While the Avada Kedavra spell was labelled as an unforgivable spell, largely because it is a killing curse, there are other known spells that can effectively kill off another person.

We know that even wizards on the good sides will not hold back from killing their enemies, and it seems justifiable among wizards to use lethal force when necessary.

If wizards have no problem with killing off a fellow wizard with other kinds of spell, why is the Avada Kedavra curse not being used more often by the wizards on the "light" side?

Is teaching wizards to use the AK curse in times of war any different from teaching soldiers and police officers to use a gun?

 

Because the use of lethal force in self defence is typically not permitted. Whilst the other curses used allow for a chance of survival provided they receive medical treatment, and as such any deaths can be passed off as accidental, the use of the Killing Curse would be considered excessive and a deliberate attempt at murder, rather than self defence.

 

Killing someone with another spell is still a crime. The killing curse possesses only one possible use - killing people. Ergo, there is no situation where the killing curse can be used to not kill people, and any instance of it's usage leads to dead people, which is an undesirable situation.

Furthermore, the greater stigma attached to the unforgivable curses in particular versus other spells has a lot to do with the intent behind a spell - the killing curse requires you to hate a person and actively wish for their death, which is in contrast to levitating an object, which only requires you to intend, well, levitation. Given how Harry's attempt to cast the Cruciatus on Bellatrix fails, it seems likely that this deep-rooted hatred for a person can't be substituted by a more socially acceptable emotion such as, say, righteous anger.

 

Pretty much this. It's called self-defense for a reason, not justified homicide. I am all for defending oneself - but the upper limit of that is permanent crippling injury in dire situations.

There are dozens of spells one could use to defend himself - from a simple protego and stupefy, there's no moral dilemma about using those, ending with nastier spectrum of magic and spells like sectumsempra.

While the definition of "Dark Arts" is debatable (and boy, do fandom enjoys reinterpreting those) it's generally agreed that there are three spells that are one-way ticket to Azkaban, and there's a reason for that. You must want someone to suffer, to crush someone's will and dominate his mind and, finally, hate enough to wish him dead. Literally.

Finally, you said it yourself:

Get creative, it's magic.

 

If Avada Kedavra had the same properties as other spells like Stupefy or Expelliarmus, except for killing the victim, then that would be true.
But according to the books the spell has one big advantage compared to other spells, in that you can't defend against it except for dodging it. (Unless I've been misled by too much fanon.)

That gives you a huge advantage in a duel. Unless you're Dumbledore and can have phoenixes and animated statues intercept the killing curse for you, you are at a disadvantage in any duel in which your opponent uses the curse and you don't.

If your enemy uses it, you should be free to use it yourself in defense.

 

Well, the way I see it, there would logically be a lot less room to claim self-defense as a justification for killing in a legal situation in the Wizarding World, for the simple reason that it's a lot easier, at least when dealing with a solitary attacker, to subdue said assailant non-lethally. Let's face it, it's not always easy in the real world to guarantee that whatever you do in self-defense is at the same time going to stop the guy attacking you and yet ensure that he stays alive, especially if you're not an experienced fighter. In the Wizarding World, though, there's a spell for that, so there's less excuse to use anything other than Stupefy. Of course, you've got more wiggle room if you're attacked by multiple guys, since they can revive each other, but if there's only one attacker then you have little to no excuse for using the Killing Curse. Sure, Aurors were allowed to during the last war, but supposing you're not professional law enforcement (who could likely have wriggled out of punishment for such a thing off-the-record even before Crouch's authorization) then you should probably use something else.

 

Didn't Fake!Moody say you had to have an emotional investment to make the Killing Curse work, though? I believe he told the entire fourth-year class that they could all fire it at him, and he would not get anything more than a nosebleed.

 

He said you need "a powerful bit of magic" behind it to work. I know Taure's got his opinions on how Harry Potter magic is supposed to work, but I've always felt that Rowling was intentionally vague about such things. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind, it's just that it doesn't give us, as purveyors of fanfiction, much to work with. As far as I'm concerned, any interpretation of the magic system a fanfic can adequately justify is good enough for me.

 

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds, "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back!"

In the event of someone trying to kill you, you should have the right to use lethal force to keep you and your loved ones safe. Even most cops, when they do fire their gun, shoot to kill. Taking down an opponent without causing him injury is far harder than just killing him and requires great skill, which I have been lead to believe that most wizards just don't have. Far easier and safer to just try and kill him in a straight-forward manner. A la Avada Kedavra.

 

Again, it's easier to disable your attacker non-lethally if there's a specific spell for it. Policemen and guns aren't a good comparison since there's no "stun" setting on them. As for the skill of wizards, stunning seems a lot easier to pull off than a Killing Curse. Remember the World Cup, where twenty random Ministry wizards have no difficulties using stunners in the woods where the Dark Mark came from. Sure, it's a bit less 'safe' than killing the attacker, but there are limitations on self-defense claims in Muggle law, and, as I explained earlier, those limitations are liable to be much more acute where wizards are concerned.

