Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 180196

CJ:   "Harry performed two of the three Unforgivables -- crucio'ing
Carrow  in the   Gryffindor Commons, and tossing Imperios around
Gringott's like  Christmas   candy -- and attempted the third against
Snape at the end of book  six. Harry was far from pure."

===============================

He was human and a hero. No hero is a plaster saint. I find it
surprising that Harry is somehow to be criticized for doing what it
took to destroy an evil Horcrux or defend the lives of himself and his
friends.

I'm not nearly as good as Harry. I would have cheerfully done away
with every Death Eater I came across. Harry went to (what he thought
was) his death so save others. He has nothing to prove in the article
of selflessness or purity of heart.

The so-called Unforgivables had to do with a peacetime statute of the
wizarding world. This is utterly different; it's war, where the
imperative is to defeat the enemy and preserve yourself and your
mates. Using the Imperio meant Harry didn't have to kill, making it a
morally superior choice and a lot easier to forgive than an AK. I
don't care if the Ministry called it "unforgivable." 

The worst thing that could happen is for the Death Eaters to prevail
and for Voldemort to survive. That doesn't mean that absolutely
anything is justified, but worrying about the welfare of Death Eaters
can't be a high priority.

Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent. Any spell cast with
an evil intent is black. Any spell cast for the right reasons is not.

Jim Ferer