What would a successful AK mean?/One interesting perspective

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 142967

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> Actually, I did ask him about Harry and the potion.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Absent such evidence, he felt that the most Harry could be charged 
> with would be reckless endangerment, and given the lack of 
> incontrovertible evidence that his actions caused lasting or  
> significant harm to Dumbledore, and given Harry's status as a minor 
> under the law, he severely doubted a Grand Jury would hand down   
> and indictment, and felt that the chances of obtaining a
> conviction would be essentially nil.  
> Even if it could be shown by autopsy that the substance was a lethal 
> poison, he felt that the chances of obtaining a conviction would be 
> almost nil, once again given Harry's status as a minor, and given 
> that a competent defense attorney could easily build a successful 
> defense on the fact that Harry had no way of knowing what the potion 
> was or what its effects on Dumbledore might/would be.
> <SNIP> 
>

So, what does this make Dumbledore?  An adult who enlists a minor,
places him in a life-threatening situation for which he proves to be
largely unprepared, and orders him to contribute to what looks like
the adult's injury but certainly his incapacitation.  Is any of this
permissible under military law?  But as I remarked in an earlier
response, I am not sure our military law, or even our criminal law,
pertains to the wizarding world, where magical contracts and debts
seem to have more effect.

lealess