Is Harry a Murderer / Killer!! ?? !! Yeah or Nah??

[kateydidnt2002]

No: HPFGUIDX 151161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurel Lei" <laurel_lei at ...> 
wrote:
> 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????.... 
> What about Voldemort's soul bit in the diary horcrux??? ...<SNIP>


Technically, none of those were murder: murder by definition 
is "killing intentionally and with premeditation" none of those 
circumstances had Harry intentionally going into the situation with a 
plan for killing anyone. Yes he has *killed* but he has not 
*murdered.* The two terms are not synonymous. 

> 
> Wouldn't Harry's soul be torn by his involvement in the death of 
> Quirrel or the "death" of Voldie's soul bit...???

Not necessarily, I think here is where the difference between killing 
and murder comes in--murder is a calculated, planned assault designed 
to kill someone. Killing in self-defense (which is all Harry has ever 
done) does not require the same intent. As we know in magic, intent 
means *alot*. SO far we have evidence that murder by Avada Kedavra is 
the only way to make a horcrux. According to OotP: "Never used an 
Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she [Bellatrix] yelled. 
She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! 
You need to really want to cause pain -to enjoy it - righteous anger 
won't hurt me for long - I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll
give you a lesson" 

Yes this is talking for the most part about the Cruciatus curse, but 
given her statement about the Unforgivables in general (You have to 
mean them Potter!) I think the same general principle can be applied 
to the Killing Curse. You have to really want to kill and you have to 
enjoy killing, self-defense wouldn't really work as impetus for the 
Killing curse just like righteous anger doesn't really work for the 
Cruciatus Curse. 


> 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). 

I don't think he would have. If you look back at book three Harry 
doesn't think he failed because Lupin arrived, it says 
specifically, "Harry stood there, feeling suddenly empty. He hadn't 
done it. His nerve had failed him." He couldn't do it. He stood there 
for a long time before Lupin came in not quite able to accomplish it. 
While he may have thought he wanted to kill Sirius, he couldn't bring 
himself to do it.

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

I think he might have tried, but I don't think he would have been 
successful. 


> 
> 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?

Again, no. It is not murder. It was self-defense. Draco was 
attempting to use the cruciatus curse on him. Admittedly, it is a 
*stupid* idea to use a spell he does not know the result of, but 
Harry's intent here was to not be victim to the cruciatus curse, not 
kill Draco. Had Draco died I still do not think it could have been 
classified as murder. Killing, yes; murder, no.

> 
> 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? 


Harry is a killer in that he has killed, but not a murderer.


> 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". 

Two points here:
1) Harry's actions were in self-defense. Draco was attempting to use 
a very dangerous curse. Had it been another teacher around rather 
than Snape I think he would have had more than a detention, but he 
also would have had a chance to explain that Draco had tried an 
unforgivable and his actions, though not the best choice, were in 
self-defense.
2) I think this was also a product of Snape covering his own behind. 
More serious punishment would have to be doled out by Dumbledore 
himself--Snape only has the ability to give detentions and take 
points. Snape *should* have reported something so severe to a higher 
authority but he didn't. It is my theory that he didn't because it 
was a spell of his own making and wanted to find out how Harry 
learned it and not reveal how deeply he himself had been into Dark 
Magic (deep enough to creat a dark magic spel) at the age of 16. 


> 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").

Again, semantics. I acknowledge that Harry is perfectly capable of 
bringing about another's death--he has done so before. But murder is 
different. In OotP: "[Harry] felt as distant from them as though he 
belonged to a different race, it was still very hard to believe as he 
sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder
"  

Harry has trouble with the idea that he will have to systematically 
plan and carry out the killing of Voldemort. How it will end up, if 
Harry actually succeeding in murdering Voldemort, I don't know. But 
for me, Harry having to murder (intentionally plan to kill) Voldemort 
will change him.  I think that is why we try to rationalize or try to 
find a way around Harry killing Voldemort. 

 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?

Semantics again: we still define killing in war as killing, but not 
murder.

Nutshell: Murder and killing are not synonymous, there are different 
distinctions. Harry has killed, but we question his ability to 
outright murder.