ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 04:46:53 AM

Title: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 04:46:53 AM
...or killed (in any manner that Harry could reasonably have foreseen)?

We hear a lot about how Harry not sharing information gets people killed or injured, but I think it actually might happen less than we, or Harry, think it does.

The two examples I can think of (well, actually, I didn't think of them--they came up in a different thread, and I didn't want to derail it by talking about them there) are Susan in Grave Peril and Kirby in Turn Coat, and I don't think either of these actually qualify, even though Harry thinks they do.

For Susan, I contend that Harry actually gave her enough information to make a good decision, and that she disregarded it. Harry told her (as I recall--I don't have access to my books right now) that the Red Court was dangerous, deceitful, had a grudge against him, and most importantly that they were both capable of and likely to find a way to hurt him at the party despite sacred hospitality. Despite this, Susan forged Harry's invitation and went to the party anyway, acting as if she would be safe at the party that Harry explicitly told her was unsafe. Thus, while Harry didn't share all the information he had, he did share enough for Susan to have made a good decision, had she chosen to.

As for Kirby, I just don't think that any amount of information would have helped him against a skinwalker in that scenario. He knew that he was going up against something both powerful and dangerous--I can't think how specifics would have stopped him getting ambushed. Furthermore, even if Harry had given the Alphas a briefing about the supernatural world (like the one he gave them after Kirby's death) earlier, it almost certainly wouldn't have contained information about the skinwalker, because 1) as I recall, Harry didn't know much about them himself; 2) they're extremely rare, and Harry had no reason to expect anyone to run into them; and 3) there are very good reasons not to talk about them, because being afraid of them actually makes them stronger.

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Con on June 03, 2019, 07:40:35 AM
There's also the semi-apprentice trying to create a cage with runes powerful enough to contain a Loup Garou.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Wolfeyes on June 03, 2019, 08:55:41 AM
There's also the semi-apprentice trying to create a cage with runes powerful enough to contain a Loup Garou.

I say if nothing else, this qualifies since Harry himself recognizes this was his fault. Likewise, it's been a while since I read FM but, IIRC, he also held not telling Murphy about the Loup Garou earlier as something against himself since it resulted in Murphy not trusting him and then the police trying to hold the Loup Garou before it ended in predictable carnage.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 03, 2019, 11:09:27 AM
There's also the semi-apprentice trying to create a cage with runes powerful enough to contain a Loup Garou.

  If I remember correctly Kim wasn't totally honest with Harry as to why she wanted this circle to start with.  Also the knowledge of how to make such a thing comes very close to breaking the rules that he lives under as a wizard and he had just recently had gotten the Doom removed from his head.  He also told her she didn't have the kind of juice to make such a thing..  He also warned her as to how dangerous it was to play with such a thing, since they not only hold Loops but also could
hold summoned demons..  Her answer was it was mostly hypothetical... She never directly told him
about the Loop.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 12:12:46 PM
Quote
There's also the semi-apprentice trying to create a cage with runes powerful enough to contain a Loup Garou.

This specific example was actually why I included the "in any manner Harry could reasonably have foreseen" qualification. Kim explicitly didn't tell him why she needed the information--in fact, as I remember it (I could be wrong; I haven't read this book in a while) when Harry asked her, she lied to him and told him she wanted the knowledge for theoretical purposes. As such, the facts Harry had at hand were that A) the knowledge Kim wanted was not something that should be shared with people; and B) that if Kim attempted to use the triple circle, it would put her in danger. From that information, he could not possibly assume that not giving her more information than he did (and he did give her some information) would put her in danger--the opposite in fact, because with the information Harry had, the logical assumption was that telling her the information would put her in danger.

Quote
I say if nothing else, this qualifies since Harry himself recognizes this was his fault.

Harry blames himself for a lot of stuff that isn't his fault.

Quote
Likewise, it's been a while since I read FM but, IIRC, he also held not telling Murphy about the Loup Garou earlier as something against himself since it resulted in Murphy not trusting him and then the police trying to hold the Loup Garou before it ended in predictable carnage.

Nope. He does tell Murphy about Loup Garous quite early in the case--that's how she knows to have her earrings melted down into inherited silver bullets.

