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

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

Steven Champeon wrote:


> Oh, sorry - I was suckered into believing that HE hit HER by the press,
> that tool of our oppressors. Wasn't trying to spin, just taking the news
> story itself (quoted above) at face value, so don't blame me for
> spinning anything, OK?

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. But the quoted article text
clearly says "suspected", but your response reads as though you
were convinced that D.H. had been tried and convicted of being
a "drunk, child-abusing danger..."  So it came across to me feeling
like intentional spin.


> OK, so maybe he wasn't drunk, didn't hit her, and didn't think it was
> the police's business. Fair enough. You could have pointed out the sites
> where all of this is shown, and perhaps corrected the Reuters story in
> your post as well:
>
>  http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html
>  http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html

Sorry, I guess I'm guilty of assuming everybody is as familiar with the
case as I am.  You know what they say about "assuming."  So yeah, my
bad in that regard.



> Having watched the video, I can understand why the officer thought
> Hiibel was drunk. He was certainly unintelligible and belligerent. And
> someone had reported the fight to the cops. Officer Dove may be a bit of
> a moron, but he seems to have been well within reasonable bounds in what
> he did do. If anything, Hiibel seemed to have wanted to be arrested, as
> he said again and again in the video. I'd have arrested him, too. At
> least for public drunkenness. And who the hell was driving the truck, if
> his daughter was in the passenger side seat? Come on.

Deputy Dove does strike me as an idiot. That said, I can almost agree 
with you in that he was "within reasonable bounds in what he did do."
I just don't understand why he didn't clearly explain to D.H. what was
going on, why he wanted his ID, and ask him for his side of the story,
instead of continously belaboring that one point about the ID...

Also, I can't fault Dove personally for ultimately arresting Mr. Hiibel,
since Nevada did have that law requiring you to produce your ID for the 
police.  I disagree with the *law* itself, not so much with Dove.


> Erm, thanks for the natural law lesson. 

Anytime. :-)

> As I don't believe in a deity,
> and don't consider rights something that just "are", I'm happy to have a
> Constitution around that guarantees me some rights, as well as a legal
> process that can determine whether others are worthy of same. <shrug>
> Small comfort it is to think you have rights without something else
> there to help ensure they're protected.

I'm pro Bill of Rights as well.  However, I still believe in the idea
of "inalienable rights" that go beyond what's guaranteed by the BoR.


 > No, don't twist my words. I was referring /strictly/ to the case at
> hand, where Mr. H. tried to justify his privacy rights on the 4th
> amemdment's search and seizure provisions.

As I understand it, his defense team based their defense on the 1st,
4th and 5th Amendments, not just the 4th.  My feeling is that the
5th Amendment is most directly applicable.  If identifying oneself might
be self-incriminating, then doing so ought to be covered by the
5th Amendment, IMHO.


TTYL,


Phil R.


--
When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice.
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your stuff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives 
that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.

FREE AMERICA
Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org