Disregarding the fact that we don't know when DD became Mug...whatever, who told you that an officer of the court could just walk up to someone and arrest them[FOR NO REASON]? Do you know how much....trouble that owuld cause....And give Voldermort a little credit.....he's quite obviously not the complete bafoon most fan fictions make him out to be.

Even if that officer of the court thing is true[I'm not even sure] he could only hold him for oen day and that would just make Riddle much more careful around him. Riddle would also try to take legal action against Dumbledore more than likely if he was arrested without any shred of proof.

 

First, it wouldn't be no reason, DD knew or at least thought Riddle murdered Myrtle. When Riddle returned to try and become a teacher, it was about 10 years later and after he had murdered more people. At the very least he could've done the same thing to Riddle he did to Crouch Jr, give him Veritaserum and get Voldemort to confess. Even if he was just an ordinary citizen with no titles, he could still arrest him:

That's the law of England, which I would assume to be the same or at least close to what the MoM has. So force him to drink the Veritaserum, if he resists or attacks you outright, kill him. Or DD could just walk up to him, kill him, and then cast the AK with Riddle's wand to show that Riddle attacked him... There are many ways DD could've killed him over the years.

 

Did you read the J.K. interview where she explained why they didn't use veritasium on Sirius? She said it's not used in trials because it's not effective when the subject knows its being used on him/her.

Using reasonable force, killing a man is not reasonable force. Cast the AK with Riddles wand to prove that it came from Riddles wand you mean. And then he would need to cast an AK with his own or...that story wouldn't play out so well in court. You're forgetting that Riddle was pretty favoured[head boy, saved the school from Hagrid's monster etc] before he became what he is in cannon. It would be kind of wierd for Dumbledore to come back years later and citizens arrest the man for somethign that happened in high school without suffecient evidence.

 

It wasn't given to Sirius because Crouch was on a power trip and wanted to throw every dark wizard in Azkaban without a trial.

By the time he applied for the position, he was much closer to his current condition and few that knew Riddle would've been able to connect the two. We all know how appearances affect the public perception of someone, and even if LV walked into the ministry hugging a dozen puppies, if he looked like this:



People would assume he's a dark wizard. Why would DD need to cast the AK on his own wand? There are many ways to kill someone without using the AK, which ironically is probably the least painless killing spell, and once he killed Riddle all he'd have to do is cast an AK with Riddle's wand on the wall, and claim Riddle cast it on him. There's no way to tell who actually cast the spell (GoF forest events with Morsmordre), and that would've been all the justification he needed for killing him. Nobody is going to think twice about the wizard who defeated Grindelwald, a member of the ICW, and member of the Wizengamot because he killed such a dark looking wizard who's wand held the AK as the last spell.

 

Dawg, I was relaying what the woman said.

Exactly there is now as of telling who cast the spell. So in court that wouldn't count for crap. Dawg...a man that works for the ministry has horns.....thats kind of wierd.......there are quite a bit of wierd looking people in the WW [mad eye moody, nobody can't tell me that ute doesn't look like a homeless person in teh sketches]. REally there not going to think twice? So what happend at the end of GOF?

 

It would appear that way........dawg.

 

I think that whether or not he managed to kill the previous Dark Lord brings to light whether or not he could kill old Voldie. Dumble is just too soft to do the job, and you can't tell me that for however long Tom had during the first war Dumble never faced him. Its not like the only duel was the one in the DM. I can see Voldie not facing him at Hogwarts, as there would be other defences, but they never once crossed wands during the war?

Most likely Dumble just played defense while doing the whole "I can feel the conflict in you Tom, turn back from the Darkside" that just oozes from him. Prophecy comes along, and bam, instant off the hook. Or maybe he sees Harry as a tool to Tom's redemption. I could see that, with how he treats Snape as his pet project.

 

On her website it said it wasn't given to Sirius because Crouch didn't want to give him a trial.

Everything else still stands from what I said before, if the wizard who is world renown for defeating the Dark Lord Grindelwald claimed that the monster above attacked him with the killing curse, and the last spell on the wand was the AK, it's not even going to trial.

 

Dumbledore would have been well in his right to kill Riddle at Hogwarts. All he had to do as Headmaster of the School was either have the wards kill him because of him being attacked or say that Riddle was a threat to the school as he already has released the basilisk. And as for proof of the basilisk he could use vertaserum(sp?) on Riddle.