Quote
If I remember correctly Kim wasn't totally honest with Harry as to why she wanted this circle to start with.  Also the knowledge of how to make such a thing comes very close to breaking the rules that he lives under as a wizard and he had just recently had gotten the Doom removed from his head.  He also told her she didn't have the kind of juice to make such a thing..  He also warned her as to how dangerous it was to play with such a thing, since they not only hold Loops but also could
hold summoned demons..  Her answer was it was mostly hypothetical... She never directly told him
about the Loop.

This.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mr. Death on June 03, 2019, 02:31:19 PM
I think you can still lay some fault on Harry because Harry's reaction was just, "Don't do it and I'm not going to help you do it safely."

As the whole idea of abstinence-only education has shown, that's a laughably bad way to keep someone from doing something. Harry could have inquired more about why she was interested in it, especially since she did seem determined to look deeper with or without him.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 03, 2019, 02:51:30 PM
Here is the conversation in Fool Moon, paperback page -5 6...

Kim has just asked Harry several questions behind the theory of holding circles and how they work, she has drawn a picture of it.  He answers her about the first two rings,  then she asks about using a third...  He asks her if she copied it right..
Let's back up to the first page...  He is speaking of a full moon, then what Kim has shown him..

Quote
So I didn't know that it was one night shy of being full when a young woman sat down across from me in McAnally's pub and asked me to tell her all about something that could get her killed.
"No," I said.  "Absolutely not."  I folded the piece of paper, with the drawings of three concentric rings of spidery symbols, and slid it back over the polished oak-wood table." 
He goes on to warn her not to mess with it, even the knowledge is dangerous.  Page 2 she totally lies to him...
Quote
"Look, Harry," Kim said, "I'm not using this for anything serious, I promise.  I'm not trying any summoning or binding.  It's an academic interest only.

Page 3 Harry asks her again....
Quote
"You're sure?"  I asked her.  "This is just you trying to scratch an itch?"
"Cross my heart," she said, doing so...

He answers some of her questions and she eagerly takes notes until we get to the third inner circle..
Harry realizes there is something fishy a foot...
pages 5-6

Quote
I studied her face for a moment.  "If I read the symbols correctly, it's a third wall.  Built to withhold creatures of the flesh and the spirit.  Neither mortal nor spirit but somewhere in-between."
"What kind of creatures are like that?"
I shrugged.  "None," I said, and officially, it was true.  The White Council of wizards did not allow the discussion of demons that could be called to earth, beings of spirit that could gather flesh to themselves.  Usually a spirit circle was enough to stop all but the most powerful demons or Elder Things of the outer reaches of the Nevernever.  But this third circle was built to stop things that could transcend those kinds of boundaries. It was a cage for demonic demigods and archangels.

Harry stops giving her straight answers to her further questions and continues to warn her... She insists that she is strong enough to activate such a circle... He answers page 6
Quote
"You strength's go nothing to do with it."  I said.  "You don't have the training.  You don't have the knowledge
 

He goes on to tell her even if she did, he'd still warn her against it because if she made a mistake, it could hurt a lot of people... Then she gets pissed and stalks off...  Then on page 8

Harry adds talking to himself now...
Quote
To say nothing of what the White Council would think of a nonwizard toying with major summoning circles.  The White Council didn't take chances with things like that.  They just acted, decisively, and they weren't always particular about people's lives and safety when they did it.

1]  Kim never told Harry the truth..
2] That it was for a Loop never entered his mind, until he talked to Bob Harry had doubts that they
even existed
3] He thought he was helping her keep her head by not giving her anymore information, just knowing it was dangerous...
4] He had no idea that she was going to try and attempt it even without all the information she needed...  He really thought she had more sense...

Harry blames himself, but honestly if she wasn't willing to tell him the truth, what else could he have done but what he did do?
Mr Death
Quote
I think you can still lay some fault on Harry because Harry's reaction was just, "Don't do it and I'm not going to help you do it safely."

As the whole idea of abstinence-only education has shown, that's a laughably bad way to keep someone from doing something. Harry could have inquired more about why she was interested in it, especially since she did seem determined to look deeper with or without him.

