In article <31C18DE4.773C2448@optilink.dsccc.com> Clayton_Cramer <Clayton_Cramer@optilink.dsccc.com> writes:
>Tim Lambert wrote:
>> In article <31BEF839.1CFBAE39@optilink.dsccc.com> Clayton_Cramer <Clayton_Cramer@optilink.dsccc.com> writes:
>> >I don't doubt that there have been occasions when someone has been found
>> >innocent (in spite of what the law requires), but I am more inclined to
>> >believe a book written by a British lawyer, for British lawyers, and with
>> >no discernible pro-gun position, over a single court case that you haven't
>> >given an adequate citation for.
>> Me too. Only trouble is that the book written by a British lawyer,
>> doesn't say what you says it does and in fact agrees with the Nit
>> Nurse.
>> The section in Hill's book on self-defence with weapons (p 57-60) does
>> not contain any statement remotely like the claim above about deadly
>> force being legal only against similarly armed attackers. It states
>I guess I just imagined it all, right?
Yes, and I must have imagined getting the book from the library,
reading the relevant section carefully several times and writing my
posting with Hill's book open in front of me. Hill's book does not
say what you say it does. I suggest you have another look at it.
Tim