maine Beacon: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 18.9%Beacon Staff: 0.7%Maine Beacon: 0.5%Burden of Proof18.9%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.3%Maine Beacon: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.4%Beacon Staff: 2.5%Maine Beacon: 3.5%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Beacon Staff: 0.4%Maine Beacon: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.5%Beacon Staff: 0.1%Maine Beacon: 0.1%Special Pleading7.5%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.0%Maine Beacon: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Beacon Staff: 1.1%Maine Beacon: 1.0%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.2%Maine Beacon: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.7%Beacon Staff: 2.8%Maine Beacon: 8.1%Biased Writer Voice2.7%This article: 10.2%Beacon Staff: 6.2%Maine Beacon: 6.5%Indoctrination10.2%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 9.3%Maine Beacon: 11.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.3%Maine Beacon: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beacon Staff: 0.8%Maine Beacon: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

481 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech318writer words
84%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words26% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Indoctrination+79.6 ptsWriter: 4.1%Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition: 83.7%83.7%Biased Writer Voice-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition: 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.