Attention whore story #6: Changing profession.

[Solitaire]

This raises two separate issues. First, as I am sure you are aware, jobs, especially those at which you can make any pretense of making a living, are rather scarce. Second, how can a legitimate argument be made that anyone should be driven out of their occupation by wayward regulations and law enforcement (unless of course they are criminals), and by extension why should I be subject to fines and other penalties that generally never go away for something of lesser magnitude than an offense for which a felon cannot be punished in any way other than denial of a sale?

Life isn't fair. You are the only one subjecting yourself to these unfair conditions, nobody is forcing you to drive a truck. I don't think it has as much to do with your occupation as it has to do with your attitude. You were undoubtedly miserable as a corrections officer, now you are miserable as a truck driver. Every other post that you make on this forum reveals your seething anger about something or other, whether it be the government, cops, etc, etc.

The common denominator in all this misery and anger is you. Period.

Life is about 10% what happens to us and 90% how we respond to it. Maybe you need to reevaluate what is important in your life and stop giving yourself ulcers over things you have little control over.

Then again, some people just enjoy being miserable and poisoning everything around them. It takes all kinds, I guess.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I just want to watch the world burn. From high atop my mountain, left completely alone. I see it as a far better option than just going with the flow as you suggest, because the "flow" is inevitably downward and that's where the shyt all ends up at some point.

 

[88GT]

Then go enforce some first lady regulations and see to it that truck drivers have the opportunity to at least have a healthy meal available to them. Ever see anyplace where a 75' long 80,000lb rig can park to get anything besides scrubway bologna sandwiches and deep fried crap? That place doesn't exist.

It's called a grocery store. And there are lots all over the place. I've got six within a 10 minute radius from my house. And that doesn't include the smaller markets in convenience stores.

What a whiner.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Life isn't fair. You are the only one subjecting yourself to these unfair conditions, nobody is forcing you to drive a truck. I don't think it has as much to do with your occupation as it has to do with your attitude. You were undoubtedly miserable as a corrections officer, now you are miserable as a truck driver. Every other post that you make on this forum reveals your seething anger about something or other, whether it be the government, cops, etc, etc.

The common denominator in all this misery and anger is you. Period.

Life is about 10% what happens to us and 90% how we respond to it. Maybe you need to reevaluate what is important in your life and stop giving yourself ulcers over things you have little control over.

Then again, some people just enjoy being miserable and poisoning everything around them. It takes all kinds, I guess.

1. No sh*t Sherlock. That doesn't mean we are required to accept it and let it run unchecked. People who just accept it and do nothing to contain it are the reason for the problems we have now. Yes, that means you.

2. Not exactly true. I am very much attached to my habits of living indoors and eating regularly. For the time being, this is what is available.

3. Maybe so. I am just not cut out to shove a geranium up my ass and be happy. I had a problem working in prison with circumstances which served to encourage recidivism rather than reduce it and with the worst scoundrels and cutthroats being rewarded on the staff. I also have a problem with law enforcement for profit and the Constitution being largely ignored. Be that as it may, I don't expect any agreement here considering that anyone who would embrace the change that you do obviously doesn't value the Constitution.

4. The writings of Justices Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Douglas within the last century have indicated the Fourth Amendment to ultimately amount to the right to be left alone. Again, your disdain for a strict interpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding, this is exactly what I expect, to be left the hell alone.

5. You are right up to a point. Unfortunately, I am not of the bend of character to abandon my values and simply accept whatever may come and respond to being force-fed s**t sandwiches by saying, "Thank you sir. May I have another one please?"

6. If we see a time when push comes to shove, based on the things you have posted, I fully expect you to drop your pants, grab your ankles and say "Please, please use Vaseline." I don't roll that way and never will.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's called a grocery store. And there are lots all over the place. I've got six within a 10 minute radius from my house. And that doesn't include the smaller markets in convenience stores.

What a whiner.

It is more difficult that you would think. If the lot is particularly full, or worse yet filled with concrete barriers often designed specifically to keep us out, it gets very difficult.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It's called a grocery store. And there are lots all over the place. I've got six within a 10 minute radius from my house. And that doesn't include the smaller markets in convenience stores.

What a whiner.

