Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Ha

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 158624

Tonks wrote:
> The *only* thing that I was responding to was you assertion that one 
> act of physical aggression (in this case choking) is a *definite* 
> indication that the person has a history of physical aggression.  I 
> am saying that you can not assume that.  You can not assume 
> someone's past history by one observation of one act.  You said that 
> if you "ever heard of an adult choking a child with two hands, would 
> immediately assume that the adult had a history of
>  physically abusing the child".  In fact, you have said that you did 
> not even need to see it yourself, you only needed to hear about it 
> and that person is branded in your mind as someone who has been 
> abusing that child.  
> 
> All I am saying is that is it not fair to assume something about 
> someone that, 1. You did not witness yourself and, 2. When you do 
> not know the past history.  Things are not always what they appear 
> to be.  I am not arguing for or against the Dursleys.  I am arguing 
> against the *idea* that you can know for certain about someone's, 
> anyone's, prior history by one act.
> 
> And I do not agree that choking someone is a higher form of abuse 
> that hitting someone. One is as bad as the other in my book. So it 
> does not follow that there can have been prior abuse by just looking 
> at one act. Again, I am not talking about just Vernon here, I am 
> talking about anyone. 

Carol responds:
I agree with you. None of us knows what we're capable of doing, good
or bad, under stress, until it happens. And perhaps we underestimate
the degree of stress that Vernon lives under, fearing an outbreak of
magic in a kid who's getting bigger every day. At any rate, we don't
actually see him harming Harry, and we see the magical protection kick
in when he tries to choke Harry, so it's likely that this instance is
the first and last attempt to choke him. It's rather like assuming
that because Snape kills Dumbledore on the tower, he must have killed
before. We don't know that. All we know is that he was once a Death
Eater. There's always a first time. Maybe this is that first time, in
both instances.

As for two-handed choking being worse than hitting, Harry has done it
at least twice, admittedly under provocation--first, with the supposed
betrayer of his parents, Sirius Black, in the Shrieking Shack, and
again with Mundungus Fletcher, who had been stealing Sirius Black's
belongings from 12 GP. The first instance is entirely understandable,
if not exactly commendable. (He realizes later, on his own, that it's
wrong to commit murder, whether with a wand or by choking.) The second
is, IMO, highly questionable. If Mundungus hadn't been able to
Disapparate, Harry could have killed him, considering that he's
sixteen years old and probably as big as Mundungus.

Carol, who might feel differently if the books weren't fantasy and if
she didn't believe that Harry is in no real danger at 4 Privet Drive
because of the blood protection