Ghosts

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 53193

Kathryn wrote:
Take this possible scenario for 
example - Voldemort (and one or more
minions) turns up at Godric's Hollow 
and confronts James, instead of 
yelling at Lily to get away with 
Harry, James uses that time to raise 
his wand, point it at Voldemort and 
cast Avada Kedavra. Surely that would be
acceptable if all the curse did was kill. 
There could be no doubt that Voldemort 
hadn't just popped in for a cup of tea 
but was instead a real and present threat 
to James' life and the lives of his wife 
and child. When facing an evil dark 
wizard intent on killing you and your 
family the killing Curse could surely 
be seen as self-defence. 

If there were circumstances when the curse was allowable then I doubt 
it would be on the Unforgivables list.


I reply:

"The Aurors were given new powers – powers to kill rather than 
capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed 
straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with 
violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against 
suspects."
(GoF, US hardcover, Ch.27, 527)

So, we know that the Aurors, at least, were given that authority when 
things were dire. I'm guessing, too, that James probably could have 
gotten away with using it if he'd been able to.

But I was always of the opinion that Voldemort was a far more 
powerful wizard than James. Maybe it wouldn't have worked. Maybe it 
tires you out too much, since we know that it requires a powerful bit 
of magic behind it to work.

Maybe James just thought that he'd be moral, right? I mean, no matter 
what the case, some people just would prefer the baddie to be locked 
up in Azkaban or something, right? Some people are just too moral to 
have blood on their hands.

-Tom