 

Spells unblockable. That can be the difference in a duel. Totally justified in a duel wtih someon whose trying to kill you.

 

It's not unblockable. It simply can't be stopped via a magical shield. Solid objects have been shown in canon to block the AK.

I should also note that only two magical effects has been shown to block the AK... The Priori Incantantem. As well as the whole, "Sacrifical Mothers Love" thing.

 

The Killing Curse is considered bad for a very specific reason. It's not a matter of self defense, nor even lethal force. The problem with the Killing Curse is that you have to enjoy the experience. It's like that with all of them. You have to want to utterly crush someone's will to cast the Imperius, you have to enjoy and relish someone else writhing and screaming in pain for the Cruciatus to work. You can bullshit it to an extent with other emotions. Harry did it against Bellatrix. But it didn't work very well, or for very long. And Bellatrix told us why. You have to mean the Unforgivables for them to work. That's why they're illegal. There's a whole shit-ton of curses that will almost certainly kill you if they hit you. But you'll note that throwing magical explosions or setting people on fire is not a one-way ticket to an Azkaban life sentence.

Basically, it's the difference between a gun, and a gun that can only fire if you'd enjoy watching that person die. There's no chance of 'accidentally' killing somebody with the Killing Curse. It can even be argued that there is no legitimate way to use it in self-defense at all, and the Life Sentence in Azkaban Law is written with that in mind.

It's not a "kill this thing" spell so much as it is a "murder" spell. And that's a subtle, but important, distinction. You can't really claim true self-defense when you had to have enjoyed it to get the spell off at all in the first place. It would be like getting mugged, but then beating your attacker to death with your bare fists over the span of several minutes while laughing manically with spittle flying from your mouth. It's a clearly disproportionate response, and one that is indicative of, at the very least, some form of mental issue, and at worst, being insane and/or evil.

They aren't quite a direct import of the Dungeons & Dragons "Spell Restriction: Evil Alignment," but they're about as close as you can get in a world that doesn't have the black and white morality implicit in the D&D Alignment Axis. It doesn't prove you're evil, but it does prove that you enjoyed killing them, torturing them to the edge of sanity, or crushing their free will beneath your boot.

Honestly? I'd just Confringo. It's definatively lethal if it hits, unless you're fighting Wolverine or something else that can survive exploding, and it makes you look like a badass. What more could you want from a magical spell, than one that blows people up like they're a villain in a Michael Bay movie?

 

There are countless ways to kill a person. I think the emotions required to make the killing curse must have something to do with it's negative effects.

Then again, it's debatable. People argue that the killing curse can be used for granting a merciful death. I however disagree. One need to feel absolute hated and must have the desire to kill someone to make AK work. So, you can hardly make the AK work when the deed you are committing is an act of mercy

 

A spell that kills your opponent like he's the villain in the first Die Hard movie, naturally. I mean, just imagine it.

[Voldemort and Harry are standing across each other during their final duel. Voldemort is holding Ginny as a hostage. Voldemort then disarms Harry sending his regular wand flying away and proceeds to make a speech, like he always does, about how he'll finally kill Harry. Suddenly, he grows a mysterious German accent.]

Voldemort:"What was it that you said? I'll see you in hell?"

Harry:"No. Accio yay, motherfucker!"

[Elder Wand flies from Harry's back(where it was mysteriously taped for no apparently reason) to his hand and he somehow shoots a bullet out of his wand.]

...What was I going on about again? OH RIGHT. The use of the spell. I think of it being forbidden to use as a way of gun control. Can you kill people in other ways? Yeah, but some countries think that allowing its use is just asking for drunken accidents considering how difficult it is to not die after being attacked with that spell.

Plus we have canon evidence of people going "Alright, this is war. No holding back now." So it seems more like the general idea of "There's no use for this other than killing, so let's put it away." Even if somebody used it, I suspect they could avoid Azkaban if the situation called for it and they got some sort of Wizard Phoenix Wright to present their case.

 

You may have meant that as a Die Hard reference, but I just read it as the ultimate fuck you to guns versus wizards: a magic spell that shoots bullets out of your wand.

I'm assuming the incantation is Bang.

 

I'm sure that you can back this up with sources and/or evidence. Evidence meaning literally anything other than the fact that the cruciatus needs you to "mean it" - something no one is denying.

 

I'm like 80% sure without looking that Bellatrix said "First time using an Unforgivable, Potter? You have to mean them!"

As in, all of them. Not specifically the Cruciatus. Feel free to debate me on what "mean" actually means, but don't pretend that somebody could polish their wand the wrong way and Imperio a First Year by accident.

[EDIT]

Unless you're Neville Longbottom.

[EDIT EDIT]

Or you're Ron with a broken wand.

---------- Post automerged at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------

Page 810 of Order of The Phoenix.

"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long - I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lesson -"


Never used an Unforgivable Curse, have you boy? You need to mean them, Potter!

*coughs politely into hand*

We done here, Fiat?

 

Well, as the imperius didn't really seem to require any such thing...no?