I follow you, but what he's reporting isn't HIS data, it's NYPD data. So either he's lying about NYPD's data, grossly misrepresenting the data, or the data is correct. Now if it was his data, that would be very different. But he's presenting this as NYPD's data so one theoretically could cross check the data to see if it was being represented accurately. Two of his editors are retired cops, and would have access to the same data. Also, at the time he writes the article, he would have been required to submit his source data to the editor. That's so the editor can determine if it's correct, or perhaps put up a chart, or to cross check his work if they so desired.
Now clearly others disagree with me, but I don't find it likely that he lied or mid-represented the actual data. I've never felt he was dumb, and to do so would be incredibly dumb because it would be SO easy to get caught. I just don't see him putting his entire livelihood on the line so he could fake a point...but that's just me. Additionally the data lines up with news articles I have read back in the late '80's and early '90's of officers who had been shot by their partners via pass through.
If the data is his, then everything would be dependent solely on the presenter.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. I find the data credible, you and others don't. So that makes the entire thread rather moot.
