On 18 May 2008, Paul Ciszek wrote
>
> In article <Xns9AA26B10386A2whhvans@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> HVS <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2008, Paul Ciszek wrote
>>
>>>
>>> In article <f6eu24tqhb06ipgu7cjm3cl7a1a9pblpin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080516/od_nm/rough***_dc_1
>>>>
>>>> The victim claims that there was no assault.
>>>
>>> Many victims of domestic abuse claim that there was no
>>> assault, through one ER visit after another, Some states have
>>> passed laws saying that the ER staff has to re****t it and the
>>> cops have to investigate no matter what the victim says.
>>
>> Didn't this also come up some years ago with dealing with on-
>> field/on-rink s****ts violence? ("The teams agree that what
>> happens on the field happens on the field." "Doesn't matter:
>> assault is assault, and we can charge you.")
>
> Wasn't some Canadian player charged for going beyond
> "unnecessary roughness" with one of the Colorado Avalanche? Is
> that the case to which you are refering?
That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of, but I was remembering
when it was first done, many years ago -- around the mid/late 1970s
when there wasn't any sanction for being "third man in" and
brawling was taking over. ("I went to watch the big fight, and a
hockey game broke out.")
It's a bit foggy after all these years, and I can't recall the
details, but IIRC the industry at the time claimed there wasn't
much they could do other than to tut-tut a bit. The police --
Ontario, I think -- finally said something like "If you don't stop
it we start laying assault charges".
ISTR the initial reaction was incredulity -- "Yeah, right. You're
kidding, of course; you can't do that; it happened during a
game" -- followed by "Oh. You can. Hmmmm... Maybe we should at
least try to block third-party involvement in the fights".
--
Cheers,
Harvey
|
