[HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Lily have to die?

[bufo_viridis at interia.pl]

No: HPFGUIDX 93497

"mad_maxime":  
> > I'm not saying he wouldn't have wanted to kill James and Lily anyway
> > as they were aurors and his adversaries.  I just believe on that
> > particular night, fueled by his knowledge of the Prophecy, he was
> > mono-focused on killing Harry.

greatelderone:
> Yet it would have been easier to AK her and then AK Harry. Yet he 
> doesn't and instead he tells her to step aside. Why? He's a dark lord 
> and a rather ruthless fellow. Telling a mudblood to step aside so he 
> could kill her son instead of killing her and then her son is rather 
> uncharacteristic of someone like him. 

Viridis (me):
Actually that's exactly what he has done, if I understand correctly. An because he AK her first this triggered protection for Harry. Anyway it's perfect example for "Nfkali" thesis why in melee fighting it's better to use stnners than heavu guns. 
Let's imagine Voldie:
1.stunning Lily
2.stunning Harry (to on the safe side)
3. picking Harry and going to the kitchen to find a chopper
4. skip the grissly details here
5. going back and considering if he has any use for Lily (if not - see point 4; if yes - see point 4 again)

Why he idn't do it? Mad_maxime's idea about monofocusing and overzealousness (typical Evil Overlord faults) is a good reason. It doesn't fully explain the "stand aside" problem, though.

Cheers, Viridis
________________________
Curiouser and curiouser!