Bathroom scene again WAS: Re:Weasley Family Dynamics/To t...

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 165014


> Alla:
> 
> > I am  sorry and no offense to you as well, but you keep calling it 
> > unathorised  dueling. I call it self defense and I do not remember 
> > where in canon it  says that student is forbidden to defend 
> himself 
> > from Unforgivable  curse.

wynnleaf
Whatever Harry *thought* he was doing, let's get a couple of things
straight.

1.  If Harry thought Sectumsempra was likely to be a powerful curse to
use on real-for-sure, dangerous and deadly enemies, then his recent
intention to use it on McClaggen when his back is turned was
absolutely horrible, showing all manner of evil intent.

2.  If Harry thought Sectumsempra wasn't all that bad, and something
he could safely use on someone for whom he had mostly petty
irritations (McClaggen), then he was being rather stupid to use it to
defend against a crucio.

Since I doubt that JKR wants us to think Harry was willing to use a
deadly spell against McClaggen, I think we have to assume that Harry
used Sectumsempra rather stupidly -- not choosing it because he
thought it would likely be an excellent spell to use against someone
casting an unforgiveable, but just using it because he'd been going
around with it on his mind (to use the next chance McClaggen turned
his back).

So basically what this scene shows us about Harry is that he had this
Sectumsempra spell in his head, that he had no clue what it would do,
but he didn't think it any more nasty than a nail-growing hex.  He
used it against Draco, not as some strategic tactic against an
unforgiveable, but because it was a spell he'd had on his mind.  

When the spell was obviously very deadly, Harry was shocked to the core.

Now as far as Snape goes...

Whether anyone might have thought Harry was justified in using
Sectumsempra against a crucio makes no difference whatsoever, because
no one other than Draco and Harry know about the crucio, nor *can*
they know.  Why -- if Harry himself isn't offering the defence of "he
tried to crucio me!" or any defense at all for that matter -- should
Snape or anyone else try to "get to the bottom" of the situation and
find out what evil thing Draco was doing that would exonnerate Harry?  

If Harry had been saying he only did it in self-defence, then sure
perhaps Snape should have investigated more.  But without Harry saying
anything, there's no reason to assume it was anything more than a
school fight that only turned ugly when Harry used the Sectumsempra.

Last.. why was Harry punished?

Snape didn't punish Harry for using Sectumsempra.  So any arguments
about why was Harry getting punished for using it in self-defense
don't even fit the situation.  Harry was punished for blatantly lying
to Snape about where he found that Dark Magic spell and the potions
book, which Snape knew perfectly well Harry had hidden from him.  

Arguments about how justified Harry was to use a deadly spell that
Harry himself thought was fine to use against McClaggen make little
sense.  Harry himself didn't try to justify his actions to Snape or
McGonagall, therefore neither teacher had the slightest reason to
attempt to sort through whether he had any good excuse.

wynnleaf

> Alla:
> 
> But you are switching gears on me here :) or at least it feels like 
> you do.
> 
> I did not think we were talking about what McGonagall can conclude 
> happened, you know?
> 
> Sure, absolutely the fast conclusion that she can make is that Harry 
> tried to murder Draco. I mean, I still say that this is not the 
> **only** conclusion she can make, knowing the history between them, 
> but definitely, it is one of them.
> 
> But that is **precisely** what I hope she would not do, meaning I 
> hope she would **not** make fast and **wrong** conclusions.
> 
> I expect Snape jump to wrong conclusions, not her. I expect Minerva 
> to make sure that truth is uncovered and not condemn Harry no matter 
> what first impression is, and how convenient it looks.

wynnleaf
Look.  You find two kids fighting.  One is hurt very, very badly.  The
other offers no excuse and no defense -- not anything.  Harry doesn't
say "Draco attacked me" or "Draco tried to crucio me."  No.  So
without Harry saying there's any more to it than is obvious, there's
no reason for either McGonagall or Snape to investigate further.

