[HPforGrownups] The unforgivable curse argument

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 173047

Colwilrin blessed us with this gem On 26/07/2007 23:07:

> When Harry used the Crucio curse, he was in a battle situation.

CJ:
Sorry, but no. Harry Crucio'd Amycus Carrow for the sin of spitting on 
McGonagall.

Colwilrin:
> In any US court, Harry's actions would be justified under Self-Defense.

CJ:
Decidedly not. Harry was hidden beneath his Invisibility Cloak at the 
time, and thus was not threatened by Carrow, nor is spitting 
life-threatening in any case. This was no act of self-defense; it was 
pure, cold, naked revenge for defiling McGonagall.

Sherry blessed us with this gem On 26/07/2007 23:07:

> Cruciatus is a torture curse

CJ:
An excellent point. Cruciatus is NOT a self-defense spell; it is 
torture. Anyone who tries to defend Harry's use of it on the grounds of 
self-defense has to explain why none of the literally dozens of other 
defensive spells Harry knows -- from Expelliarmus to Binding to 
Confundus to the Shield spells he was throwing around in the final 
battle -- wouldn't have done just as nicely.

CJ,
Taiwan