A half-dozen or so of the residents at Senior Housing regularly play their TVs, radios, or stereos much louder than allowed by law.
Late one night, one of my neighbors was playing his/her stereo fairly loud, as was his/her frequent habit. Since I enjoy music myself, I figured it would be okay for me, too, like s/he and the other residents, to play my own music a little on the loud side.
My neighbor turned his/her stereo off and then complained to the Hadley police about the music coming from my apartment.
Doug Costa showed up, said I was violating the town’s anti-noise by-law, and gave me a verbal warning, which is routine policy for first offenses. Second offense, you get arrested.
I asked Costa whether I could complain about my neighbor’s consistently loud music just as s/he had complained about mine. Costa said my complaint would be regarded as retaliation. In other words, in their eyes I would be using police to harass my neighbor and therefore I would be guilty of criminal harassment.
The result of this is that my neighbor was then free to play his/her music or TV or radio as loud and as long at any hour of the day or night s/he pleased, comfortable in the knowledge that if I complained about it, I, not s/he, could get arrested.
The logic used by law enforcement (LE) – and by victim-advocate groups with which LE often works closely - goes like this:
- Person A creates, legally or illegally, one or more problems for Person B.
- Person B then is regarded by LE as potentially dangerous because it is assumed by LE that person B may retaliate against Person A.
As this example, using only an anti-noise by-law, shows, an attempt by Person B to see the law applied equally and impartially to Person A can immediately become regarded by LE as a form of criminal harassment of Person A by Person B.
Nice trick. But that’s the upside down world in which we now live. Sure am glad I'm not Petrit Vasi.
No comments:
Post a Comment