Probably a bit from both columns, cops are also under a lot of stress and don’t tend to be up on the political correctness so yea they can say stuff on calls that while not offensive per se is annoying.
How is there no irony and how does my analogy not work?
Muslims who accused women who didn’t wear the hijab of “dressing like whores” would certainly be accused of sexism and I don’t see much of a difference between that and referring to “officer whoreface”.
I’m not saying the OP harangued the officers at the time I’m saying she is haranguing them here, in a contradictory way.
The officers didn’t enter the apartment. The OP criticises them for craning their necks into the apartment, but she also complains that they should have been able to observe sufficient to know that the OP and her company hadn’t been throwing plates. In other words the officers couldn’t win. If they’d had a good look round that would presumably have been even worse than “craning their necks” but without doing so how on earth could they reliably form the judgment that no plates had been thrown?
The idea that merely seeing that the “only plates visible” were intact could satisfy the officers of anything is idiocy. I don’t know about where you live but around here when a noise complaint is phoned in at 2am the police don’t exactly drop everything, put on the flashing lights and sirens and burn rubber. Any reasonable person (who was not typing through a red mist) would realise that a few broken plates could have been cleaned up into the trash in about five minutes leaving only whole plates visible, before the police got there, so that the officer’s question was hardly unreasonable.
The more so since you’d have to suspect that the (apparently asshole) complainant said something to the effect they thought they could hear plates smashing. This seems far (far, far) more likely than the OP’s suggestion that the plates throwing thing was designed to “provoke”, which sounds to me like a mix of paranoia and a finely balanced chip on the shoulder.
I don’t have any great sympathy for cops because I’ve had too many poor experiences with them, but nonetheless the OP comes across as the type of self righteous fool who thinks that just because they know the truth about something, any impartial person who doesn’t immediately believe what they say in preference to someone else saying the opposite is biased or an asshole or something.
These officers (presumably) received a call saying that someone had phoned in a domestic dispute and that there had been bangs and yells and perhaps plates smashing. The officers would undoubtedly have attended dozens of such calls which had actually been domestic disturbances many probably involving violence. And furthermore in many cases those involved in domestic disputes, for better or for worse, don’t want police involvement and so subsequently deny that any domestic took place, won’t press charges etc.
But somehow these officers are supposed to magically know all the background the OP gives us, and magically know that the OP is telling the truth, presumably because the OP’s face radiates pure truth and goodness while the complainant gives off mysterious “liar, liar, pants on fire” emanations.
I sympathise with the OP for having crappy neighbors but taking it out on the officers is misplaced, and imagining that what happened to the OP was all as a consequence of her being lesbian is paranoid.
Because making fun of somebody for wearing too much makeup has nothing to do with homophobia.
No, but there are a lot of people who say that it was a display of sexism, which I think is what he’s trying to get at.
Since this is the pit: Fuck the police. That is all.
Thanks Ice Cube.
If it happens again, get the names and ID numbers of the officers and tell them that you both want to file a complaint against the neighbor for filing a false report to a police officer.
I’m MC Ren thx.
True, just as referring to a black cop as “officer nigger” has “nothing to do with homophobia”.
It does however suggest a certain amount of racism and referring to “officer whoreface” also suggests a certain amount of sexism.
You’ll notice that Rush Limbaugh has been accused by a number of people of sexism and/or misogyny for making similar comments.
As for my referring to “irony” it’s because sexism, racism and homophobia are all examples of bigotry.
To “harangue” someone is to deliver a lengthy and aggressive speech. She didn’t describe responding aggressively to the officers at all; if you think that happened, it’s only in your own imagination. If you think it’s happening here, you must think one of the police officers is present.
Are you a cop who wears a lot of makeup?
Why is it unreasonable to complain both about the officers peering around the apartment and about them being too incompetent to determine that it was not the aftermath of a Greek meal or an impromptu discus competition? I’d say both are worthy of note. I mean one expects the cops to look around but given the complete illegitimacy of the visit I think it’s still valid to be put off by it.
What? The cops can’t “have a good look round” without what we here in the States call a “good look round warrant”. That shouldn’t even be on the table.
Are you trying to say that the question about throwing plates around was reasonable? I mean, it was obviously some crack about how the cop imagined a domestic dispute might have gone down; getting into the literal mechanics of throwing crockery and its aftermath is sort of irrelevant here, unless the complaint was specifically “I heard the shattering of ceramics”, which I sort of doubt.
