Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 170859

SSSusan:
> "(I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so 
> adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really 
> would be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill 
> Moldy without someone intentionally murdering him.)"
 
BAW:
> For at least the ten thousandth time *not all killing is murder*. 
> The vast majority of ethical and legal systems recognize that 
> killing in self-defense or in defense of another is not murder.  
> Killing an enemy combatant in wartime is not murder.  If Harry does 
> end up killing Voldemort, the act would come under one or another.  
> It would be justifiable homicide or at the very worst 
> manslaughter.  
<snip>

SSSusan:
LOL, you're preaching to the choir here, Bruce.  "See my published 
works," to quote ol' Gilderoy. ;-)  In all seriousness, your view on 
this is my view.  For instance, I've argued loudly that, assuming 
Snape did fire off a true AK at DD *and* assuming it was on DD's 
instruction or command, then it's really not murder.  In fact, it's a 
time of war, DD is Snape's 'commanding officer,' and if Snape 
followed DD's instructions, I don't believe he qualifies as a 
murderer.

I feel similarly about Harry facing Voldemort.  While it would be 
*preferable* to me that Harry not have to kill the guy [I'd rather 
like him to self-destruct somehow], if it's inevitable, I can 
certainly live with it & not lose sleep.  Voldy has been trying to 
kill Harry his whole life.  Chances are pretty high it will be self-
defense if it happens.  

So I'm with ya!  I included that bit yesterday because there *are* 
members here who don't agree with us.

Siriusly Snapey Susan