[HPforGrownups] Re: Ghosts

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 53194

 
  
 
Tom said:
 
"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.
 
I reply -
OK that does blow a bit of a hole in my theory. It does raise another
question though. If the fact that Aurors were given powers to kill rather
than capture was considered something worth remarking on then presumably it
s something they weren't allowed to do before. Which strikes me as odd. I
mean yes policeforces are supposed to arrest suspects with minimal force but
I don't know of any country where it is illegal for them to kill in self
defence. OK yes in the UK it woud be difficult for your average policeman to
do so - but only because they don't carry guns not because it's actually
illegal to do so. And all Aurors carry wands so it's not a case of them
being unarmed.
The other possible interpretation for this is that it means they're allowed
to kill them for reasons other than self defence ie execute them rather than
arrest them - which would imho make it a toss up which side is actually
worse - Voldemort or the Ministry.

Tom also said -
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.
 
To which I reply -
And it wouldn't have been worth a try anyway? I mean it doesn't look to me
like AK could make things any worse for James if it backfired. To put it in
muggle terms - a guy breaks into your home, points a gun at you and is
clearly planning to kill you and your family. You also have a gun (your only
defence in fact) but it has a 90% chance of misfiring and doing no damage -
wouldn't you pull the trigger anyway in the hope that you'd get lucky?

And I would accept the arguement that James would not want blood on his
hands if it had been just his life at risk. I could see him possibly
sacrificing his own life rather than kill, but that wasn't the case. He was
defending his family as well as himself. I don't know that there would be
many people who would be willing to give their own life but not be willing
to compromise their own morals and possibly spirit/soul whatever (assuming
that wizards have some kind of afterlife heaven/hell thing, which we don't
know they do) to protect their child (especially when the child in question
is a baby). 

K