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

[amiabledorsai]

No: HPFGUIDX 165465

Sorry for the delay in answering this, Pippin; I've just gotten back
from Florida, where I had blue skies, warm water and wonderful
seafood, but, alas, no easy way to get Internet access.

Pippin: 
>I speculate. But it still means the burden is on Harry to know
>whether the spell is safe to use or not.

Amiable Dorsai:
Here's where we differ, I think.  More in a bit.

Pippin:
>You make it sound like Harry looked up as he fell and saw 
>Sectum Sempra written on the ceiling. He had the spell "up his
>sleeve" as Ginny puts it, and he'd put it there with no intention
>of testing it to see whether it was relatively harmless before
>trying it. He just assumed that it was. That assumption was not
>only stupid, it was negligent, IMO.

Amiable Dorsai:
Yep, this is where we differ.  I think Harry would, indeed, have been
negligent had he cast it at Ron, say, or McLaggen, or even at Draco at
any time other than in the heat of battle.

Harry didn't need "safe".  He needed effective, and he needed it now.
 Draco forfeited any right he had to "safe" as soon as he tried to use
an Unforgivable.

Pippin:
>I'm no expert, but it seems that in the UK and the US, only the
>use of reasonable force is justified in defending oneself from >attack.

Amiable Dorsai:
It's really dangerous to argue that Wizarding Law is very congruent to
the Muggle Law of modern Britain or of the United States: Draco and
Ron, first year, both seemed to think that some sort of code duello
was still in force, for example.

Pippin:
>Harry thought he was using reasonable force but that itself was >not
a reasonable assumption, and Harry should have known that.

Amiable Dorsai:
I am so not a lawyer, either, but a bit of Googling reveals that the
notion of what constitutes "reasonable force" varies, and has varied
in both places over time and between jurisdictions—at one point, in
England, you could kill a burglar who broke into your home, even if
you did not feel endangered, even if he was fleeing.  For all we know,
British Wizard Law may still feature this sort of—to our eyes—archaism.

Most of us probably feel that random burglarcide is well past a
civilized line, though. So what might be a less extreme definition?

Many cultures that have allowed personal self-defense, (not all
cultures have; in fact, the whole idea seems to be relatively new to
western law) have allowed that deadly force is perfectly "reasonable"
in situations where the defender could, in good faith, believe his
life was in danger.

Harry had excellent reason to believe his life was in danger.

Draco has threatened his life before.  Draco has, in Harry's hearing,
expressed a desire to aid a would-be killer--the Heir of Slytherin--to
murder other students.  Draco has professed to be eager to join and
serve the murderer of Harry's parents--a man who has murdered many
others and who has several times attempted to murder Harry himself. 
Harry knows that Draco is, in fact, doing this man's bidding.

Harry believes (correctly) that Draco has colluded in at least two
murder attempts.

Harry knows that Draco has received training in at least one sort of
magic, Legilimency, from Bellatrix Lestrange.  He has no reason to
believe that Legilimency is the only thing Draco has learned from his
psychopathic aunt.

Even the attempt to cast Cruciatus shows that Draco is out of
control—if he'll cast one Unforgivable, what (from Harry's point of
view) is to stop him from casting another?

All this is a long-winded way of reiterating my point: Harry had,
morally, and, probably, legally, a right to use deadly force.  He does
not appear to have wanted to do so; in fact he's clearly horrified by
the results of "Sectumsempra" but his back was against the wall, he
had no time to pick and choose, and he succeeded in his primary goal
of staying alive. 

Not bad, even if using "Sectumsempra" loses him points from the
Durmstrang judge.

Amiable Dorsai