See above, he did question her closely and she blew him off, and out and out lied to him... Consider how different it could have turned out,  if she had told him the truth about the Loop and what had happened... If I know our Harry, he would have  jumped up without finishing his steak and insisted that he be taken to the subject that so badly needed containing and do the circle himself..  However given those determined that the Loop get out, it still might not have been enough..

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 03:27:48 PM
Quote
I think you can still lay some fault on Harry because Harry's reaction was just, "Don't do it and I'm not going to help you do it safely."

As the whole idea of abstinence-only education has shown, that's a laughably bad way to keep someone from doing something. Harry could have inquired more about why she was interested in it, especially since she did seem determined to look deeper with or without him.

As Mira's quotes from the book show, Harry did inquire--repeatedly--as to why she was interested, and she lied to him. That's not his fault.

It's the equivalent of this:
Person A: Teach me how to pick locks.
Person B: Why do you need to know how to pick locks? It seems like a problematic skill.
Person A: Well, I just thought it would be a cool thing to know.
Person B: Well, here's some of the theory...
Person A: Cool! Now how do I deal with *this specific type of lock*?
Person B: Are you sure you're just interested theoretically? You don't have a particular reason?
Person A: I promise, it's just theoretical. Now, where, theoretically, would I buy lock picks?
Person B: I'm not telling you that! There is no way you need to know that for theoretical reasons.

And then Person A gets mugged because she was locked out of her house all night. That's not Person B's fault.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mr. Death on June 03, 2019, 04:05:23 PM
Fair enough, it's been a while since my last reread.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 03, 2019, 04:57:41 PM
As I recall, Harry pressed Kim a bit harder than the quotes make out. Most of the time that Harry blames himself for not giving enough information, the problem is actually that the other person has deceived or lied to Harry and then ignored his warnings of the dangers.

Kim lies and ignores Harry's warning. Susan secretly steals from Harry and ignores his warnings that the party is too dangerous for him. It's like a Navy Seal telling you he won't go on a mission in a certain country because it's too dangerous for him and his team and you going to that country so you can maybe get a promotion at work. I don't even see how telling the Alphas about everything he knows could have helped with Kirby.

The only time Harry holds back information, and it causes problems is Storm Front. If Murphy new why he was so hesitant to do the research, she would have understood why he used the other avenues first. She may have even helped him. It's possible, maybe even more likely than not, that he could have questioned Bianca in the presence, but out of earshot, of Murphy and Carmichael. Bianca and Harry may never have become out and out enemies. Murphy would have understood why he talked to Linda Randall. Now, the future might have been much darker if these things didn't happen, but it certainly caused a lot of problems for Harry and his friends. I think I might start a thread on the consequences of Harry not being straight with Murphy in Storm Front because of how far reaching they are. From that one novel, everything else follows.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mr. Death on June 03, 2019, 05:05:19 PM
In Kirby's case, I could see it being that Harry keeping the Alphas in the dark about the level of dangers out there contributed. The Alphas, up to that point, hadn't really suffered a real loss, so they were pretty confident in what they could do. Harry helped keep them that way by not telling them a lot of what was out there.

If Kirby had known, for instance, that Harry was being pursued by something on the Skinwalker's level, he might have been a bit more cautious rather than strolling back talking on a cell phone that lit up his face and made him a target.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 03, 2019, 07:28:28 PM
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't really know what Harry's told them about the dangers out there. Harry wasn't prepared for the skinwalker, so I have a hard time imagining he could have sufficiently prepared the Alphas.

The bottom line is that the case of Kirby is a weak argument for Harry's withholding of information being harmful.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 03, 2019, 07:38:49 PM
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't really know what Harry's told them about the dangers out there. Harry wasn't prepared for the skinwalker, so I have a hard time imagining he could have sufficiently prepared the Alphas.