He didnt even need to let people know he was dead. He was gone for 10 years with no trace he has most likely created a multitude of murders and has most likely created a Horcrux after his dad's murder. If he was gone for 10 years then know one suspected of him being at Hogwarts so he could be killed or at the very least detained. And who said DD had to kill him he could have Voldy poisened by a house elf or something like that.

 

This is what True Story is talking about. And the bold is three good reasons why Veritaserum would not work on Voldemort, he is capable of all three.

 

What are you talking about wards killing someone? Did they kill Malfoy when he attacked DUmbledore? Did they kill Snape when he killed Dumbledore? And how would killing Riddle be the right of the Headmaster whether or not he was a threat to the school? Could your Headmaster killed you if he thought you were a threat to the school?

Just like they believed him when he said Voldermort was back?

I'm not saying that they never crossed wands, I'm sayign that we don't know how many times, the circumstances or even the correlation to when DD heard the prophecy.

When you're a skilled fighter killing someone is not that difficult but, you are held to a higher standard when you do[like boxers and other trained martial artists]. They could just as easily subdue a man as kill him.

We don't know any of thses things so stop making fanfiction cloud your judgement. Just because Dumbledore acts all lovey dovey inside a school does not mean he is going to act the same way when he is fighting for his life.

 

well seeing as how the highly incompetent fudge wasn't in office at time. and since the minister at that time most likely wouldn't be paranoid thinking everyone was out to take over the position like fudge. i think that the minister would believe dumbledore. only reason they didn't believe that voldemort was back was because fudge was a blind idiot and had the prophet print the articles declaring him senile.

 

Do you know the Minister at the time or the policies he enacted? Do you remember that he allowed Sirius to be thrown in jail without a trial....very competent....

And ofcourse the hallmark of a comptetent minister would be to allow the Chief Judge of his court to get away with murder...LOL.

 

Fine I agree the wards couldn't kill him or that he had no right to justify him in the office. But why did he have to subdue him on the battlefield, why couldn't he have killed him.

And if I recall the Minister of the time implemented laws saying to kill Death Eaters not stun. Also Crouch took the case of Black not the minister of the time.

And as for letting the chief judge get away with murder...I think Voldy is an exception.

 

He could kill him but why is that necassary? It's well within his power to subdue the man. Legally people trained in martial arts are held to different standards when they used their training to kill someone. On a battlefield he could well kill Riddle but we don't know if he has been in any situation where it would be benifitial to try doing so. We don't even know how early in the war he heard about the prophecy.

Giving police permission to kill and not capture suspects at will is kind of.....stupid. But the minister could have probably intervened had he wished.

The situations you are talking about however are before he set up himself as the Dark Lord of the time so.....I really don't see how it would be acceptable.

 

When Riddle applied for the DADA job, it was 50 years before Sirius was thrown in jail and 10 years after Voldemort left school, when DD was at the height of his popularity for defeating Grindelwald. All he'd have to say is it was either a new Dark Lord trying to retake Grindelwald's position or one of his old minions. He would've gotten away with it, and nobody would've argued with the hero of the last war killing another dark wizard.

 

Harry[the hero of the last war] was at the height of his popularity in GOF correct[him being Hogwarts Champion and all]? They still didn't believe that Voldemort was back when he AND Dumbledore were saying he was.

What I'm trying to say is there could be a miriad of reasons why DUmbledore has never taken action against Riddle...we just don't know them.

 

I'd say he was in a slump considering more then 3/4s of the school held him as a cheater and fraud.

Not to mention they use deniability. A guy's back from the dead which is supposed to be impossible, and he's going to start murdering folks left and right.. nah not possible, he's just being an attention whore. It's simple to see it really happening that way

 

They would have no reason to believe Dumbledore. And Riddle's followers are from some rich and probably influencial families, they would probably want soem trial/investigation.

I personally would not have believed Harry if I were in a similar situation i.e., I didn't know him and I was not in Gryffindor. And I wouldn't believe that this guy who was head boy at Hogwarts in my time, saved the school from the monster, etc. was a dark lord. And even if I believed he was, I wouldn't agree that it was well within Dumbledore's right to kill him.