I can see the rationale. Voldemort's "You do not seek to kill me..." might imply that he was surprised not to see the Killing Curse, and the fact that he did indeed conjure a physical shield when throwing up a Shield Charm would be an ostensibly lesser effort (though for someone like Voldemort, the disparity in difficulty might be miniscule) leaves something to be said for.

Pure speculation: it would be interesting if the difficulty in conjuring precious metals (we only see Voldemort conjure silver, Gamp's Execption for gold) might correlate with their resistance to the Killing Curse. IIRC, the statue running towards Bellatrix was made of gold, and knowing Bellatrix, she probably popped off at least one AK in that particular assault.

 

The problem with saying that Bellatrix used a killing curse there, or that Dumbledore used a killing curse against Voldemort, is that JKR is clear and specific every time the killing curse is used. She either puts the incantation, states that the killing curse was cast, or describes a jet of green. If she doesn't do any of those, then I think it can reasonably be taken that none of the spells cast were the killing curse.

 

That scene never implied killing curse to me. The very idea of Dumbledore using one is alien to me and I'm pretty sure that it would be to Voldemort as well.

Voldemort makes several references on Dumbledore limiting himself by ignoring dark arts, so from his perspective Dumbledore might not even know how to cast one.

 

I have no issue with the idea that Voldemort expected Dumbledore to try to kill him. Remember, in the flash back in book 7 when Snape approaches Dumbledore his first words are "Don't kill me!". I do think that says something about Dumbledore's reputation during the war. Whether or not he used the killing curse on other occasions can;t be known, but I'm as certain as its possible to be that he didn't cast the killing curse at Voldemort in the atrium of the Ministry of Magic during OotP.

 

No one is saying Dumbledore used a killing curse. The argument is that at the time Voldemort cast his shield, he was expecting a Killing Curse.

This is a circular argument. You can't use the argument "JKR always says when a Killing Curse is used" to say a given spell is not the Killing Curse, because "JKR always says when a Killing Curse is used" is only true if the spell in question is not the Killing Curse. You're therefore assuming your conclusion in your premise.

There's at least one use of the Killing Curse in canon that isn't described as the Killing Curse: Molly killing Bellatrix.

It would be very strange for Bellatrix not to have used the Killing Curse in that situation, given her propensity for using it in general. If she casts it casually against foxes, you'd think she'd use it in a fight against Dumbledore. And besides, there's a very good reason for JKR not describing the Killing Curse being used on this occasion: it would be one of a number of spells cast very quickly and would have been unwieldy for JKR to have described them all, especially as it's a side-show to the main Dumbledore v Voldemort duel.

 

The argument isn't that DD tried to AK Voldemort in the Atrium, Mordecai. The argument is that Voldemort reacted as he did because he expected a Killing Curse.

aaaaaaand ninja'd

 

I don't see why she would use a killing curse against a statue. Its an animated inanimate object, surely she'd use spells designed to deal with inanimate objects rather than a spell which purpose is to kill. You can't kill what isn't alive, so it wouldn't be your go to spell in that situation.

 

This thread is a good example of how short fragments of text can be read in entirely different ways.

It never even occurred to me to interpret Voldemort's silver shield as precautionary, instead of being a reaction against that specific spell. After reading this thread, I still don't favor that interpretation.

That particular spell exchange is a) the only time we see a physical shield held in the hand used to defend against magic, and b) the only time we see Dumbledore (or anyone) use that particular spell. The unique occurrence of both is not enough to actually prove the case, but it's certainly compelling, IMO, given the lower standards of evidence we often work with in Rowling's books.

As expected, my opinion of whether the Killing Curse can be blocked with a physical shield held in the hand stems from the way I interpreted that text. If the silver shield was specifically conjured to counter Dumbledore's unique spell, then there remains no evidence that a Killing Curse can be blocked with any clothing or armor, anything held in the hand, or anything rigidly tethered to the wizard (including a magical shield).

A physical obstruction that isn't held in the wizard's hand does seem to stop the spell. I suppose you could argue that such a thing isn't rigidly tethered to the wizard, even the the wizard is banishing or levitating it.

 

You're mistaking Voldemort for someone capable of putting himself in other peoples' shoes. It's as simple as the fact that Voldemort would have cast the Killing Curse in that situation so he expects everyone else do the same.

 

Yeah, I could see Voldemort thinking that Dumbledore's morals and opposition to using the Dark Arts are all just a front, and when the chips are down/he's pushed hard enough Dumbledore would break out a Killing Curse. He just can't reconcile the fact that Dumbledore is such a powerful wizard with the fact that Dumbledore refuses to exercise what he sees as the ultimate form of power: ending the lives of others.

 

Your mistaken lack of empathy for lack of tactical ability. Not being able to somewhat accurately predict your opponents moves sounds like a good way to lose a duel. Voldemort would not have become what he was without that skill. Dumbledore is also a known opponent, so he would full well know what spells to expect.

 

Except we know that Dumbledore's spell surprised him.

 

That would imply that he misread the tactical situation. He expected Dumbledore to go for the kill and acted accordingly to what he would expect from Dumbledore in such a situation. That is not the same as being unable to predict your opponents moves.

 

I've always assumed that the only reason that Dumbledore's statues were able to block killing curses as well as they did was because of the level of animation charm that Dumbledore put upon them. He made them conceptually alive enough such that they could be killed by a killing curse.

You'd need to be phenomenally good (as in approaching Dumbledore levels) to either conjure or transfigure something alive enough to count for the killing curse. This is my head canon at least for why conjuration isn't the standard counter for the killing curse.

 

Second-Year Malfoy was good enough to conjure a snake which was able to understand Parselmouth and spontaneously decide it wanted a bite of Hufflepuff. Granted, he didn't do so while being on the receiving end of a Killing Curse, but still, Second-Year Malfoy.

 

Canon senses are telling me to STFU, buuuut...

Wonderbook says that snakes and birds are the easiest animals to Conjure.

Then again, he picks up Alchemy as a hobby after Hogwarts according to JK.

As a hobby.

 

All we know is that the curse Molly hit Bellatrix with was immediately lethal, not necessarily that it was the Killing Curse. In fact:

The fact that Bella had time to react after the spell hit suggests to me that it wasn't the Killing Curse.

 

But does being able to speak constitute being alive? Again this is my own personal head canon, but I assumed that while appearing alive for all mundane purposes in a deeper more magical sense it wouldn't count as alive. As far as I can recall noting other than Dumbledore's animations or a living being successfully block the curse.

 

If you transfigured a beetle into a button, which you wore on your shirt, and the killing curse hit the button; would the beetle die or would you?

And if you died, would the beetle survive? Can the killing curse kill more than one thing at a time?

Earlier in the thread, general consensus seems to be that when you wear an article of clothing it is considered a part of you, and does not block the curse. But I think a piece of clothing transfigured from another independent living thing would be considered different enough to block the curse.

I can imagine the most effective armour for the killing curse to be a robe made of guinea-pigs that have been transfigured into threads and sewn together. The biggest problem would probably be that you would have to un-sew, untransfigure, feed, re-transfigure and resew the robe fairly regularly to keep the guinea-pigs alive.