Feel free to tell me I am wrong. After all, this is just one idea, and more based on the movie's depiction than the book's.

Could Molly have used Duro to change Bellatrix, or maybe just her corset/torso to stone then shattered it with reducto?

 

Ignoring what happened in the movie, as I can't be damned to re-watch the scene, based on the books description I would say no.

IIRC, Bellatrix just gets hit with one spell to the chest, and then topples over. No description of her chest being blown apart, or being turned into stone. And honestly, the reducto would probably be completely unnecessary, if her chest was turned to stone.

In any case, I have doubts that duro would even work on a human. I'd always imagined it as a spell that only works on objects, but I suppose I could be wrong on that.

 

I hate that Molly beat her.

But to put any "logic" into it, Bellatrix probably though molly was such a joke she did not take her at all seriously and was playing with her, then Molly threw one good hit and got her.

If Bellatrix had gone in guns blazing, like she did in OOTP, Molly Wobbles would be Molly slowly expanding puddle of bodily fluids.

 

I always read it as the Killing Curse. It hits her, she dies pretty much instantly. There's no blood or decapitation or whatever - the curse seems to cause death directly, not death via a physical medium. That sounds very much like the Killing Curse to me.

As for how Molly could do it, the text is quite clear that it's the same situation as how Bellatrix beat Sirius. Harry even notes that he can tell what's going to happen just before it does, so strongly does Bellatrix remind him of Sirius.

 

If she knew what happened, it wasnt the killing curse.

 

I read that simply as poetic licence to vary the rules of the universe for dramatic effect.

 

There's this fanfiction where Harry goes back in time, and monolgues how Molly was one of the best duellists on the circuit before she had her kids, nealy explaining how she killed Bellatrix. Well, not the exact spell, but the reason a hosuewife could beat the second-most feared death eater after Voldemort.

 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other lethal curses, aside from Avada Kedavra. My issue with Molly killing Bellatrix is mostly that, if she is such a bad ass, why the FUCK is she not out there fighting with the rest of the order?

It's a pretty bloody desperate war and they leave one of their heavy hitters back at home to cook? To let her kind, but rather bumbling husband fall asleep on the damn job and get bitten by a snake?

 

it's not as if the Order did much to start with anyway. "Guarding" a prophecy only Voldemort (unstoppable by any member of the order) and Harry (doesn't know about it) was a waste of an entire year, and makes anyone doubt the intelligence of whoever thought of that plan, and whoever is following it. Especially since Harry could have taken and destroyed the prophecy.

The less said about the "7 Potter" plan the better.

 

There is a difference between a lethal curse and the Killing Curse. A lethal curse, like Sectumsempra, kills via some other effect. Blood loss, dismemberment, organ removal, blunt force trauma, or whatever. The Killing Curse, on the other hand, has no "mechanism". It just makes you dead.

 

Isn't the fact that it hit her directly where her heart was an explanation? Like whatever that spell was stopped her heart completely?

It would explain why she died similarly to an AK.

 

@CheddarTrek:
Bella was Voldemort's "Last, Best Lieutenant", according to Harry anyway. The Dark Lord taught her personally. I doubt Voldemort would mentor just anyone. She killed Tonks and dueled Hermione, Ginny and Luna all at once in the final battle. Hermione and Ginny were both above average duelers in canon (not sure about Luna). Hers is the only death to affect Voldemort personally. She calls herself the Dark Lord's most faithful on several occasions. So she was definitely Voldemort's Number 2.

Which makes her death at Molly's hands so very stupid.

Also, she was the only "Good Guy" shown to actually kill someone in canon. Moody killed a DE, but that is only mentioned. Snape killed Dumbledore, but that was with his permission.

Who would have thought Molly Weasley would be the only member of the Order to deliberately kill someone onscreen? And the Dark Lord's best Death Eater no less?

 

It's implied that the other members are also killing people. Lupin telling Harry that he was stupid not to implies that it's standard practice.

 

Perhaps, but I think that became the situation only after Dumbledore's death. I don't think Dumbledore condoned killing : He could have easily killed the DEs in the DOM (the Azkaban escapees anyway) without repercussions, yet he chose to merely incapacitate them, even when he knew fully well than sending them to Azkaban again was pointless.

Anyway, my point of Molly being the only "Good Guy" to kill onscreen stands. I always wanted to see Harry kill somebody in canon. It would have been interesting to see how he dealt with his first kill. It would have been more realistic in the war as well. A real missed opportunity IMO.

 

I'm pretty sure there could be some manner of curse that kills without it being visible.

As for Lupin's comment to Harry, it was about Harry refusing to use a stunner cos it MIGHT kill a death eater. I mean, yeah, that's one of the most retarded moments of the entire series, but assassination could've slowed or even stopped Voldemort's operation.

 

Well, he did kill Voldemort...

Also, Quirrell.

Also, he deliberately left Pettigrew to die when he could have saved him.

 

None of those are even close to the point I was making, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Don't argue for the sake of arguing. That's what gets half the discussions here into full retard territory.

He disarmed Voldemort. The guy pretty much killed himself. More so than Harry did. Quirrell. It wasn't really a choice and he was 11. Leaving someone to die is different. My point is that if just one person had been willing to sully their souls, they could've gotten rid of more than half of the Death Eaters.

 

Er, they're entirely relevant to the point you're making. You're interested in the emotional impact on Harry of choosing to cause someone's death. In all three of those situations Harry deliberately chose to cause someone's death.

Saying "well, technically he used a disarming charm" then takes the discussion away from the topic you wanted to talk about -- now you're talking about the chain of causation and the degree to which Harry is responsible. But the whole point is, emotionally speaking, that doesn't matter.

Harry wanted someone to die, he acted with the aim of them dying, and they then died. That's enough to have an emotional impact on him, because from his own perspective he caused their deaths. How a court of law would consider it is irrelevant to that matter.

 

I wasn't just talking about Harry, but all of the "Good guys".

We don't really know if Harry was certain the spell would've killed Voldemort, do we? Not sure on this one.

He cannot be held accountable for what he did at 11.

Not entirely sure about Pettigrew, either. My point being, with a bit of initiative, more could've been done.