Harry as Murderer?

[Bruce Alan Wilson]

No: HPFGUIDX 158111

My legal dictionary defines murder as the 'unlawful killing of a human being
with malice aforethought.'

'Unlawful'--Tom Riddle is a wizardling outlaw; at one time, even among Muggles,
once a person had been declared outlaw, any citizen might kill him on sight;
this was called 'malicide' and has been abolished in most Muggle jurisdictions.
Wizardling customs and laws are old-fashioned by Muggle standards, so 'malicide'
may still exist among them.

'Human Being'--Voldemort is hardly human any more.

'Malice aforethought'--If you shoot a mad dog, is it done with 'malice', or to
punish him for having contracted rabies?  No, it is to prevent him from biting
someone. (Or more people than he has already.)  I see Harry's killing Voldemort
as protecting all those other people whom V. would have killed had he been
allowed to live; and protection of a threatened third party is certainly a valid
defense to homicide in every legal system that I know of.  Not to mention
self-defense--V. has tried to kill Harry several times already; if brought to
bar for killing V., Harry could say with perfect truthfulness, "M'lud, I was
afraid for my life,' and any halfway competent barrister could show the Court
that this fear was not unreasonable.

Hence, if Harry were to kill Voldemort it would not be murder.  At worst it
would be manslaughter, but it would probably be considered some form of
justifiable homicide--self-defense, third-party defense, or 'malicide' (if it
still exists in Wizardling law).

BAW