Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[quack AT ibiblio.org]

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> Steven Champeon wrote:
>> I'm confused. So, freedom depends on your right to be an *anonymous*,
>> drunken, child abusing danger to yourself and others, in public?
>>
>>    "Based on a report from a witness, Hiibel was suspected of hitting
>>     his daughter, who was inside the truck. Hiibel also was suspected of
>>     driving under the influence of alcohol, based on his eyes,
>>     mannerisms, speech and the smell of alcohol."
>>
>> Mmmm...oKay.
>
> Nice spin attempt Steve.  In truth, it was Mr. Hiibels daughter that hit
> him, and he wasn't driving drunk, nor posing a danger to himself
> or anybody else.

Don't forget that the "daughter" in this scenario was not a "child" in the
"under-18" sense, so "child abuse" doesn't even begin to come into play. 
The witness reported a possible domestic altercation, based on seeing a
couple arguing, and the police were the ones that suspected physical
assault (tho apparently were mistaken in determining the direction of any
such assault).  The police didn't pull him over, he was already parked.

Hiibel's site ( http://papersplease.org/hiibel/ ) once had a copy of the
video feed from the cop's front grille.  If you look around you might find
it's still there.  Frankly, I didn't think he was acting very drunk, but
then it doesn't include smell-o-vision.  I did think he was acting like an
asshole, but assholes like me tend to opine that acting like an asshole is
protected by the First Amendment.

--s