Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[jkoney65]

No: HPFGUIDX 185441

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>snip>
 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.
> 
>snip>

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? 
> 
> 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)
>
jkoney:
Well Lupin is right for a couple of reasons. It is Harry's signature 
spell. The whole idea of the multiple Harry's was to keep the DE's 
from figuring out which one was Harry. Harry's actions defeated that 
layer of protection/confusion.

Second, an unarmed wizard on a broom isn't completely worthless. He 
can fly by and try to knock you off your broom, fly above you and 
kick you in the head, he can knock the wand out of your hand, etc.

Someone trying to kill you is less dangerous if they are unarmed, but 
they are still dangerous to you and to your allies. Your job is to 
stop them.

Lupin is trying to explain to Harry the reality that if someone is 
trying to kill you, mercy is not your best option. Because if they 
get the chance they will still try to kill you.

If Moody had survived he would have ripped Harry a new one. Moody 
fought against the DE's and survived. I doubt he used Expelliarmus on 
them in a duel.

We are told that Snape knew more dark curses as a first year than 
most of the older students. So him having a dark curse as his 
signature curse is very believable.