Murdering Voldemort (was: What would you think if.....)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 92933

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...>
wrote:
> Jim Ferer wrote:
> 
> > Murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another,
> > especially with premeditated malice."
> > 
> > Killing Voldemort cannot be murder no matter how Harry does it.  
> > If Harry could kill Voldemort with an AK, it would be the only 
> > right thing to do to save lives.  


> Dave replied:
> 
> I'm not convinced of the value of the above definition, unless 
> the 'lawful' part can be explained - ...  Also the word 'especially'
> sits uneasily in a definition: if an unlawful killing happens 
> without premeditated malice, is that murder or not? Suppose it 
> premeditated but not malicious (mercy killing?), or malicious but 
> not premeditated, and so on?
> 

bboy_mn:

I notice from your profile that you are from the UK. I know UK law
views murder differently than we do in the USA. Although, I confess I
am not very knowledgable on the distinctions.

In the USA, we recognise various degrees of murder; first degree,
second degree, third degree, premeditated, manslaughter, negligent
homicide, accidental homicide, special circumstances, etc....

In addition, we must note that if you kill someone in a clear and
unquestionable act of self-defense, you will not likely be prosecuted.
However, if there is even the slightest uncertainty, in all likelihood
you would be charged and prosecuted for some type of murder, and given
a chance to prove that it truly was self-defense.

Also, as well as self-defense, acts of war, that is, killing the enemy
in wartime, is not usually prosecuted unless there is a suspicion of
'crimes against humanity'. 


>Dave continues:
>
> ... The reason for this post is that, whatever one's RL definition 
> of murder, I'm pretty sure that for Harry to kill Voldemort in any 
> situation other than immediate self-defence *would* be regarded as
> murder *BY HARRY*, and, I think, by the narrative voice of the 
> story.  
> 

bboy_mn:
Very crucial point you've made here. Note my emphasis on the words 'BY
HARRY' in your statement above. Voldemort has killed Harry parents and
has tried to kill Harry several times. In all likelihood, anytime
Harry and Voldemort are in the same place at the same time, Harry life
is extremely at risk. 

So, Harry would be quite justified, in my book, if he killed or
attempted to kill Voldemort on sight without waiting for a direct
attack by Voldemort. I think most courts would recognise the extreme
circumstances and find this pro-active preemptive strike as justified.

Harry already knows all this; he knows Voldemort will try to kill him
at every opportunity, and Voldemort won't wait for a fair and even
duel. While Harry knows this, by his own words, he sees what he must
do as murder. Harry is not the kind of guy who strikes first even
knowing it is justified. He is not the kind of person who treat a
human life, any human life, as something trivial. 

I think to have to or be force by circumstances to kill someone, would
be an act that would haunt Harry for the rest of his life. That's part
of what makes him one of the good guys. 


> Dave concludes:
>
> For myself, I think that's one of Harry's finest moments (Shrieking
> Shack; Harry spares Pettigrew), because he recognises that the 
> important consequences of an act are those that follow for the 
> perpetrator: to quote a different canon, "it is not what goes into 
> the mouth that defiles a man".
> 
> David

bboy_mn:
Indeed one of Harry finest moments. I sincerely hope that JKR can find
a way to resolve the story without Harry having to directly kill
Voldemort. I desperately hope she can pull forth some surprise ending,
a possibility that none of us had considered, that spares Harry from
what now appears to be his fate. That's a lot to put on a boy who has
already suffered so much.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn