Oh, Harry Potter never killed anyone?
Looks at all the Voldemort body ash floating on the wind into Muggle's Mouthsies

To be honest though, it's pretty much common sense that Harry's killed more then just Voldemort. I'm a bit iffy on the Shunpike debate, but it's pretty much inevitable that of the people Harry knocked off brooms at least some must have died and while J.K left it ambiguous it's common sense, called inferring, people.

The Basilisk could talk.. It was sentinent if not sapient Figg shouldn't leave her kneazles with a known animal killer (And the similarities between Tom an Harry grow evermore leaving me wishing Harry's name is Gerry).

To be serious though J.K left the Quirrel case ambiguous and my side of it is that that was because what 11 year old wants to ruminate over them maybe killing their teacher. I feel that yes Quirrel was dying because of Harry and that Voldemort leaving was the last stab to his weak body, also Dumbledore maybe was an accomplice to that for forcing him out?
Also Lockhart could be debated as losing all of your memories is basically like a fresh start and losing your old self, dying basically well not really but I feel like that should be factored in as well

Last thing, Harry's always shown the capability to murder for those he loved, Sirius,Peter,Voldemort over his parents death, Basilisk over Ginny that time he was on the verge of murdering Kreacher the creature for indirectly helping kill Sirius also the death eaters in the ministry 5 year the whole DH war and etc. Face it he's a hero with murderistic tendencies/moral flexibility that you need to have in war

 

None of what you said prior really backs up this conclusion - "murderistic tendencies" are not the same thing as potentially killing an enemy in battle. Come on now.

 

I think it's because of the scene in POA where he stops Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. Ironic, because a few moments before he was trying his 13 year old best to do Sirius in.

Harry doesn't like killing unarmed victims. If you have a wand it's game on.

 

Eh, that was poor word choice I meant willingness to kill basically should've stuck with moral flexibilit.
To be honest though I dont see the point of fanon Harry being more passive then he is Avatars Aang is similar an yet hated for being passive in the show. Harry Potter has killed before he's also clearly shown willingness to kill like prtclehysics said and yeah he's probably never killed after the books maybe in the Aurors he did once or twice but he's not a psychopath or serial killer like murderous tendencies may have suggested rather I think a rebel or self defense type killing is similar to his position I wouldn't quite compare him to a soldier like is common and that's my opinion

 

Pretty much this. We never get explicit confirmation that Harry has killed, and whenever it's openly discussed in the books Harry generally comes across as unwilling to kill. Ergo, a lot of people assume he hasn't killed.

 

Come on, everybody's killed someone; am I right?
High five!


Um, anyone? You gonna leave me hangin'?



The fandom seems split between those who think Harry should be killing anything that moves without batting an eye, and those who think he can't kill an enemy without losing his lunch, with a few people left in the middle ground.

 

And earlier in the year he was A-OK with Sirius getting Kissed.

 

Just to clarify everyone agrees that Harry did kill Voldemort, right? I mean Expelliwhatsitarmcharm may be a non lethal spell but undeniable results of Voldemort dying from it

 

Huh, my faith in Harry Potter being a children's series is restored. After all technically he never killed anyone. Also while I still believe in a snow globe incident you still lead to or were accomplice to the death but I have no philosophical leanings and don't want to debate the morality/degree/technicality/perspective of murder. I concede, nope nevermind have one more thing, Harry went into the fight with the willingness/intending to kill. If you try try and kill a guy- threatening to kill you with a gun- with a metal bat (ignore the logic) and the guy's bullet bounces back and kills the Voldemort guy. Harry went to Voldemort intending to kill, what he did indirectly lead to Voldemort dying therefore he is one of the main factors of Voldemorts death.
Also I've been a lot more influenced by the movies then I thought I was seeing how I still imagine the fight outside and Voldemort turning to ash, even though I watched the movie 2 years after finishing DH.

 

The snowglobe analogy is terrible. Harry went in more of less knowing what would happen.

 

So you think my bullet and bat analogy is better?

 

Book wise and how it limits the perspective; I say he did not kill anyone.

Based on how accidental death happens in the real world and knowing someone can fall from a certain height and break their spine. He did so knowing that would happen if he fought back. And using the Unforgivable curse POV, I'd say he easily kill someone. He may not enjoy the act itself, but if push came to shove and someone he cared for was in danger, he would make sure the person was down and stayed down... then again Order of the Phoenix happened and I can't remember if Harry strictly used non-lethal spells for that(movie says differently?)

 

I'd argue it doesn't depend on that.

No, even if those others died, they are not killers (IMO). A "Killer" usually has the connotation of someone who willing takes life, or wants to take life—not a single act based on self-defense.

I think Majube is right. Harry has too much knowledge—he knows that Voldemort must die by his hand. At that point, the method of death isn't important. He faced up to his prophecy and it came about. In the HP world, prophecies pretty much always come about, especially Trelawneys. Everything from Neville breaking the cup to Dumbledore being the first to die; Harry and the grim (Sirius) to the dark days ahead for Umbridge (who was taken off by Centaurs and later, according to JKR, jailed for her participation in the Muggleborn registration) came true.


I also have to assume that Harry in fact did kill in the battle of the 7 Potters. There's little reason given in the text not to assume it, so by narrative logic, they fell, bound, and hit the ground from hundreds of feet up. Hence, dead.

Probably the bigger distinction I'd make between Harry and others is that, IMO, he never intentionally killed with forethought—not even when it was forethought within self-defense. For literary reasons, that keeps him innocent to a degree—he is not Snape (his negative doppelganger), and why we never really read of someone outright dying by his acts until Voldemort.

 

Just going to leave this here.

 

Harry killed a guy in the first book.

Doesn't mean he especially likes killing people or is going to go on a Death Eater murder spree, but he's definitely capable of doing it in defense of himself or his friends.

I can't say I've ever really heard of Non-Killing Harry really being a thing, OP. I have seen a lot of writers try to use Harry as a mouthpiece for the idea that people die in war.

 

You miss that pacifist arguments that are quite common in fanon are there due to cannon evidence, so it isn't just invention. As usual Harry's action speak pretty clearly.

There is difference between what character thinks, what JKR thinks and what he actually does. Harry has plenty of opportunities where most logical choice is to cast deadly spell. But he always casts nonlethal one which is most promminent in final battle where his strategy is to commit suicide and survive by power of love with expelliramus thrown in.

DoM battle - stunners only, so they either didn't learn potentially deadly spells or they try to have moral high ground. Harry trying crucio on Bella is example that anger makes you bad fighter. Crucio is one of worst spells that you could cast in duel even if sucessfully. Even stunner is better at eliminating opponent so he should cast almost anything else.

Then in HBP he learn sectumsempera but he doesn't use it much later despite its effectiveness.

Then when trio captures DE they don't kill them because ... they forgotten execution warrant signed by minister at home. Its example where they let them murder more people by letting them go. Here a best action would be to imperio them to kill other DE when they return to base.

There are more cases but I don't recall them from head.

 

Deathly Hallows, Chapter 36

Harry was shooting jinxes and curses at any Death Eater he could see, and they crumpled, not knowing what or who had hit them, and their bodies were trampled by the retreating crowd.

Another instance of Harry using lethal force.