Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124304


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at y...> wrote:
> 
> In the WW do Aurors have the ability to use the unforgivable curses 
> or are they forbidden to everyone? ...edited- justifiable use of 
> force... I think DD follows a  higher law, but what of the Aurors?  
> And what about members of the  Order? And if a member of the Order 
> is an Auror, then what?
> 
> Tonks_op

bboyminn:

During Voldemort's first reign of terror, Aurors were authorized by
Crouch Sr to use any and all Unforgivable Curses, but I think that was
an emergency authorization. When the immediate emergency ended, the
authorization ended with it. Now, the wizard world and Aurors are
operating under peace-time rules.

Another important point that creates a substantial distinction between
wizards and muggles. Guns and gunshot wounds are not very flexible or
forgiving. When someone punches a hole in your body, that's trouble
even under the best of circumstances.

Wizard wands, however, are more like Star Trek Phasers, they have a
range of settings from annoy to blunt-force stun to knock-out stun to
kill. Wands also have this range of flexibility. Why kill a person
when a well aimed Stunner can incapacitate them long enough to capture
them and take them into custody?

The wands flexibility gives you a range of defensive response from the
annoying Tickle Charm to the incapacitating Stunner, all the way up to
the, only when absolutely necessary, Kiling Curse. 

In addition, I'm an thoroughly convinced that you don't need a
AK-Killing Curse to kill some one. Think about the Reductor Charm
which can be used to /blast/ your way through solid objects. A
person's skull or breastbone are pretty solid objects, and a well
placed Reductor could certainly blast them apart. Nothing I hate worse
than some wizard making my head explode.

Also, we saw that a combination of Stunners came dangerously close to
killing McGonagall. If someone place a wand against your forehead and
cast a powerful Stunning Curse, that really couldn't be a good thing.
While not absolutely lethal, there is certainly a chance you could be
killed.

Although there are few documented curses in the books so far that have
the potential to kill a person, it's not hard to speculate on
hypothetical common spells that could have that potential. 

Example, I speculated (in an FF sort of way) that in the next book,
Harry or Hermione would create a charm that would cause a wand to
shoot out an ink pellets, similar to 'paint-ball' guns. This would be
very handy to train wizards, especially Neville, to cast their spells
with greater aim and precision; ie: target practice. 

Now if you/I can reasonably speculate a spell that shoots paint or ink
projectiles, then why not metal or stone projectiles; thereby,
creating the wizrads version of a gun.

Back to the main point, I think it is only in extreme wartime
stituations, and only then with specific authorization, that Aurors or
any other wizard can cast unforgivable curses.

Side note: 

Q: Why wasn't fake!Moody at risk of going to prison for using the
Imperius Curse against fellow human beings, the students? 

A: Because those against whom that curse was cast, the students, gave
permission for fake!Moody to do it under strict guidelines and
conditions. Although, one could argue that the permission was only
implied, and equally, that the 'strict guidelines and conditions' were
also only implied. 

Just looking for the big picture.

Steve/bboyminn