The bottom line is that the case of Kirby is a weak argument for Harry's withholding of information being harmful.
Well, evidently Billy thought so.
Quote
“I mean that for years, I’ve been willing to help you, even though you could barely ever tell me what was actually happening. You’ve played everything close to the chest. And I know you had your reasons for that.” He stopped walking and looked up at me calmly. “Kirby’s dead. Maybe Andi, too.”
My conscience wouldn’t let me meet his gaze, even for an instant. “I know.”
He nodded. “So. If I’d had this conversation with you sooner, maybe they wouldn’t be. Maybe if we’d had a better idea about what’s actually going on in the world, it would have changed how we approached things. They follow my lead, Harry. I have a responsibility to make sure that I do everything in my power to make them aware and safe.”
“Yeah,” I said. “I can see your point.”
“Then if you want my help, things are going to change. I’m not charging ahead blindfolded again. Not ever.”
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 03, 2019, 07:55:41 PM
He thought it might have made a difference. I just don't see how it would have. The problem is we don't really know that much about how and what the Alphas do. It's mentioned repeatedly how hard it is to impress the dangers of the world on the young, so I'm not sure Harry could have changed anything by informing the Alphas that there are great and terrible powers out there.

I would have insisted on full disclosure if I were Billy too. I'm not a "no questions asked" kind of guy if I'm helping someone do something. It doesn't even have to be a dangerous something.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 03, 2019, 08:01:26 PM
He thought it might have made a difference. I just don't see how it would have. The problem is we don't really know that much about how and what the Alphas do. It's mentioned repeatedly how hard it is to impress the dangers of the world on the young, so I'm not sure Harry could have changed anything by informing the Alphas that there are great and terrible powers out there.

I would have insisted on full disclosure if I were Billy too. I'm not a "no questions asked" kind of guy if I'm helping someone do something. It doesn't even have to be a dangerous something.

Especially when they themselves are werewolves and young, they might think they are pretty invulnerable...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Kindler on June 03, 2019, 08:13:09 PM
I'll go book by book to jog my memory.

1. The second Sells/Beckitt victim, the prostitute... Jenny? The one he meets at the airport. She's the only one Harry may have been able to intervene for, and even then, he pulls a classic sitcom mistake and schedules two dates at the same time. So he was in the process of attempting to help her when the storm broke and she got a bad case of heart...explosion. Maybe, if he had told her that her heart was in danger of exploding out of her chest, she may have taken it more seriously and come to him earlier for help. But I chalk it up to a case of missed opportunity rather than withholding information.
2. Kim. I can go either way on this one. It's not really Harry's fault because he was deceived.
3. Susan. Nope, Susan made her own bed. She picked up the Idiot Ball and ran with it. What she did was way more dangerous than even what war correspondents do when they report from the field; it's very rare that you see a reporter go to an ISIS party to chase down a story about a day in the life of a terrorist.
4. Summer Knight... nothing comes to mind. The only people involved are either clued in, or, in Murphy's case, get clued in.
5. Death Masks... nothing on this one. The only death I can recall is Shiro, and he knew more than Harry (including that he was going to die).
6. Blood Rites... there's an argument to be made about the actresses on set. I think Harry could have outright told the producer (Genosa? I can't remember) that there WAS a curse, but I think he kept it vaguer than necessary. But I can go either way on this one.
7. Dead Beat... he clues Butters in pretty well. No, I don't think there's anyone he kept anything from (unless you count Luccio?) who got hurt because of it.
8. Proven Guilty. This time, it happened to Harry. If Molly had gone to him with what she knew about her magic, Proven Guilty pretty much doesn't happen. Ditto Thomas shadowing Harry all over town instead of being up front with him.
9. White Night. Nothing comes to mind. Harry's pretty up front with the Ordo. The only thing he held back at first was Beckitt's criminal past, and that didn't affect much.
10. Small Favor. Again, it was done to Harry with his blasting rod (which I've always thought was an unnecessarily macho term for "wand.") Harry lays out his cards pretty openly. Michael's the one who got hurt, but not because Harry didn't say "Hey, watch out for Ak-47s."
11. Turn Coat. Nope. Nada.
12. Changes. Again, this happened TO Harry. If Susan had told him they'd had a daughter, Harry would've made it his business to incinerate anyone who looked at her the wrong way. There's an argument to be made that he shouldn't have brought Molly along (and we all saw the consequences there). And Susan... Harry manipulated her at the altar. He telepathically told Susan that Martin's knife couldn't hurt her because of her Fae armor, but knew it was a lie (since the blade was steel). He convinced her to kill Martin, knowing she'd drain him and turn, all so he could kill the Red Court.
13. Ghost Story. Nothing comes to mind.
14. Cold Days. Molly, maybe? Not really, though. He doesn't withhold much of anything from her.
15. Skin Game. The only one who's hurt is Murphy, and she went in with open eyes.

