Are the Officer’s Words Credible?
When a witness makes a demonstrably false
claim, their credibility is generally called into question. I have clearly
demonstrated that the officer lied about the time of the call, positioning it
at 6:08 PM, when the timestamp on the audio file is 3:56 AM. I was also able to
pull out an incorrect address in the report on the neighbour. If the officer is
going to lie about the time of the call, why would you believe anything else
that he says? Further, if the department is going to uphold a lie in the face
of clear evidence to the contrary, in an apparent attempt at a cover-up, why
would you believe anything else that the department says?
I can resend the file, if it’s been lost.
For now, here is a screenshot of the voicemail, indicating the time of
reception.
Regarding the Question of Intimidation and Harassment
By The Officer
I documented three occurrences of harassing
behaviour by the officer, leading up to a series of legally incoherent threats
and an eventual illegal arrest and arbitrary detention. However, the report did
not make any attempt to put the situation into context. Given the clear
illegality of the arrest, and apparent cluelessness of the department in general,
I must insist that these accusations be properly investigated.
Regarding the Question of Transphobic Bias
A key part of my complaint was a feeling
that the officer was behaving out of a transphobic bias. By referring to me
using masculine pronouns, despite my clear indication that I have a female
identity, the report perpetuates the bias that I requested be examined, leaving
me more concerned about a bias than I was to begin with. While an explanation
for this does appear in the report,
it hardly seems credible; it is rather quite readily apparent that the
insistence on masculine pronouns is intended to insult and degrade me. There is
really no other way to explain it.
For the record, I have been on high potency
hormones for nearly ten years. I am not at the start of a transition, but
functionally through it. My appearance is unambiguously female, and the
continued claims to the contrary are not grounded in empirical reasoning but
simply in a continued insistence on prejudicial bias. I’m a girl, and it is
clear to all who have eyes.
The report really just confirms my
suspicion, so I must insist that this question be more thoroughly examined.
Regarding the Question of The Foot in The Door
My recollection of the situation is clearly
rather different than the officer’s, but the officer nonetheless clearly
acknowledges placing a foot in the door; rather than deny the encounter, he has
made up an excuse to justify it, one that doesn’t even contradict the
accusation. I will deny that I yelled through the door and rather insist upon
my recollection of events, which was that I asked him to move his foot multiple
times (reminding him that he did not have a warrant) and was unable to close
the door until he left. Why, exactly, would I file a false complaint, in
context? Given that the officer’s credibility is in question, his recollection
of events should be taken with a grain of salt. I must insist that these claims
have been substantiated by the officer’s own statements - that he acknowledges
preventing me from closing the door, whatever his excuse, and should be held
accountable for it.
Regarding the Question Of The Badge Number
The reasoning utilized in the report that I
must have been provided with a badge number because I heard part of it is
facile to say the least. Again - what would the purpose of filing a false
report of this nature be? If I had the badge number, would I not have provided
it? To suggest this is unsubstantiated is disingenuous; the fact that i got a
few of the numbers correct actually substantiates the claim pretty strongly. I
must insist this be rethought.
About The Phone
I initially responded to the voice message
on the morning of Sept 12 (when i woke up), and received the following response
at 9:48, and fairly quickly iirc. If the phone was a loaner, that would mean
that it was returned to the office and lent back out again between the hours of
4:00 AM and 9:48 AM - a stretch, if you ask me. I must insist that this
question be revisited.
and, you will note my clock is military -
09:48 is 9:48 am.
About The Officer’s Understanding Of The Law
My statements were clear - I asked the
officer to define what harassment is,
under a clear concern that he hadn’t the slightest actual clue, and he
specifically referred to the idea of being “annoying”, which is simply objectively
false. This was a few weeks after he tried to tell me that nuisance does not
exist under the criminal code. While I understand that the officer is neither a
lawyer nor an encyclopedia, one would expect that he would at least look up a
law before he tries to make an arrest, or get a warrant if he’s not sure, and
at least take it to heart when somebody tries to explain something to him,
which I did rather clearly. The cliché is that there is a difference between ignorance
and stupidity; we are all ignorant of many things, it is a natural condition of
existence, but we are only stupid when we refuse to acknowledge our ignorance.
This would not have happened had he simply listened to me, and made an attempt
to understand me. The report attempts to frame the issue around the officer’s
obligations to explain the law to a civilian, which is just a red herring - the
issue at hand is not whether I understand the law, but whether the officer
does; this is an officer that aggressively pursued a completely ridiculous
interpretation of the statute, with no interest in the truth of the matter.
Such an officer is a clear and present danger to civilians, as he operates on
ideology rather than on evidence or reason. I think I explained this point
clearly enough at the top of the page, and would insist that the issue be
revisited - does this officer understand the law well enough to continue being
an officer? Is he capable of learning it? This is the important question here,
not whether he tried his best to explain a statute to somebody with a math
degree and three years worth of law credits, and that understands it better
than he does.
The Emails
I will attach the emails that I have in a
separate file. Nobody ever asked me for them.
Conclusion
While the report is unreasonable, it is
also incorrect and it is the correctness basis of review that I wish to draw a
stricter attention to.
1) The main issue at hand, in hindsight, is
the question of whether the arrest was legal, and this was not dealt with
correctly.
2) There was no attempt to determine
whether the officer’s behaviour constituted intimidation or harassment.
3) I believe that Count #1 remains unclear
and requires further investigation, although the tone of the report further
substantiates it.
4) I believe that the report substantiates
count #2.