So you want reforms for a problem that you can't even articulate a rate of, to lower it to a threshold you can't define (or won't) define.
Am I wrong to be suspicious of this?
Frankly, yes. Your fixation on statistical representation of a problem suggests an inability to see the forest for the trees.
Rarely are the explicit numbers of much value whatsoever, when one considers that statisticians – especially those who deal in socio-political metrics – are more "artists" than scientists (or mathematicians).
I could waste my time creating statistics to demonstrate anything I want (true or false). Exactly what do you imagine that would prove?
The fact that police misconduct might be "rare" relative to... something... might be of some relevance, were police held routinely liable for their misdeeds. As it stands, I don't see a need to determine a precise rate of police malfeasance to argue that the system needs reform. Perhaps, were reform under immediate consideration, I might deem such statistics worthy of determination.
Anyway, it's clear that you have no interest in actually considering the other side (whereas I was raised there, and came here only after careful consideration of the facts). There's no number that would convince you of my position. So why should I bother researching one? Furthermore, the ever-growing quantity of Americans who are fed up with today's police will be just as unimpressed with your demand for precise statistics as I am.
Trutfully, once you step out of circles who regularly watch O'Reilly (or, on the other side, hyper-progressives), your view rapidly becomes in the minority. You act like I'm spouting something that gets about three assents, and only then in a libertarian echo chamber. In reality, I associate on a daily basis with real people, an easy majority of whom are closer to my view than to yours.
American policing is out of control. I feel comfortable making this assertion undefended, and so broadly is it accepted, I submit that your disagreeing with it says far more about
your ability to reason than it does the validity of that assertion.