Harry Potter and the Nature of self defense

[rick824 at webtv.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 19764

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tandy, Heidi" <heidi.h.tandy.c92 at a...> wrote:
> Susan wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > of course it doesn't make Harry evil. First, good people do bad 
> > things.
> > Second, good people lose their tempers.
> True, but...
> > 
> > But third, and most importantly, Harry was acting in self 
> > preservation and self defense. Marge has set her dogs on him and 
> > treats him with total contempt. Why shouldn't he blow her up?
> > She is the one with power over him, he doesn't have the ethical
> > restraints that the false Moody should have had when turning Malfoy 
> > into a ferret......
> 
> Well, it's not self defense, in the legal sense, either under US or UK law.
> Harry's actions against Krum in the maze were in defense of another (Cedric)
> which is a functional equivilant, but self defense, as a matter of Muggle
> law, can only be used against physical force (and while Marge had used
> physical force against Harry in the past, in that scene, she wasn't) and can
> only match the physical force - in other words, it cannot be more forceful -
> you can't meet a stunning spell with an AK, but you could meet it with a
> body bind curse, if the wizarding world uses a similar or parallel rule on
> this issue. 
  I still want to know how he pulled of that hex/charm without his wand!
 Rick