Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 185413

clcb58 wrote:
> In the instance during the flight from Privet Drive, Harry *was* in
full battle mode, only switching from stunning to disarming when he
realized he was firing on Stan Shunpike, whom he believed to be under
the Imperius Curse and not a true Death Eater: 
> 
> "Harry sent Stunning Spell after Stunning Spell back at their
pursuers, barely holding them off. He shot another blocking jinx at
them: The closest Death Eater swerved to avoid it and his hood
slipped, and by the red light of his next Stunning Spell, Harry saw
the strangely blank face of Stanley Shunpike -- Stan --
> 
> "'Expelliarmus!' Harry yelled.
> 
> 'That's him, it's him, it's the real one!'" (DH, US p.59)
> 
> I agree that Harry isn't a cold-blooded warrior, but I think his
moral code is broken into different categories -- those who deserve
"battle" spells and those who don't -- and it sets him apart from
everyone else.

Carol responds:
Excellent point (and quote). He's using essentially the same tactics
that he used in the MoM, and even there he used Expelliarmus on
occasion, IIRC. (I remember Neville using it and accidentally
Disarming Harry as well as the DE--oops.) In this case, Harry's
humanity is showing. He thinks of Stanley Shunpike as Stan--someone he
knows and has defended against Scrimgeour's unstated assumption that
he's a real Death Eater (imprisonment without trial), almost with
affection, and he's not going to let Stan Shunpike, the pimply and not
overly bright youth who once bragged (under the influence of Veela
power) that he was the youngest ever Minister for Magic and had also
bragged, with less excuse, that he was a Death Eater. Harry is
presuming Stan's innocence even here; the blank expression must
indicate that he's been Imperiused, and Harry is not going to let him
fall to his death (or serious injury) from a Stunning Spell fired at a
hundred feet (or whatever) above the ground. His action makes perfect
sense to me.

What does not make sense--to me--is the DE's assumption that only
Harry would use Expelliarmus. True, he must have seen him use it in
the graveyard, but it's a highly useful spell. (Snape taught it to the
entire short-lived duelling club.) Now true, a Wizard duelling on the
ground can pick up his own wand (unless it flies out the window like
Lockhart's when Harry uses it on him in CoS or off the ramparts like
Dumbledore's or unless his opponent catches it and claims it), but a
hundred feet (or whatever) in the air, it's a highly useful spell. An
unarmed opponent can't hurt you, and he'll have no choice but to
abandon the chase and go after his wand. So I disagree with Lupin.
Setting aside the whole vexed question of wand ownership, why Stupefy
your opponent, which is tantamount to killing when you're flying, when
Expelliarmus is so effective under the circumstances? Or, if Stupefy
is justifiable, why not use Petrificus Totalus and other defensive
spells, including the highly effective Expelliarmus, as well as
Stupefy? I don't know about anyone else, but I find battles that
consist only of red and green flashes boring. What's the point of DADA
if the only spell you're going to use is Stupefy? (At least Harry
threw in a couple of Protegos, which may not stop AKS but at least
block the flight path of the DEs.

As for Lupin, maybe he'd feel differently about Expelliarmus if he
rather than Snape had taught it to Harry! (And if Snape's signature
spell were Sectum Sempra, as Lupin says in the same speech, wouldn't
he and Sirius Black have known before GoF that Snape had been a DE?) I
suppose that Lupin can be excused for his anger and lack of logic
because he's just had to deal with the seriously injured George, the
(accidental) victim of a Sectum Sempra cast by Dumbledore's
"murderer," so he's thinking with his, erm, testosterone, rather than
his brain.

Carol, who thinks that Lupin's advice to Harry makes him look like a
murderous moron in contrast with Harry (who was, IMO, right to use
Expelliarmus in that situation)