I hope you meant this to be purple, if not it demonstrates a greater deal of ignorance than I was ever willing to credit you with as I typically see you as a fairly well educated and thoughtful person. We aren't talking about those little itty bitty box trucks here, this is about Tractor Trailer highway rigs. Heck, my W900 wouldn't fit in a C-store lot without a trailer.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

It is more difficult that you would think. If the lot is particularly full, or worse yet filled with concrete barriers often designed specifically to keep us out, it gets very difficult.

This ^ . It ain't like you can park these thing just anywhere .

Getting in a spot just might be the easy part , all it takes is one 4 wheeler to ruin it as far as getting back out .

 

[88GT]

It is more difficult that you would think. If the lot is particularly full, or worse yet filled with concrete barriers often designed specifically to keep us out, it gets very difficult.

I didn't say anything about difficulty.

I hope you meant this to be purple, if not it demonstrates a greater deal of ignorance than I was ever willing to credit you with as I typically see you as a fairly well educated and thoughtful person. We aren't talking about those little itty bitty box trucks here, this is about Tractor Trailer highway rigs. Heck, my W900 wouldn't fit in a C-store lot without a trailer.

Absolutely not. If you don't want to make the effort, that's fine. But quit *****in' that no source exists for healthy food. Quit *****in' that it's difficult. Yes, it's difficult. Boo-****in'-hoo. Nobody said it wasn't difficult. I'm simply calling you out for the nancy-boy whining that things aren't as easy as you want them to be.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Frank, the context here is the issue. The post this all came from is directly related to how police officers should behave when they encounter a law biding citizen with a LTCH and a sidearm. Remember? There are plenty of rules and plenty of case law to go on here. It was not originally anything directed at you or anyone else specifically. I posted that I want to be left the F**K alone remember? You took the rest of my comment as a personal attack for some odd reason and here we are.

So what would your attitude be if I started a thread entitled "LEOs: How do you want to be treated by non-LEOs?"? I'm sure you would still be as arrogant and condescending because you think we should bow down to you because you supposedly pay our salary.

No, you are ill informed and wrong. This thread is a continuation of a fight that started somewhere else. It is an attempt by frank to "take it outside" where his friends are waiting. I'm here and not backing down. I do commend frank for taking it somewhere else though, it was really messing up a good discussion. Now since you don't know quite what you're talking about and just jumping in to support your buddy in blue, butt out or prepare get humiliated like he was.

I didn't start this thread to get my friends to jump in and "back me up." It was a retaliatory thread against your profession as a result of all the trash-talking you do about mine. Like Jack Burton said, I have my big boy pants on and can fight my own battles.

I am amazed at how incensed you are because I maintain the belief that I am nobody's servant.

 

[public servant]

I believe I took you off ignore to witness your meltdown in that thread. You claimed over and over again that you had no ill intent in posting it. I didn't believe you then (nor did anyone else) nor do I believe you know.

You're entitled to your opinion. As am I.

And you're free to put me back on ignore any time you want.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Frank, I have a question for you. The whole 'public servant' concept strikes me as being remarkably similar to one of my Constitutional pet peeves. I would consider a number of occupations including law enforcement to be public services in which those so employed serve the public generally and not specifically. The analog I mentioned is the 'general welfare' clause in the Constitution being used to justify a number of functions that the .gov is not constitutionally authorized to do by means of deliberately obscuring the difference between general welfare and specific welfare of individuals. This would take me back to what the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have a general duty to society and not a specific duty to individuals. I would also say that there is no obligation to accept them as public masters but as enforcers of the law, which in the end is a difficult balance to properly maintain by all parties involved.

Do you consider this a fair understanding?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

WTF, I'll post this again.
Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

This is an inconvenient truth for law enforcement for many reasons. The biggest and most detrimental to their profession being that should the general masses of the public actually be made aware of it, funding would be cut off pretty quickly. This is the ONE answer that could possibly lend credence to your claim of not being a public servant. I don't expect to ever get this answer however due to the inconvenience of its very nature. Should the general masses of the public be made aware, your job may actually get really difficult.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Frank, I have a question for you. The whole 'public servant' concept strikes me as being remarkably similar to one of my Constitutional pet peeves. I would consider a number of occupations including law enforcement to be public services in which those so employed serve the public generally and not specifically. The analog I mentioned is the 'general welfare' clause in the Constitution being used to justify a number of functions that the .gov is not constitutionally authorized to do by means of deliberately obscuring the difference between general welfare and specific welfare of individuals. This would take me back to what the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have a general duty to society and not a specific duty to individuals. I would also say that there is no obligation to accept them as public masters but as enforcers of the law, which in the end is a difficult balance to properly maintain by all parties involved.

