VickiP wrote, in part..
> ... it
> seems the overwhelming consensus is no one should be above the law when it
> comes to intent to harm behavior. Though, Bob McKenzie of the Hockey News
> said in an issue, " There is an inherent consent to violence when you lace on
> those skates. " Do you agree?
 
I agree, at least in part.  First, though I may have lost the context,
"intent to harm" and "violence" seem to be used interchangeably here.
Let's agree that hockey is a violent sport with rules against intent to
harm.
 
Second, hockey does follow differ rules when it comes to violence.  A
body check is not condoned, except within the confines of a game.
Body check in the aisles at the ballet, get caught, and you'll not only
get a "game misconduct", but will deal with the police.
 
The question becomes "When are actions so vulgar or dangerous that
hockey penalties are insufficient protection of persons and society?".
Where one goes with that answer may be quite different for hockey
administrators and public safety officials. I hope each group is wise.
Certainly, we can affect each.
 
cheers, wayne
 
 
Wayne T. Smith                             mailto:[log in to unmask]
Systems Group - UNET                 University of Maine System
Co-owner of the College Hockey mailing lists
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.