Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 150290

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words 
> > don't count. 
> > <snip>

> >>Joe: 
> Most States and municipalities have statutes that taken into      
> acount just this sort of provocation as well. Also if we are going 
> to bring real world law into it then we should mention that       
> Malfoys words could also be considered both "menacing" which is a 
> crime. Note: Goyle and Crabbe using their size in the manner they 
> do is the legal deffinition of "menacing". They could also be     
> considered many "hate crime" statutes.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Draco's words are provocative. They do not constitute a "hate crime" 
(there'd have to be a specific statute regarding the use of the 
word "mudblood" or attacks against "muggleborns" or "blood traitors" 
which, obviously there's not) but they could constitute "terroristic 
threatening".  If no one physically assulted Draco, Harry and 
friends could have pressed charges, and at that point they would be 
considered the victims.

But Draco and Crabbe and Goyle were attacked.  And if police had 
been called to the scene to find five armed wizards standing over 
three unconcious wizards with wands holstered, the three on the 
ground would be considered victims.  Harry and friends would be 
taken into custody and Draco and friends would be taken to a 
hospital.  Harry and friends might protest that they were provoked, 
but it wouldn't stop the legal wheel from turning.

Once the case went in front of a judge, the most important 
consideration would be, who threw the first punch.  That Draco and 
friends hadn't even drawn their weapons would matter much more than 
any words spoken.  In fact, at this stage of the game, the words 
wouldn't count.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Words DO COUNT. If you are familiar with the concept of 'Assault   
> and Battery', then you know that the minute you feel threatened,  
> the minute you feel endangered, Assault has occurred even if no   
> physical contact is made.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That doesn't give you a legal right to physically assault the person 
doing the threatening.  No matter the verbal provocation you cannot 
legally physically attack another person. (Living in a right to 
carry State, I'm grateful for that. <g>)  Of course, if Harry and 
friends had *not* responded with physical force, than yes, a case 
could be made that Draco's language constituted terroristic 
threatening and that they were victims.  But they chose to raise the 
bar to physical assault and at that point, the words don't count.

Where the words *would* count, and where your argument, Steve, would 
belong is in the sentencing phase of the case.  Was there a 
mitigating reason for the attack, etc.?  And this is where Draco's 
statements would come into play.  But as to the facts of was there 
an attack and who attacked whom, and who attacked first, only the 
physical would count.  

> >>Sherry:
> <snip>
> I certainly do not believe Draco and crew were poor innocent      
> victims in the scene.
> <snip>
> But neither does that mean I think he is the innocent helpless    
> victim in all his previous nasty behavior.

Betsy Hp:
I totally snipped your post, Sherry, but I think your above 
statements cut right down to the main sticking point.  I think Draco 
and friends were the victims in this scene.  *However* I do not 
think they were "poor" "innocent" or "helpless".  

There's a tendency to try and paint a victim as a sweet, innocent, 
flower.  But that is rarely, if ever, the case.  Especially in cases 
of physical assault the victim probably did say some rather 
provocative things and may well be a skunk of person who needed a 
good beating.  Doesn't mean the beater was legally correct (or 
morally, for that matter) in delivering the beating.

I was asked, do I see Draco as the victim in this scene.  Well, yes 
I do.  It doesn't mean I think he behaved well, it doesn't mean I 
don't understand why Harry and friends did what they did.  I *do* 
think Harry and friends behaved badly and conceded the moral high 
ground.  But I also think Draco was highly idiotic (and rude, and 
cruel) to poke them as he did.

> >>Tonks:
> I tend to agree with Betsy. But there is another point as well.
> If a person responds to verbal abuse with physical abuse they have
> lowered themselves at least as low if not lower than the verbal
> abuser.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  I'd add that if someone uses verbal abuse in an 
argument, they've lowered themselves and weakened (if not destroyed) 
their argument.  So Draco really starts off low on the moral totem 
pole, as it were.  But Harry and his friends managed to find that 
lower point, bless them.  (I wonder why JKR wrote the scene this 
way?  Why take Draco down *so* hard and over the top?)  They managed 
to turn Draco, spewing the vitrol that he was spewing, into a 
victim.  I mean, that takes effort! <g>

> >>Tonks:
> I think a wizard needs to be in control of himself and
> not allow others to control his emotions and from that his
> behaviors.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Of course, Harry is young, and so he's still learning.  
But this idea that of course physical violence is the correct, if 
not only response to such provokation...  Isn't that just a recipe 
for chaos?

As I said, I live in a right to carry State.  My husband came back 
from court laughing one day because he'd found out he was the only 
person in the courtroom not carrying a gun.  And that included the 
court reporter!  There have been plenty of times that irrate family 
members spewed all sorts of filth at the attorneys and judge for one 
reason or another.  Imagine if instead of just having them removed 
from the courtroom the judge decide to open fire!

Betsy Hp