Comparisons

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 89884

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at a...> 
wrote:
> 
> Not continued to scream. The implication is that he began again. So 
> his arm is perhaps getting badly burned. Hardly likely to be fatal 
> with Madam Pomfrey's abilities.
> 
Kneasy:
Largely irrelevant IMO. What was important is the effect on *Voldy* not
Quirrell. Voldy was forced out, Quirrell's life support system vanishes.

Geoff:
> Add to that, who the dickens started the attack? Who tried to kill 
> him? Harry acted in self-defence and whatever happened to Quirrell - 
> whoever killed him and I maintain it was Voldemort - it's not Harry's 
> fault.

Kneasy:
Again, not really germane. A death in the act of self defence will still 
get a charge of manslaughter levelled at the defender in the UK. The 
court may decide that the actions were justified or reasonable but the
responsibility for the death still lies with the accused even though he
may not be considered *legally* culpable. (See news reports passim
agitating for a change in the law.) 

It's probable that we may never agree on this, but that doesn't worry
me; what does bother me is the fact that the main thrust of my post
89817 was the nature of the Tom/Voldy relationship, how it came to 
be and what the implications are. Much more interesting IMO than the
niceties of moral or legal responsibility in regard to Quirrell. 
But no-one else seems to think so.