Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness

[bleckybecs]

No: HPFGUIDX 124472


Tonks:
I think that in addition to luck, it was also the fact that their 
wands had the same core that saved Harry. If another wizard had the 
same luck but not the same core he would have been killed.

Becky:
I see Harry having the same wand core as luck. It just makes him a 
lot luckier than any other wizard would have been in this particular 
situation.

bboyminn:
And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be the result, that 
is the crime rather the the method? Shouldn't it be the fact that 
you killed someone that gets you into trouble rather than the fact 
that you killed someone with one very specific curse? Isn't that 
about the same as saying, it's bad if you kill someone with a 38 
caliber pistol, but it's a totally horrendous unforgivable crime if 
you kill them with a 9mm?

Becky:
I see what you're saying, but from the point of `unforgivable', 
which is worse? Attempted murder or manslaughter? Manslaughter 
clearly has worse results, but you may find it in yourself to 
forgive. Attempted murder implies that the person fled with their 
life, however I'm not sure I'd ever be capable of forgiving it, 
because murder is what was intended.

Also, I feel that it is these particular curses which are 
unforgivable and not others because their purpose is so clear cut. 
Other curses given can be used to much lesser or equal effect, but 
the only purpose of the 'unforgivables' is horrendous. They are not 
designed with anything else in mind.

Unfortunately you use the example of two sorts of gun. (I say 
unfortunate, I mean unfortunate for me as my gun knowledge is very 
limited.) I tend to view all gun crimes through the same lens. It 
makes no odds which sort of gun you use, you shouldn't have done it. 
I think the fact that these three curses are known as 
the `unforgivables' leads people to assume that the use of all 
others can be forgiven. Not always the case as I see it. If you use 
another curse to kill someone intentionally, then that is also 
unforgivable, but the curse itself is not. (e.g. you `wingardium 
leviosa' a brick over someone's head, where you allow it to drop. 
The resulting damage to that persons brain kills them. This is 
unforgivable, however, the spell used is not.)

So, what I' trying to say is, I'm sure it is the intention behind 
the spell that makes it unforgivable. As to the Aurors, well I 
wouldn't want to be the only one in armed forces in Iraq without a 
gun of some description. In VW1, desperate measures were needed, so 
desperate measures were introduced. I don't see any canon that they 
were removed, so I'd assume those powers are still there. I doubt 
that an Auror would be in trouble for killing a DE in time of war, 
but I think that in peace times, an Auror would have more sense.
Tonks (from 124297):
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?

Becky:
I know we don't know whether or not DD killed Grindelwald, and I'd 
be inclined to suspect that the chocolate frog card would have said 
so if he had. I certainly don't think he's aiming to kill LV. I 
think DD would be `too noble' to do that.

But as for order members, and certainly order members who are 
Aurors, I think you only need to look as far as Moody. He was there 
first time round, both in the order and as an Auror, so therein lies 
all your answers! Yes, he can, would and did use those powers, 
apparently to great effect. DD may not use such weapons, but he's 
happy to side with people who will.

Becky