MixedNuts comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 17, chapter 86 - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Alsadius 17 December 2012 07:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (606)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MixedNuts 18 December 2012 01:37:26PM 1 point [-]

I just said. "You have to mean it", so it's odd that you could kill someone you didn't mean to. Even if you interpret it as "You have to want someone dead, not necessarily the same person", "if you're arrested for killing with it, there's no possible defense", and "I meant to kill the Death Eater, but I hit the bystander" is a possible defense. Also nobody ever mentioned collateral damage.

Comment author: Salvius 21 December 2012 07:35:36PM 2 points [-]

FWIW, "You have to want someone dead, not necessarily the same person" is essentially how "intent to kill" works in a legal sense. That is, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is whether, by your actions, you intended to kill someone; under the law, it doesn't matter whether the person actually killed was the person you intended to kill, or not.

Not that the rules of magic are necessarily modeled after modern US jurisprudence, but it might be that they both reflect a deeper moral concept.

Comment author: MixedNuts 21 December 2012 07:58:14PM 1 point [-]

What happens if Alice Attacker tries to kill you, and you try to kill her in self-defense, but end up killing Bob Bystander? The Killing Curse solves that one by having self-defense not count as intent to kill; does law do the same?

Comment author: Salvius 22 December 2012 07:19:05AM 2 points [-]

I think so (it's been quite a few years since my brief foray into law school). Let me do some quick Googling...

Yep, there it is: Looks like it may vary in different jurisdictions, but

a defendant’s right of self-defense "transfers" (just as intent to kill does) from the intended to the actual victim...If the defendant, acting justifiably in self-defense against an aggressor, fires a weapon "wildly or carelessly," thereby jeopardizing the safety of known bystanders, some courts hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter (or of reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide.

Comment author: Gastogh 18 December 2012 02:36:12PM 2 points [-]

Wanting to kill a specific person may be a requirement for fueling the spell, sure, but I don't see why that necessarily entails everyone else being immune to what is essentially a profoundly lethal effect. Once a bullet is in the air, it doesn't matter what motivated the firing of the gun.

The bit about nobody mentioning collateral damage sounds like an argument from silence. I'll tentatively grant you the point about "no possible defense", but to me it seems like Moody could well have been talking about deliberate, cold-blooded murder rather than all possible circumstances. I mean, by the time of the "no possible defense" line he's already name-dropped the Monroe Act, which is nothing if not a big, fat exception.

Comment author: Desrtopa 18 December 2012 01:53:22PM 1 point [-]

"if you're arrested for killing with it, there's no possible defense", and "I meant to kill the Death Eater, but I hit the bystander" is a possible defense.

Well if you were using it fighting Death Eaters under the Monroe Act, and accidentally killed a bystander, and had fellow aurors to back up your story, you probably wouldn't be arrested.