What? You think they should just assume that Harry would keep quiet
about Draco using an unforgiveable?   Harry had already been telling
people his suspicions about Draco in regards other activities.  If
Harry wasn't saying anything about Draco's behavior in the bathrooms,
why should anyone wonder if Draco was doing anything worse than the
average school hexes?
>
Alla
> And the truth is that Draco was firing Unforgivable curse and Harry 
> was protecting himself. I am going to even go as far as I almost 
> never go, hehe. I refuse to call it my opinion. I think it is a 
> fact. Sorry.

wynnleaf
Harry was "protecting" himself with a spell that he thought would be
fine to use on the irritating McClaggen when his back was turned. 
That hopefully means that Harry thought the spell was pretty innocuous
-- which means he wasn't doing a very good intentional job of
"protecting" himself, was he?

Alla
> I was talking about the truth of what happened, not how it would 
> **look** from the first sight.
> Oh, and if Snape tried to legilimenc Harry, I am thinking that he 
> could have done the same thing with Draco as well.

wynnleaf
Why should Snape do that?  Legilimency against a kid who has just been
bleeding to death?  Based on what evidence?  Had Harry made any
accusations?  Why should Snape suspect Draco of something as bad as
Sectemsempra or an unforgiveable, when Harry hadn't accused Draco of
anything at all?

 > Alla:
> 
> Does he deserve to die from it? If he chose to attack somebody who 
> just walked in with the curse that may cause horrible pain and 
> insanity?
> 
> I do not know if he deserves to die from it, probably not, but I do 
> not expect Draco's life to be Harry's first concern when he defends 
> his sanity.

wynnleaf
Yep, Harry's first concern should be to use a spell he thought not
much more powerful than a nail-growing hex or levicorpus, right? 
Because supposedly, he *didn't* think Sectumsempra was any stronger a
spell than the others -- or he hopefully wouldn't plan to use it on
McClaggen.

Or do you think Harry *did* think it a powerful spell to use on real,
nasty, life-threatening enemies?  Then Harry's intention to use it on
McClaggen was evil, right?

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Either Harry stupidly used what
he thought was a weaker spell to counter a crucio, or he planned to
use a powerful and dangerous spell against McClaggen.

Alla 
> To make a long story short, I just refuse to accept that it was 
> something **other** than self-defense. 

wynnleaf
Considering that Harry (hopefully) didn't know he was using such a
powerful spell, yes, I think we'd have to assume that Harry knew
plenty of other spells that he could be sure would be powerful enough
to stop Draco.  Much more powerful than he (hopefully) supposed the
Sectumsempra to be.

Like I said -- you can't have it both ways.  If Harry didn't know that
spell was so terrible, and instead thought it no different from the
rest of the Prince's hexes, then Harry had a wide array of other
choices of spells to choose from which he'd know could be as or more
effective against Draco.

> Alla:
> 
> I have not noticed Harry wanting to attack when Draco used 
> Unforgivable, in fact I have noticed him one of those harmless hexes 
> at first and quite harmless as second and only as last attempt the 
> one marked for enemies. IMO of course.


wynnleaf
Harry used the milder hexes first.  But you're saying that Harry then
used Sectumsempra as some sort of last resort against an
unforgiveable.  But if you really think Harry believed Sectumsempra to
be so powerful -- how do you explain his willingness to use it against
McClaggen?  

On the contrary, his willingness to use it against McClaggen makes it
more likely that Harry thought the spell to be milder.  Which means he
should have chosen what he knew to be a stronger spell against Draco
(like expelliarmus, or stupify), if he was really trying to give his
best defensive action.

> Alla:
> 
> In order to describe Draco as victim, it does not have to be said 
> that 
> Draco was just staying there while Harry attacked him IMO. 

wynnleaf
I can't think of anyone who has considered Draco a "victim," exactly.
 Draco is not innocent at all.  However, Harry's use of a spell about
which he was ignorant almost cost Draco his life.  Draco doesn't have
to be innocent to make taking his life the wrong choice.

The biggest problem for Harry's use of Sectumsempra is that he used a
spell in complete ignorance as to its power and almost killed someone
who didn't deserve *death* even if he did deserve punishment.  

That may be the reason Harry never told Snape or McGonagall what Draco
had done.  Perhaps he thought Draco's almost bleeding to death was enough.


wynnleaf