The unforgivable curse argument

[leggrachel]

No: HPFGUIDX 173026

"colwilrin" wrote:
<snip>
> When Harry used the Crucio curse, he was in a battle situation.
> Voldemort and the DE's were intent on killing both Harry and those
> who supported Harry.  In any US court, Harry's actions would be
> justified under Self-Defense. <snip>
> I was actually a bit happy when Harry finally got serious and
> fought fire with fire.  I never wanted him to AK anyone...but
> he used the force necessary to protect himself...and I was
> thrilled by it.  <snip>

"leggrachel" <psych12 at gmail.com> writes:

One theme of JKR is that there aren't those simple lines between good
and bad, like we all wish there were. Snape, for example, is quite a
dynamic character, and for all that he remained loyal, she stated that
Snape would not have been interested in saving Harry at all had it not
been for his love of Lily. I think it's the same thing here with
unforgivables curses. When it's no holds barred battle, I think the
time for subtlety was passed. Interestingly, earlier in the book,
Lupin mentions that the Death Eaters seemed to think that disarming
was Harry's signature move. And in the end, that's what actually gets
rid of Voldie - his killing cruse rebounding from Harry's own
disarming spell.