AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 167186

Carol:
> But killing a DE who can't be brought in any other way, assuming
> that's the case--assuming that Moody really could not subdue Rosier
> (or Wilkes) in any other way and was himself in danger of being
> killed--is different from torturing him or invading his mind to
> control him. It is killing in self-defense (as a Muggle policeman
> would under similar circumstances). Should Moody have set Rosier's
> head on fire with an Incendio to avoid using the Killing Curse?
> Wouldn't that have been far more cruel and evil than resorting to a
> quick, efficient AK if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill him?

Jen:  JKR is saying that the use of the AK is on par with torturing
with the Crucio or controlling someone via the Imperius because she
binds all three together as the Unforgiveables.  And not only that,
Crouch Jr. refers to the AK as the *worst* of the three because it
can't be blocked.

Arguing that torture is worse or that the AK is a more humane way to kill
is not part of canon as presented so far. There is no 'killing is okay in
self-defense' ruling in the WW from what I remember.  No mercy
killings, no 'killing in a time of war is okay', nothing regarding all these
Muggle concepts.  Apparently Aurors are trained very well in counter-
measures to the point that resorting to killing isn't one of their options
or they wouldn't have operated under the rule of 'capture only' until
Crouch Sr. came along.

Carol:
> But if a bad guy must be killed by a good character, how is killing
> them in some other way, such as Sectumsempra or blowing off the bad
> guy's head, better than using an AK? Maybe Harry should just buy a
> Muggle pistol to avoid using an Unforgiveable?

Jen:  This presumes it's okay to kill sometimes.  I honestly don't see
JKR approving of killing *yet*, although I'm open to her moving in 
that direction in DH re: Snape.  Despite Dumbledore's words to
Harry about killing Voldemort, he did not train Harry to use an AK.
Those two elements of the story give me pause when it comes to
Snape on the tower:  is JKR saying there are times killing is acceptable
for a greater good, or is she saying there's never a time?  I go back
and forth on this idea.   (And I question even knowing the entire
scenario on the tower backwards and forwards and agreeing that Snape
should not have tried to fight the DE's but rather get them out of Hogwarts.)

> Carol:
> I agree that having Snape cast an AK is part of JKR's attempt to make
> him look as evil as possible to Harry and to many readers (before the
> big reversal in DH :-) ), but that's not what I'm trying to get at
> now. We can ask the same question regarding Snape as I'm asking with
> regard to Moody--if, indeed, he had no choice but to kill DD (or
> killing DD was the lesser of two evils, a choice but a terrible choice
> that causes him mental anguish) what other spell ought he to have used?

Jen:  I guess I'm questioning the 'lesser of two evils'?  Is killing someone
the lesser of two evils in JKR's world even if it's for the greater good?  She
seemed to be answering 'no' to that question in GOF, that the greater good
was not worth the means of authorizing the Unforgiveables or allowing
Aurors to kill rather than capture only.

Believe me Carol, I understand all your arguments about the tower scene as
a Muggle.  I'm just not clear what JKR is saying up to this point about killing--
specifically the use of the AK--in a WW where people have different powers
and standards.  My understanding is the three Unforgiveables are wrong at any
time no matter what the situation, no matter if the greater good is served, no
matter who is doing the casting and so on.  We have yet to see a good character
definitively use an AK on-page unless Snape is the first.  That's the bottom line
for me, I don't understand if Rowling is saying Snape was right to kill Dumbledore
with an AK by WW  standards even if I believe his action was justified by Muggle
standards.

Magpie:
> Harry has tried Dark Arts. He's cast Sectumsempra, he's
> tried to cast Crucio. But I don't think he's been affected
> automatically by them, because it's not all or nothing, exactly.
> Harry's tempted, but also pulls himself back, sometimes after he's
> crossed a line.  The use of any kinds of magic, I would guess, has an
> affect on a person just because anything you do has an effect on you-
> -your choices are always going to mold who you are. "Seduced by the
> Dark Arts" can simply mean you come to want to use them and prefer
> to use them and use them easily. It's giving in to a certain kind of
> impulse, I think.

Jen:  There's also the piece with Harry that he's never been seduced
because of his ability to love, the likely reason Dumbledore
isn't worried about Harry's use of Crucio or Sectumsempra
since DD believes Harry has a protection others, like Draco, do not.
Harry may try to cast the Crucios but he won't succeed, or rather
Dumbledore has complete faith Harry will grow to understand the
power he holds and why dark curses won't lead him down the road
to defeating Voldemort.  As with everyone, Dumbledore seems intent
on Harry learning this lesson himself with the help of the people around
him most likely.  I'm pretty sure he wouldn't believe Draco would have
help in recognizing he's not a killer or a torturer, thus the moment on
the tower.  

Jen