Your last sentence is a common fallacy: just because I pick a certain set of annoyances on a scale of trade-offs (in this case, the scale of living in an apartment to living in the wilderness) doesn't mean I am required to unquestioningly soak up all those annoyances. If that's your logic, you could never speak up about any problem you could in principle escape from, even if that escape would result in bigger problems. This "leave if you don't like it" approach to criticism, where leaving is very expensive and especially where the solution is very cheap, is also not ok (as it more obviously would not be ok in a political context).

I'm not asking for a lot. Just use headphones.

This is a classic case of double standards. We want one set of standards god people we agree with and another set of standards for people we disagree with.

To avoid this, we institute a standard across the board for everyone, like them or dislike them.

And yes, it's fundamentally OK to hold police to a higher standard than the general public, including literal children. I'm not sure why this is in question.