AK the most dangerous curse?

[Melody]

No: HPFGUIDX 46830

"Katsmall the Wise" wrote:
> As we all know, wizards have a much bigger life span, and are much
>less easily killed.

I disagree with the later.  I see no reason why wizard would be less
easy to kill by curse.  The only reference we have to a wizard not
being easy to kill is in reference to muggle ways.  The only reason we
know that wizards can be hard to kill is because of Hagrid's laugh at
the idea of the Potters' dying by car crash. (PS/SS Ch4)  A car crash
is a muggle death not death by curse.  Wizards may be able to conjure
up protections for their being to protect them from that kind of
death, but they are human fresh and blood.  They cut and scrap like
the rest of us.

Wait, I thought of another case, Neville bouncing to his safety after
his uncle was dangling him by his ankles (PS/SS Ch 7).  The fact
Neville was a wizard protected his life that day.  But again, this is
a muggle death not a wizard curse.

We have no proof that a wizard is less easy to kill by a curse which
is what y'all are arguing about so I feel this point is important.


"Katsmall the Wise" continued:
>*Maybe*, the spell Peter used is a spell that can kill wizards, but
>Peter used it in low "volume", i.e. didn't use it to full extent,
>strong enough it can kill muggles, yet not strong enough to kill
>wizards.

Once again, we have no proof in the text of such an assertion.  A
wizard cannot dull down his spells.  A weaker wizard's spell is not as
aggressive, but once the wizard is trained, the strength of the wizard
is behind the spell.  That is why certain spells work for certain
situations.

Ok, an example since I see some confused looks out there.  In GoF
during Crouch!Moody's DADA lesson, we learn that the students could
point their wands at him and say Avada Kedavra till they were blue in
the face and not cause anything but as much as a nosebleed.

So by your theory, a wizard could "use it at a lower volume" and just
cause a nosebleed.  I am sorry, but it seems the answer is no.  A
spell is casted for its effects.  They point the wand, say the word,
and the effects that word intends is produced.  To say there are
degrees of spells, is to say there is more to it than incantation.
There may be degree of spells, but a spell is a spell.  The intent
behind it does not matter.


Grey Wolf wrote:
>>In the line I started above, although we know that wizards are
>>tougher than muggles, being able to survive unscathed punishment
>>that would kill a muggle, this doesn't seem to aply to ofensive
>>spells. AK, Cruciatus and Imperio are equal-oportunities: they
>>affect equally muggles and wizards.

"Catsmall the Wise" wrote:
> Of course they do. They can't kill a muggle'more' then they kill a
> wizard. It's the most that anything can do!

Ok, honey, you lost me.  You were just arguing that a death spell can
affect a wizard differently than a muggle.  Grey is pointing out, and
from my opinion clearly, is that the three "unforgivable" spells are
that way because they kill, torture, and possess blindly.  The casted
spell cannot be "turned down in volume" as you tried to say before.

And also, death is not the worse think that can happen to a wizard.
The dementor's kiss is.  A soulless existence, whether in this world
or the next, is much worse.  Also, ask a torture victim if is was best
they lived instead of died.  But this gets into a quality of life
discussion, which is another issue all together.


Oh, but "Katsmall the Wise" continued further:
>Let me just add that they could have not positively identified the
>spell (having only muggle widnesses), and there could be a spell that
>only hurts muggles.  And Peter would use that so that Sirius Black is
>uninjured and thus people would think that he's the caster.

First, our knowledge of the event is from Fudge.  He was a Junior
Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes.  Given that there
is such a department, I would say they would know the list of spells
that bring about certain anomalies.  Kind of like police detectives
knowing the blast points and forms of exit holes of bullets to figure
out the weapon used in the killing of muggles.  Forensics.  A lovely
thing.

Let me paint the picture for you.  The scene of the mass murder is
thus as Fudge painted:

PoA Ch 10:
"A crater in the middle of the street, so deep it had cracked the
sewer below.  Bodies everywhere.  Muggles screaming.  And Black
standing there...a heap of bloodstained robes and a few -- a few
fragments--"

Now, later in the same book Ch 19, we have Black telling the story and
said, "he [Peter] blew apart the street with the wand behind his back,
killing everyone within twenty feet of himself..."

See the wand behind his back.  Peter would of pointed the wand away
from himself, and he was facing Black, so the spell projected away
from them to the street.  So Black and Peter were never part of the
curse.  Peter animagi'ed himself with his wand thus disappearing, so
Black was standing there facing the destruction which was projecting
in front of him.  So, really all Peter seemed to do was destroy the
street for chaos factor.  So, no shields for wizards.  No spells that
can be "turned down."  There is not need for all that.  In fact, there
was no need for a killing spell.  Peter was not out to kill Black.  He
was out to frame him.


Melody