He clearly killed 3 Death Eaters during the Battle of the Seven Potters.

He only used Expelliarmus on Stan Stunpike because of the latter had been hit with a Stunning Spell then he would have died.

But Harry did not use Expelliarmus on the other Death Eaters.

Most people use his argument with Remus to show his unwillingness to kill, but if you reread it, it actually shows the opposite.

 

I've never met anyone who says that Harry hasn't killed. He did burn Quirell's face off after all.

Perhaps a better way to look at it is that he is against the thought of killing and actively tries to avoid it if he can help it.

Besides, those death eaters could have known Arresto Momentum. >_>

 

Perhaps, though that one Death Eater, who was stunned, would not have been able to cast a single spell, though.

The one hit by Impedimenta probably dropped his broom and wand.

And the one hit by the explosion may not have been in a right state to cast any spell

 

I think most people just believe him (Harry) to be very benevolent. Not someone who would outright go for a kill, but someone who would use any means necessary to protect himself and his friends.

Sometimes they interpret it as him being unwilling to kill, without considering the second part.

 

Then refer to the first part of my post. Remember, this is the same kid that cast the cruciatus. He's not one hundred percent pure angel dust.

 

Exactly. From a 2007 interview.

 

There you have it, the answer to your question. Some people have a shallow and flawed understanding of Harry's character which is directly contradicted by canon and WoG.

As to why they have that impression? Shitty fanon.

 

Very rarely have I come across anyone who says that Harry hasn't killed or is pure. Not sure where you're finding so many folks that it seems to be a "thing."

 

Well, most say that he never killed by choice. We know that's incorrect, yet it seems to be a widely accepted opinion.

 

Again, I'm not sure where the whole "widely accepted opinion" thing is coming from.

 

Most likely he read several FFs that had authors defending that point of view and might have assumed that it is what most people think.

I know I have made that mistake before with Magical Cores. After reading so many stories that had in-depth explanations of Magical Cores and had it be a big plot point, I started to think they were actually a thing.

 

I think Harry did kill Quirrell. Yes, Quirrell would have eventually died anyway from Voldemort's possession. But without Harry's actions, he would have not died at that time in that place. We're all eventually going to die, so a person's inevitable death doesn't make ending their life not killing. Bringing a person's inevitable death forward in time is all killing is, really.

 

While I think it's debatable whether he knew he was killing Quirrell or not, Harry definitely killed the basilisk, and diary!Riddle. He also accepted that he'd probably have to kill Voldemort in the end, and while he may not have cast a lethal curse at him he knew that the duel was heavily rigged in his favour.

 

I imagine a lot of it depends on how much one is willing to play with the technical pacifist tropes—I don't think Harry ever cast a spell with the specific intent of killing his target. Some writers/readers seem to think that killing in battle requires that sort of conscious choice.

The classic hero with a code against killing who nonetheless goes into battle all the time pretty much requires handwaving a lot of real-world biology and medicine to actually work.

 

Harry made it very clear to Remus that if he used a stunning spell in Stunpike, the latter would have died.

So Harry knew full well what would happen to all of the Death Eaters he incapacitated.

 

True enough.

But yes, Harry Potter is certainly willing to kill. It becomes tiring reading fanfiction, even the ones where Harry becomes darker, say that he isn't.

I would love to read a story where the author acknowledged that Harry Potter is someone who has always been willing to kill.

 

Indeed so. Harry's used spells that almost certainly would kill given the circumstances, but we never see explicit confirmation that he has killed, and he certainly doesn't show much in the way of a killer mentality. We never hear him say "I'm willing to kill Death Eaters" or see him cast the killing curse or similar spells.

Granted, I much prefer a Harry who uses lethal force in appropriate circumstances. Though that's at least partially because I'm not a fan of all the easy nonlethal KO tropes in fiction, since most of them aren't the slightest bit realistic and their prevalence is such that far too many don't realize that reality doesn't work that way.