So I think there are only a few across the whole series. Maybe there are some examples in the short stories, but I don't recall most of them in great detail.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 08:31:59 PM
Quote
If Kirby had known, for instance, that Harry was being pursued by something on the Skinwalker's level, he might have been a bit more cautious rather than strolling back talking on a cell phone that lit up his face and made him a target.

He might have been more cautious. But A) he knew something super-bad might be out there already, because Will and Georgina had seen the state that Harry arrived in; and B) so long as he was out patrolling at all, the Skinwalker would have got him--it's just too good.

Quote
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't really know what Harry's told them about the dangers out there. Harry wasn't prepared for the skinwalker, so I have a hard time imagining he could have sufficiently prepared the Alphas.

The bottom line is that the case of Kirby is a weak argument for Harry's withholding of information being harmful.

This.

Quote
Well, evidently Billy thought so.

Yes, but he was quite explicitly coming from a place of ignorance. For all he knew, these things were as common as faeries, and with similar weaknesses.

Quote
1. The second Sells/Beckitt victim, the prostitute... Jenny? The one he meets at the airport. She's the only one Harry may have been able to intervene for, and even then, he pulls a classic sitcom mistake and schedules two dates at the same time. So he was in the process of attempting to help her when the storm broke and she got a bad case of heart...explosion. Maybe, if he had told her that her heart was in danger of exploding out of her chest, she may have taken it more seriously and come to him earlier for help. But I chalk it up to a case of missed opportunity rather than withholding information.
2. Kim. I can go either way on this one. It's not really Harry's fault because he was deceived.
3. Susan. Nope, Susan made her own bed. She picked up the Idiot Ball and ran with it. What she did was way more dangerous than even what war correspondents do when they report from the field; it's very rare that you see a reporter go to an ISIS party to chase down a story about a day in the life of a terrorist.
4. Summer Knight... nothing comes to mind. The only people involved are either clued in, or, in Murphy's case, get clued in.
5. Death Masks... nothing on this one. The only death I can recall is Shiro, and he knew more than Harry (including that he was going to die).

All of this.

Quote
6. Blood Rites... there's an argument to be made about the actresses on set. I think Harry could have outright told the producer (Genosa? I can't remember) that there WAS a curse, but I think he kept it vaguer than necessary. But I can go either way on this one.

As I recall, it was Genosa that first realized it was a curse, which is why he hired Harry. And I'm pretty sure Harry told him explicitly after that girl was electrocuted in the shower (which was when he got confirmation).

Quote
7. Dead Beat... he clues Butters in pretty well. No, I don't think there's anyone he kept anything from (unless you count Luccio?) who got hurt because of it.
8. Proven Guilty. This time, it happened to Harry. If Molly had gone to him with what she knew about her magic, Proven Guilty pretty much doesn't happen. Ditto Thomas shadowing Harry all over town instead of being up front with him.
9. White Night. Nothing comes to mind. Harry's pretty up front with the Ordo. The only thing he held back at first was Beckitt's criminal past, and that didn't affect much.
10. Small Favor. Again, it was done to Harry with his blasting rod (which I've always thought was an unnecessarily macho term for "wand.") Harry lays out his cards pretty openly. Michael's the one who got hurt, but not because Harry didn't say "Hey, watch out for Ak-47s."
11. Turn Coat. Nope. Nada.
12. Changes. Again, this happened TO Harry. If Susan had told him they'd had a daughter, Harry would've made it his business to incinerate anyone who looked at her the wrong way. There's an argument to be made that he shouldn't have brought Molly along (and we all saw the consequences there). And Susan... Harry manipulated her at the altar. He telepathically told Susan that Martin's knife couldn't hurt her because of her Fae armor, but knew it was a lie (since the blade was steel). He convinced her to kill Martin, knowing she'd drain him and turn, all so he could kill the Red Court.
13. Ghost Story. Nothing comes to mind.
14. Cold Days. Molly, maybe? Not really, though. He doesn't withhold much of anything from her.
15. Skin Game. The only one who's hurt is Murphy, and she went in with open eyes.