. . . yes, the nutbag neighbor who calls in noise complaints when the place is empty no doubt described throwing plates around. Or else – stay with me here – perhaps the cops were describing a stereotypical idea of throwing dishes without having been specifically told that was happening.
Since she apparently had no trouble with the previous cops, I think we can at least discount the possibility that she just has a “chip on her shoulder” about cops. I know that there are a whole lot of people here who pretty much unconditionally worship authority figures but in real life, it’s not that unusual for cops to actually be assholes.
I.e. you know from experience that cops are known to bully people and treat them unfairly, but you’re still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are the wronged party in this situation.
Gosh. Imagine these cops, after having only three previous false noise complaints against this address. How on earth were they supposed to know, as they knocked on the door to this silent apartment, that it hadn’t been the sight of a gruesome bloodbath only moments before?
I thought I had a bit of distrust toward the cops. But if you think they’re so goddamn stupid that they can’t figure out that a call was illegitimate in this circumstance, clearly you hate them a lot more than I do.
Noticing the attitude of a cop when asking if two women live together is not “imagining” anything, nor is it “paranoid”. It’s possible, I guess, that it’s all in the poster’s head. But I don’t know why you would discount the possibility of a homophobic cop who made that clear without explicitly saying anything. I can’t see why that would be outside the realm of possibility. You’re certainly drawing a conclusion with a good deal less evidence than the author of the post.
Wow, what a circular bitchfest this thread is.
I blame Daylight Saving Time.
I agree that the irony which Ibn is attempting to make out is at best rather indirect.
However the OP mocks someone by calling them “whoreface” and as Marley23 says would probably want us to see that as mere “making fun” not as sexism. At the same time the OP wants us to believe the officers were homophobic based, as best I can tell, on alleged tone of voice. If tone of voice is enough to assume homophobia, what is a “joke” comprising calling someone “whoreface” sufficient to assume?
Yes the OP is haranguing the officers here. That they are not present to hear it is not my problem.
And anyone who can in the same breath admit that the complainant “no doubt described throwing plates around” and also think officers responding to the complaint were wrong to ask if the subjects of the complaint had been throwing plates around, is too much of an idiot to be worth responding to further, sorry. Does it occur to you, dumbshit, that if the officers wanted to establish that the complaint was false, they would need to ask the subject of the complaint if the matters complained of were false?
Once again, it was not reported as a domestic violence call. They told us they were here about a noise complaint, and then proceeded to ask if there’d been any plate-throwing. That’s the part that was the police’s fault, them coming in the first place being the fault of my neighbour.
If they’re not present here, she is by definition not “haranguing” them. You can’t lecture someone who is absent. The fact that you use words with, apparently, no idea what they mean is, in fact, your problem.
Oh, fuck. I keep screwing up and forgetting how many people here are like you, and too stupid to understand the concept of sarcasm.
Is there any plausible reasoning – even knowing that we left the realm of reality and entered a realm of pure imagination several posts of yours back – that would lead us to believe that the complaint mentioned smashed plates? Rather than that the officer just used that as an example of something stereotypical in “domestic disputes”? Because nothing in the reported dialogue even hints that the complaint mentioned anything that specific.
Sorry, I’m not used to dumbing myself down quite as much as I probably should. You will probably need a dictionary for the big words to avoid repeating your embarrassing “harangue” mistake.
What do you imagine, in police experience, banging and yelling in an apartment in the early hours of the morning might be caused by?
I should add that in my experience police very often ask people about things without stating exactly why they are asking what they asking or what their source is. It’s pretty much SOP.
We’ve spoken to the landlady about the neighbour multiple times- once before the first cops were called, once after and then after these were called. I did try to tell these cops that there’d been a bogus noise complaint here before after he asked for and got my named and birthdate, but he actually interrupted me to add the “domestic dispute” bit. Next time, I’m just going to go downstairs and meet this mysterious neighbour, and if it happens again I’ll be potentially calling or visiting the police station to ask how one gets unnecessary noise complaints to stop.
You have no evidence that the caller said anything like that when they called the police. I don’t know why you’d assume that; nothing in the story suggested it, so it seems perfectly likely that the noise complaint – not a domestic disturbance complaint, a noise complaint – just led the cops to make a little bit more of a leap. After all, they had already leapt to assume it was a possible domestic violence case, rather than (say) a party or loud music.
Come with Princhester, and you’ll be in a world of pure imagination.
