Postmarks

---

Why Attack the 'Statesman' Statistics?

Dear Editor,

I love the Chronicle. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Louis Black.

Thus, I am totally mystified by the pissing contest you've gotten into with the Austin American-Statesman, for whom I hold no affection, over their alleged misuse of "statistics" involving the police and minorities ["Page Two," Feb. 13 and "Austin@Large," News, Feb. 13].

You state (regarding the death of Sophia King) ["After 18 Months, APD Releases Report on King Shooting," News, Feb. 20], "Of 14 fatal police shootings since 1990, seven have featured a white officer and a black or Hispanic suspect." That is exactly 50%. It's a statistic. Is it possible my math is wrong here? Or are you playing with statistics, too?

So what exactly is your problem with the Statesman's reportage? You seem to be suffering from a schizophrenia of sorts, praising the integrity of Austin police officers while mounting a "let's get them" attack on the Big Brother official city newspaper. Lucius Lomax's devastating article sheds another light on the police use of deadly force, which clearly seems disproportionately high when directed at non-Anglos. You can't have it both ways!

Is your attack on the Statesman's attempt to expose a horrible portrait of injustice and racism in our city just an effort to make the Chronicle seem more journalistically pure? You screwed up badly (and were gracious enough to admit it) when you blindly accepted the "10 mug shots" lie, and you're just digging yourself deeper into a hole when you acknowledge that 50% (your statistic) of fatal police shootings involve white officers killing members of minorities, which seems to contradict your objections to the Statesman's series.

I know your heart is in the right place, but this issue is far too serious to be reduced to a childish, playground skirmish between two newspapers. Historically, I have always accepted the Chronicle's version over anything printed in the Statesman, but I'm beginning to wonder what precisely is your point here.

With all due respect,

David Weems

---

Soifer Responds

Dear Louis:

I was disappointed to read the Chronicle's assessment of the 200th District Court race last week ["Endorsements," News, Feb. 20], especially as I recalled the reason that I first decided to run for district judge: I believed, with 20 years of experience as a civil trial lawyer and even more years of working for progressive community causes and the Democratic Party, that I would be the best-qualified candidate for the job. For six months, I ran on qualifications – and only on qualifications. But during the last three months my Democratic credentials have been attacked repeatedly by the Triana campaign because of 90 days of legal work I did for my firm's client, the state of Texas, during the 2001 redistricting litigation. Although my work was not political and had nothing to do with my personal politics (to be clear, I despise what the Republicans did), Triana's camp chose a charming visual of me for the Chronicle: "She has blood on her hands." I stuck to qualifications. Then, last month, I received an e-mail directing me to a sophisticated, and anonymous, political attack Web site – directed against me. More of the same. It was then I made the decision to fight smoke and mirrors with fire. In the last two weeks, I have pointed out the central hypocrisy of Triana's attacks – that she actually voted Republican through 1990, by which time I had been an active Democrat for 15 years. But, as Lloyd Doggett once said, "sometimes when you get in a fight with a skunk, you can't tell who started it." I'll take my share of the stink for fighting back, but hope that Chronicle readers will at least recognize the cause-and-effect of all this back-and-forth, and cast their votes for the candidate they believe is best qualified.

Jan Soifer

---

Coffey Is a Hero

Dear Editor,

For the past 18 months the reports on the King shooting have been questioned, examined, and picked apart ["After 18 Months, APD Releases Report on King Shooting," News, Feb. 20]. Everything that seemed to be not in favor of an officer doing his job and saving a life has been made so spectacular and sensationalized.

Now it's time for the media to take the responsibility to sensationalize the homicide report with the victim (Diana Powell) and the 911 call from the Rosewood resident, along with the fact that Jim Harrington's suit (the civil rights activist attorney filed the civil suit against the city of Austin and Officer Coffey) has been dropped. There is no merit to any of it. Officer Coffey did his job June 11, 2002, and saved Ms. Powell's life. He is a hero. Where are all of the critics now? Put the truth on the front cover of your magazine, make it bigger than life, sensationalize it, and make it just as spectacular as you did when you printed that this was nothing but a racial issue.

Michelle Coffey

---

Perry Cavorts

Dear Editor,

Gov. Perry – with his wife, his staff, and his largest GOP contributors – flies off on a private plane to a sumptuous resort in the Bahamas. He calls it a three-day working retreat to discuss public school financing in the state. If he had been truly interested in financing the schools, he could have discussed the issue in Austin and donated the cost of the trip to the education fund. Sadly, people like Rick Perry and his corporate collaborators have so little respect for the intelligence of the average citizen that they actually think we're fooled by their chicanery. Isn't this precisely what Ralph Nader is talking about when he says this government is bought and paid for by corporations? The really scary part is that the public is being apprised of this behavior, yet it doesn't seem to have any effect on the politicians who arrogate to themselves the right to be corrupt.

Bob Weir

Flower Mound

---

A Cop's Job Is to Move Forward

Dear Editor,

[Mike Clark-] Madison wrote ["Austin@Large," News, Feb. 20], "Jessie Owens may have done some stupid things that night – we'll never know – but he did not commit suicide, and the only life Glasgow saved was his own, put at risk by his own actions; despite the APA rhetoric, nobody was being 'robbed, or raped, or killed' or would have been had Owens managed to flee. That was not the worst-case scenario." For the most part I agreed with his article, but this last part cracked me up. This is the same kind of logic that people pulled over for traffic offenses scream at the officers, "Why aren't you out there arresting rapists and robbers." Mr. Madison, a cop's job is to go forward into danger, but it doesn't mean we are required to commit suicide. Or let felons go who don't want to be arrested just because they may not kill someone. Glasgow did not break any policy. He broke procedure, which is a guideline. Most of the officers, at any department, have or will arrest a felon by himself. As felonies go, driving a stolen car is low on the felony food chain but still a risk, especially adding in the illegal narcotics. Even if it had been just a traffic violation, even if you don't think you broke any traffic laws, once you decide to fight me, place my life in danger, and the only way to save myself is to kill you; I'm going to kill you ... period. That's no big police secret, that's the way it is and the way it will always be. If Owens was white, I doubt if the grand jury would have tried indicting him for violations of procedure or the brass giving him 90 days as a compromise to termination. If he had made the same procedural decisions, but the arrest was made without death or injury, he wouldn't have been disciplined at all, some time of training refresher at best, but that's just me.

David Walker

Round Rock