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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 150303

> >>Joe:
> That isn't entirely true. If in their minds the words were threats
> that were reasonable and they had reason to believe that the
> speaker would harm them then they could act legally.

Betsy Hp:
But is there a reasonable expectation of violence here?  You'd have
to show that Draco is not only capable, but has a tendency towards,
that sort of violence.  It's a hard argument to make.  I can't think
of an example in canon to support it, especially to this particular
date.

> >>Joe:
> Remember the phrase "I was afraid for my life officer." is what is
> important. Draco, Crabbe and Goyle all have weapons on them
> capable of killing and the trio know this. I can very easily see
> people getting away with a modern day version of this.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, police hear it all the time I'm sure.  But everyone involved is
armed, only the attackers have weapons drawn, the attackers are
larger in number, two (the older two) attacked from behind.  The
amount of danger a reasonable person could claim to be in gets
smaller and smaller as the facts are examined.

And there's been nothing to suggest Draco or Crabbe or Goyle are
capable of killing anyone.

> >>Joe:
> Victim also implies powerlessness where in fact Draco and his ilk
> had to go out of their way to get beat down.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not the way I'm using it.  It just denotes who was the wronged
party.  And that would be the three boys lying unconscious on the
floor getting kicked by the other parties.

> >>Joe:
> Muggle law aside I have no doubt that Harry and pals did the
> absolutely right thing. People will treat you as you let them and
> Draco's little speach went way beyond tolerable. Some things
> cannot be borne and sometimes you have to stand up for your selves.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Mob justice.  Might makes right?  I understand that there are people
who feel justice is delivered by fists, law of the jungle and all
that.  I don't.  I've lived in places where the law was winked at.
Seen the bodies.  It ain't a good thing.  At least in my opinion.

> >>Joe:
> <snip>
> As people sometimes say in my region "He needed beating."

Betsy Hp:
Yup.  Those are the folks that keep us in groceries. <g>

> >>Alla:
> Not only that, I just don't get how somebody who IMO literally
> ASKED for something bad to happen to him can be called a victim.

Betsy Hp:
Well, yes, if Draco has said, "please hex me and my friends into
unconsciousness, and ooh, if you could kick us while we're out,
that'd be extra special!" then I'd see your point.  But Draco went
in ready to trade insults.  He behaved horribly, I agree.  But he
was the one lying unconscious on the floor, so therefore, he was the
victim.

> >>Alla:
> I think maybe I am running into language problem again, but
> someone who is going to provoke people is not a victim in my book.
> He is a provocateur who got a bit more than he bargained for.
> To me victim means "the innocent party".

Betsy Hp:
You're attaching too much to the word victim.  A victim is the one
injured, the wronged party.  There's no need to prove purity or
sweetness or blamelessness.  And yes, Draco victimized Hermione by
calling her a mudblood.  But that was trumped by the physical
attack.  And suddenly Harry and friends are the ones having to
explain *their* actions.  In other words, they lost the higher
ground.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> But Draco invaded their space with his goons on his sides and their
> wands ready to be drawn out.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's an assumption, Alla.  There's nothing in the text to suggest
Darco or his friends were ready to draw their wands.  *Harry* was
fingering his wand, but we've no idea what Draco was doing.
Frankly, from what I've seen of Draco, I think pulling a wand was
the last thing on his mind.  It hadn't gotten personal yet.  And
Draco doesn't think physically.

> >>Alla:
> I have no problem calling Draco "physically injured party" for
> example, but victim ( and I am talking primarily morally, not
> legally) to me implies "wronged party".

Betsy Hp:
Legally, the injured party *is* the victim.  Morally... well we get
to a grey area (at least for me <g>).  Because I really, really,
really, *hate* mob violence.  I mean, I know Harry was in a very bad
place and I guess Hermione and Ron caught his mood (and the twins
are just evil little hooligans looking for an excuse to smack down
*something*).  And Draco was being a complete idiot.  But, oh my
God!  FIVE!!  Against three!  And two of them attacked from behind!
Where's the heroism?  Where's the vaunted Gryffindor chivalry?  I'm
just glad none of the Weasley boys riffled Draco's robes for spare
change.

****************
Edited to add this in:

> >>Nikkalmati:
> At common law there were recognized certain so-called "fighting   
> words", which if spoken could constitute a reason for assault.  No 
> one was expected  to endure such speech without physical           
> retaliation (in proportion of  course).

Betsy Hp:
Is that the same time period where a man was only allowed to beat 
his wife with a rod as thick as his thumb?  We're a bit more 
civilized now.  I hope, anyway. <g>

Though, I will say, Draco was an absolute idiot (and cruel and rude) 
saying the things he said when he said it.  A retaliation of some 
sort shouldn't have been unexpected.  It's just, I don't think it 
was something to cheer for. 

Betsy Hp