How many people died because Harry...

didn't use the Killing Curse when he had the chance?

In the Department of Mysteries he uses weak stun curses on several Death Eaters, including Dolohov, one of the original Death Eaters, who he later spared again. Then he used the Crucio curse instead of the Killing Curse on Bellatrix.

After Dumbledore was killed, he uses weak stun curses instead of the Killing Curse on the Death Eater in charge who wasn't named, Fenrir Greyback (mass murderer) apparently right before he attacks Bill when he recovers, Amycus Carrow and the big blonde Death Eater, who again he later spared.

So do you think it was dozens or hundreds who were killed because Harry was too much of a pussy to use it?


First of all, the killing curse is probably the most difficult spell to cast. The fake Moody says how the entire class could point their wands at him and say the words, and he'd get a nosebleed at most. Harry was a strong wizard, but was he powerful enough to cast that curse yet? Probably not. As we see, he could barely cast crucio correctly.

Second, most of the good characters never use it. Dumbledore never kills anyone. He faced those death eaters too. Didnt kill them. He shot a spell at Bellatrix. It wasnt the killing curse. Sirius never sent it at Bellatrix. Harry is far from alone.

Third, hes a god damn teenager. Is it not asking a lot to expect a teenager to go around killing people? He could use other spells to incapacitate death eaters, so he did.

It's very similar to Batman. Do you think he's a pussy? How many lives could he could save by just snapping the Jokers neck? Yet he doesnt. He uses non lethal ways to take him out.


He never even tried.

Lupin tries to tell him he needs to tough up and use the killing curse and he absolutely refuses.

Again, people were killed, probably a great many by the Death Eaters he spared, especially Fenrir.


I've asked myself this same question before. hans makes some good points. In the cemetery battle with Voldemort, in Goblet of Fire, what worked for him was the Experlliarmus spell. Why risk experimenting with a spell that not only you have zero experience with, but that is also generally perceived as being difficulty to cast?

Also, like the other user pointed out, it's similar to the Batman & Joker dynamic, Harry doesn't want to cross that line and become a killer.


That's not even close to being accurate. At all. Lupin never says any of that. Lupin scolds him for using expelliarmus. Because that made the death eaters recognize it was him. Lupin also says, and I quote, "Harry the time for disarming is past! At least stun if you aren't prepared to kill!". Word for word, bro. Funny, I dont see anything about using the killing curse in there.

Also, the guy Harry "spared" in that situation was an innocent man being forced to help the death eaters under the imperious curse. Stan Shumpike. So you're saying Harry should have murdered someone innocent? Okay.

I find it interesting you didnt respond to any of my other points. What, could you not admit they were accurate? And it's funny, Lupin didnt kill any of the death eaters in the Department of Mysteries Battle. Lucius Malfoy, Dolohov, and like 10 more death eaters were captured. Some by Lupin. Why didnt he kill them all?


Same question applies.

The same Death Eaters were captured over and over again and then escaped and killed more people.

"At least stun if you aren't prepared to kill"

Exactly. What does that mean if not, you are incapable of killing your enemies, you have to stun? He's saying if Harry isn't tough enough to kill, then at least do something besides expelling wands.

You didn't answer my question: How many people died because Harry wouldn't kill those Death Eaters and they were free to continue killing while their enemies used weak ass stunning spells?


And again, the person Harry disarmed was an innocent man being forced to help the death eaters. That was the only person he disarmed. The other death eaters that battle? He sent stunning and similar type spells. The only person he disarmed was an innocent man. So tell me, why are you so hung up on him not killing a victim?

You're right, people died because death eaters like Bellatrix and others weren't killed by Harry. But now answer my question sport. Why arent you criticizing Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius, Tonks, and almost every other good character? Lupin could have killed Dolohov after Harry stunned him. But he didnt. Lupin is responsible for his own death by your logic.

Another character? Moody. Sirius says Moody always tried to take people alive, that he only killed as the absolute last resort. Many of the death eaters who killed characters were imprisoned by Moody. Why arent you criticizing him?


I am. I think you don't get that the post is more a commentary on JK Rowling's writing and mentality in this area rather than criticism of Harry himself.

She prides herself on not having these characters kill, while the Death Eaters kill and are allowed to kill again and again by the other characters.


Lupin is not saying Harry is not tough enough. He's acknowledging that Harry has a conscious and is unwilling to kill. Having the ability to kill doesn't mean you have to.


In reality, you can't win a war when one side kills and the other doesn't. Something she fundamentally doesn't understand.

It's like telling the police to use tazers vs guns on the streets or issuing plastic bullets to the military fighting against others using real ammo. Impossible.


Its nothing like the police. You arent talking about the good characters killing evil ones out of true self defense. You're talking about murder.

A cop only uses deadly force as the last resort. If a cop can take someone alive and non lethaly, they will. You criticize Harry for using a stunning spell against Dolohov instead of the killing curse. But the stunning spell WORKED. Dolohov was incapacitated and arrested. Harry, or other characters cant just execute death eaters because they might be dangerous later. The immediate threat was gone.

If a cop comes upon a serial killer, and the serial killer surrenders peacefully, should that cop still kill him? Because he could be a threat later? That's your logic. Ted Bundy, one of the most deadly serial killers ever, was arrested and imprisoned, and eventually escaped and killed more people after he escaped. Are the cops who arrested him at fault because they didnt execute him on the spot?


Well said