A Pretty Sad Display

Dear Editor,
   Michael King and the Chronicle staff's criticism of the Statesman's methodology is way off track ["Unequal Farce," News, Feb. 13]. Several statistical experts back their approach. Who backed yours? Mike Sheffield and Mike Levy. Anybody else? Not that I've seen.
   There are instances of use of force that don't result in arrest – to what baseline would the Chronicle compare those numbers?
   When ACLU participated in a recent study of racial profiling at traffic stops, we learned an important lesson about baselines that's applicable in the debate over comparing use-of-force encounters, whether to arrests or more generic citizen contacts – the same tree is tallest whether you measure with a ruler or a yardstick. We compared racial profiling stop statistics with three different baselines and gave departments the most favorable one. But the same departments always wound up the highest.
   Similarly, the same officers will have the highest use-of-force ratios no matter what baseline you compare them to, if the numerator remains the same, which it does. That means that even using your methodology, basically the same officers wind up at the top of the list. And since your analysis didn't cover the same period as the Statesman's and their analysis covered more use-of-force encounters, your criticism of their aggregate findings remains, essentially, baseless. They may well be wrong, but y'all didn't prove it.
   The blatant, copied error that 10 officers' mug shots were published, repeated by three Chronicle writers, demonstrates conclusively that your criticisms were gleaned from Mike Levy's much publicized and little-substantiated screed on the topic. You certainly didn't check his claims out with ACLU or anybody who would know better. Frankly, it was a pretty sad display.