The lack of logic behind the details of the G&M series resulted in the vast majority of posts pointing out the holes in what was written.
.
Now the G&M is declaring "victory", and "doubling"?, tripling"? down..

Lets' review. The not so subtly implied point of the study was that the 20% of reports that were labelled "unfounded" where all in fact not just chargeable, but "guilty". What was not reported, was the conviction rate of the 80% that were charged. How about the false conviction rate of those successfully prosecuted?

And perhaps most importantly, there was no indication of what a "good" number would be? 

Not all traffic stops result in a charge, or conviction, what is the number there?

Who knows, given the fact that the 80% that are charged, contain a high percentage that do not result in a conviction, I would venture that there is most certainly something wrong with the 20% "unfounded" - its' too low.

A better empirical case can be made that there are far too many charges.