Is Harry a Murderer / Killer!! ?? !! (Long)

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 151065

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurel Lei" <laurel_lei at ...> wrote:
>
> I haven't posted much during the last year... and have absolutely 
> enjoyed reading all the posts daily... 
> 
> But, over that last year or so, I have read many posts that have 
> touched a nerve, so to speak. They mention that Harry is NOT a 
> murderer or NOT a killer or that he is not capable of it or that they 
> hope he doesn't have to succumb to the murder of Voldemort via the 
> prophecy or even that they would throw their copies of the entire 
> Harry Potter series away if J.K. turned Harry into a murderer in book 
> 7... i.e. someone in Harry's stead would carry out the murder (via the 
> veil, another person does it for him, or by other freakish events he 
> just dies...)

Geoff:
You've brought us back onto an interesting discussion subject because we have had some 
threads about this in the past.

I would personally start with a strict dictionary definition of "murder".

Mine defines the word as:
"The unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another."

This, in my opinion hinges on the word "premeditated".

We also need to consider the situations where someone is accidentally killed - in other 
words manslaughter - and also where self-defence might come into the equation.

As an aside at this point, I would, with others, agree that Harry, potentially, is capable of 
murder - in the same way that we are. But we need to look at each of the cases which you 
quote to see what it was that caused Harry to react in the way that he did and I shall make 
use of canon where possible to underpin my conclusions.

Laurel Lei:
> I may be mistaken in my interpretation of murder within those poster's 
> meanings but... it would seem to me that, Harry is very capable of 
> murder... What about Quirrelmort???? He's dead and no one else was 
> there but Harry... and "two-faced" Vapormort.  Does everyone believe 
> that it was Voldemort's possession or abandonment of Quirrel was what 
> brought on his "death"? Or maybe it was the drinking of the unicorn 
> blood? I thought it was Harry's touch... and continued touch.

Geoff:
Let's consider Harry's confrontation with Quirrell.

'...Harry's scar was almost blinding him with pain, yet he could see Quirrell howling in 
agony.
"Master, I cannot hold him - my hands - my hands !"
And Quirrell, though pinning Harry to the ground with his knees, let go of his neck and 
stared, bewildered, at his own palms - Harry could see they looked burnt, raw, red and 
shiny.
"Then kill him, fool, and be done!" screeched Voldemort.
Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse but Harry, by instinct, reached up and 
grabbed Quirrell's face - 
"AAAARGH!"
Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering too and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn't touch 
his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain - his only chance was to keep hold of 
Quirrell, keep him in enough pain to stop him doing a curse.'
(PS "The Man with two Faces" pp.213-14 UK edition)

Harry is not contemplating killing Quirrell - he is trying to stop him performing the killing 
curse by the only way he can visualise.

This is self-defence.

Laurel Lei:
> What about Voldemort's soul bit in the diary horcrux??? Again, no one 
> else was there eept for an unconscious Ginny and a dead basilisk. 
> The basilisk fang didn't stab the diary on its own... with the 
> intention of destroying (killing/murdering) materializing Tom 
> Riddle/Voldemort.

Geoff:
In the first place:
'"So I made Ginny write her own farewell on the wall and come down here to wait. She 
struggled  and cried and became very boring. But there isn't much life left in her: she put 
too much into the diary, into me. Enough, to let me leave its pages at last."'
(COS  "The Heir of Slytherin" p.231 UK edition)

And then - 
'He could hear echoing footsteps and then a dark shadow moved in front of him.
"You're dead, Harry Potter," said Riddle's voice above him. "Dead. Even Dumbledore's bird 
knows it. Do you see what he's doing, Potter? He's crying."
Harry blinked. Fawkes' head slid in and out of focus. Thick, pearly tears were trickling 
down the glossy feathers.
"I'm going to sit here and watch you die, Harry Potter. Take your time, I'm in no hurry."'
(ibid. p236)

'A pearly patch of tears of tears was shining all around the wound - except that there was 
no wound.
"Get away, bird," said Riddle's voice suddenly. "Get away from him, I said, get away!"
Harry raised his head. Riddle was pointing Harry's wand at Fawkes; there was a bang like a 
gun and Fawkes took flight again in a whirl of gold and scarlet.
"Phoenix tears... " said Riddle quietly, staring at Harry's arm "Of course... healing powers... 
I forgot..."
He looked into Harry's face. "But it makes no difference. In fact, I prefer it this way. Just 
you and me, Harry Potter... you and me..."
He raised the wand.
Then, in a rush of wings, Fawkes soared back overhead and something fell into Harry's lap 
- the diary.
For a split second, both Harry and Riddle, wand still raised, stared at it. Then, without 
thinking, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the Basilisk fang on the 
floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book.'
(ibid. p.237)

If anyone is likely to fulfil the definition of murder here, it is Tom Riddle.He has already 
indicated that Ginny is dying and he is quite prepred to let Harry die - either by default or, 
if necessary, by casting a curse. Harry acts instinctively, probably not knowing precisely 
why. I certainly would consider this within the parameters of self-defence again.