Do you consider this a fair understanding?

I think thats how most people understand the function of law enforcement. General, not specific. Specific service would lead to that whole favoritism thing.

WTF, I'll post this again.
Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals
This is an inconvenient truth for law enforcement for many reasons. The biggest and most detrimental to their profession being that should the general masses of the public actually be made aware of it, funding would be cut off pretty quickly. This is the ONE answer that could possibly lend credence to your claim of not being a public servant. I don't expect to ever get this answer however due to the inconvenience of its very nature. Should the general masses of the public be made aware, your job may actually get really difficult.

My job is already somewhat difficult, you spreading the message that I don't have to protect each-and-every person individually really isn't going to do much. And I seriously doubt that funding will be cut off "pretty quickly" if every single person was to be told that we don't have to protect them individually. You are more than welcome to spread that message though and we'll see how it turns out.

 

[jsharmon7]

WTF, I'll post this again.
Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals
This is an inconvenient truth for law enforcement for many reasons. The biggest and most detrimental to their profession being that should the general masses of the public actually be made aware of it, funding would be cut off pretty quickly. This is the ONE answer that could possibly lend credence to your claim of not being a public servant. I don't expect to ever get this answer however due to the inconvenience of its very nature. Should the general masses of the public be made aware, your job may actually get really difficult.

The "no duty to protect" thing does not mean what you think it means. If you really think the police have no duty to act/protect then join your local department, go tell a badly beaten domestic violence victim you don't feel like doing anything about it, hand her husband another beer, and then walk away.

Ok, as you were. This thread has been very entertaining from all sides.

 

[Solitaire]

1. No sh*t Sherlock. That doesn't mean we are required to accept it and let it run unchecked. People who just accept it and do nothing to contain it are the reason for the problems we have now. Yes, that means you.

2. Not exactly true. I am very much attached to my habits of living indoors and eating regularly. For the time being, this is what is available.

3. Maybe so. I am just not cut out to shove a geranium up my ass and be happy. I had a problem working in prison with circumstances which served to encourage recidivism rather than reduce it and with the worst scoundrels and cutthroats being rewarded on the staff. I also have a problem with law enforcement for profit and the Constitution being largely ignored. Be that as it may, I don't expect any agreement here considering that anyone who would embrace the change that you do obviously doesn't value the Constitution.

4. The writings of Justices Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Douglas within the last century have indicated the Fourth Amendment to ultimately amount to the right to be left alone. Again, your disdain for a strict interpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding, this is exactly what I expect, to be left the hell alone.

5. You are right up to a point. Unfortunately, I am not of the bend of character to abandon my values and simply accept whatever may come and respond to being force-fed s**t sandwiches by saying, "Thank you sir. May I have another one please?"

6. If we see a time when push comes to shove, based on the things you have posted, I fully expect you to drop your pants, grab your ankles and say "Please, please use Vaseline." I don't roll that way and never will.

You vastly overestimate your importance in the grand scheme of things. And despite all of your rage, you are still eating that **** sandwich, although with a fair amount of protest.

I realized long ago that such things were well above my pay grade. I do what I can (vote), and don't worry about the rest. If you put the monumental amount of energy that you have wasted whining on this forum towards something actually productive, maybe you wouldn't be so miserable.

Despite all your rage, you are still just a rat in a cage.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You vastly overestimate your importance in the grand scheme of things. And despite all of your rage, you are still eating that **** sandwich, although with a fair amount of protest.

I realized long ago that such things were well above my pay grade. I do what I can (vote), and don't worry about the rest. If you put the monumental amount of energy that you have wasted whining on this forum towards something actually productive, maybe you wouldn't be so miserable.

Despite all your rage, you are still just a rat in a cage.

How do you figure that?

 

[Denny347]

 

[public servant]

Speaking of Elmo... I hear he quit?

 

[Denny347]

Speaking of Elmo... I hear he quit?

Yup.

 

[radar44]

before it dies-- 25 years in lumber-- 6 months in concrete-- best move ever! I like going to work again ....