Laurel Lei: 
> Wouldn't Harry's soul be torn by his involvement in the death of 
> Quirrel or the "death" of Voldie's soul bit...???
> 
> This has bothered me for quite some time...

Geoff:
I think not.

'"How do you split your soul?"
"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to 
remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature."
"But how do you do it?"
"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul 
apart."'
(HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition)

Since the examples you quote are not premeditated killing - murder - I believe that no 
soul-splitting occurred.

Laurel Lei:
> I also believe that Harry would have killed Sirius if Lupin hadn't 
> arrived. Harry had stated as much. (Obviously Sirius dying at that 
> time wasn't in J.K.'s plot-line). 

> And I believe that Harry would have killed Bella in the MOM 
> during/post battle.

Geoff:
Here, I might be willing to agree with you. Although, I wonder if Remus hadn't arrived, 
Harry might have had a similar epiphany to Draco at the end of HBP and realised that cold 
bloodedly killing someone was perhaps nto as easy as it first seemed.

'Harry raised the wand. Now was the moment to do it. now was the moment to avenge his 
mother and father. He was going to kill Black. He had to kill Black. this was his chance...
The seconds lengthened and still Harry stood frozen there, wand poised, Black staring up 
at him, Crookshanks on his chest. Ron's ragged breathing came from near the bed; 
Hermione was quite silent.
Adn then came a new sound -
Muffled footsteps were echoing up though the floor - someone was moving downstairs.
"WE'RE UP HERE!" Hermione screamed suddenly. "WE'RE UP HERE - SIRIIUS BLACK - QUICK!"
Black made a startled movement that almost dislodged Crookshanks; Hary gripped his 
wand convulsively - Do it now! said a voice in his head - but the footsteps were 
thundering up the stairs and Harry still hadn't done it.'
(POA "Cat, Rat and Dog" pp.251-52 UK edition)

I had never realised before how the two confrontations - Harry's and Draco's - echo each 
other....

In the case of Bellatrix, Harry is beside himself with grief, fear and rage.

But....

Notice....

He does NOT try to cast an Avada Kedavra spell. He has a go at Crucio. That is an attempt 
to hurt - not murder. Even when canon tells us:
'Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before...'
(OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" p.715 UK edition)
Harry does NOT attempt to kill.

Laurel Lei:
> And what about Draco in the bathroom and the sectasempra spell...? The 
> spell for enemies... the spell that Snape "reversed"... had Snape not 
> arrived and known what to do (because he was the "Prince" and possible 
> author)...???? Would Harry then have become a murderer if Draco had 
> died? Isn't what he did attempted murder?

Geoff:
Draco raised the stakes in the duel. The fight began with a Levicorpus and a Leg-Locker 
Curse and then...
'Harry slipped over as Malfoy, his face contorted, cried, "Cruci-"
"SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Hary from the floor, waving his wand wildly.'
(HBP "Sectumsempra" pp.488-89 UK edition)

Harry was being plain stupid in using an unknown spell and giving into temptation:

'Harry was about to put his book away again when he noticed the corner of a page folded 
down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra speel, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had 
marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he 
did not want to test it around Hermione but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen 
the next time he came up behind him unawares.'
(Ibid. p484)

It must be obvious that he doesn't realise that it could be a highly dangerous spell at this 
point.

Laurel Lei:
> Is it believed that he is not a murderer/killer because he was 
> protecting the Sorcerer's Stone, himself or Ginny? Avenging Sirius? 
> Does his anger at his victims somehow make him temporarily insane and 
> not responsible for his actions? Don't get me wrong, I adore J.K. and 
> Harry and the series of books... but I found it very difficult to 
> explain to my sons that if he were to harm another like Harry did to 
> Draco or the others that they wouldn't "just get detentions". Or to 
> explain to them that it is not okay to state that you would like 
> to "kill" someone. (Yes, J.K. opened a door for me for discussions 
> that may not have been opened another way).
> 
> But, how could "we" believe that Harry is NOT capable of murder or 
> bringing about another's death (per the prophecy or my understanding 
> of it that one (Voldie or Harry) must "die"). Or are "we" 
> rationalizing? Is it something that we as humans choose to define 
> as "NOT murder or a killing" like we often do, because we are in times 
> of war?
> 
> My opinion of course... I just had to ask this... and I look forward 
> to your responses... especially Steve's (as I admire his level-head 
> and thoughtful posts.)

Geoff:
Harry is very much an everyman like us. We have moments when we act rashly or without 
thinking. we might even make comments like "I'll kill him for that" but probably are not 
seriously considering the implications of the statement. As a Christian, I am reminded 
that, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned not only about murder but also of the 
lesser sins of retaining anger or contempt for another person even in our thoughts.

I know that I personally would find it very difficult to seriously consider action against 
another person at the level of murder and, as I think I have illustrated, Harry's lapses 
merely show that he is human.

The defence would recommend to the jury that the defendant be acquiitted on all charges.

I rest my case.