And all of this.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 03, 2019, 09:25:39 PM
He thought it might have made a difference. I just don't see how it would have. The problem is we don't really know that much about how and what the Alphas do. It's mentioned repeatedly how hard it is to impress the dangers of the world on the young, so I'm not sure Harry could have changed anything by informing the Alphas that there are great and terrible powers out there.

I would have insisted on full disclosure if I were Billy too. I'm not a "no questions asked" kind of guy if I'm helping someone do something. It doesn't even have to be a dangerous something.
Look, it's Harry's, he owns it.  He led it to them and it killed them.  They couldn't make an informed choice because he kept them in the dark.  It isn't that they might not die but rather that they didn't fully understand the risks.  And this is true in all the early books, with Kim Delaney and Susan.  Both were foolish, but it's one thing to be foolish and another to be ignorant and foolish.  Turn Coat is the last time it's an issue.  So I'll call it three times, to speak to the OP's point.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 03, 2019, 09:45:51 PM
Look, it's Harry's, he owns it.  He led it to them and it killed them.  They couldn't make an informed choice because he kept them in the dark.  It isn't that they might not die but rather that they didn't fully understand the risks.  And this is true in all the early books, with Kim Delaney and Susan.  Both were foolish, but it's one thing to be foolish and another to be ignorant and foolish.  Turn Coat is the last time it's an issue.  So I'll call it three times, to speak to the OP's point.

Um, he warned both Kim and Susan as best he could, let's not forget some information Harry isn't at liberty to share...  Let's be fair here,  did Kim tell Harry why she really wanted the plans?  No...  When Harry mentioned that such a circle was only used to contain the likes of archangels and demigods, did she say who or what she was trying to contain?  NO!  Her answer was sheer stupidity about Harry thinking she isn't strong enough to build such a circle.. Even if Harry had given her ALL the information it is doubtful that she could have pulled it off under pressure...

Susan, what more could Harry have told her?   All she cared about was getting a story so she blew off Harry's warnings about the party and who was there, hell he didn't want to go it was so dangerous...  After witnessing the run in with the Loop, and the Frog Demon in Storm Front you'd think she'd trust Harry's word when he says something is just too dangerous for mere vanilla mortals to come up against... The smart thing would have been to trust his word and use common sense... When someone tells you not to touch the red hot stove, don't touch it or you might get badly burned...  She was, and Kim paid with her life..   Both had pretty informed choices to make and they made them, they chose to disregard Harry's warnings.  It's like a mine field with signs that say, "DO NOT GO INTO THE MINE FIELD, DANGER!!!!"  You know mines can kill, you know they can rip off arms and legs etc.... You've been told by an explosives expert that these are very powerful mines easily triggered and they can reduce you to a red stain in the dirt...   But you've never seen this yourself, and though this person is an expert, he has to be over protective, just how dangerous can they really be?  You make your informed choice and take a walk in the marked field... You may get lucky and not trip anything, does that make the warnings wrong?  Or you step on one and are reduced to red goo...  You made an informed choice, what more information could the explosive expert have given you to keep you out of that damn field?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 03, 2019, 11:21:12 PM
Quote
Look, it's Harry's, he owns it.

Harry feels guilty for just about everything bad that happens to the people around him, regardless of whether he's actually at fault. Given this, Harry's guilt does not appear to be an accurate indicator of whether or not Harry's actually responsible for something.

Quote
He led it to them and it killed them.

Yeah, but that's an entirely different issue. It's got nothing to do with information-sharing.

Quote
They couldn't make an informed choice because he kept them in the dark.

An informed choice about what? Fighting monsters generally? Well, Harry may not have given them all the information, but they've been doing it long enough at this point that I think it's safe to assume that they've made a reasonably informed decision regarding whether they want to keep doing that. The fact that Harry was followed? Well, it would have been helpful if he'd shared more information about that, but given that he was barely conscious and hardly capable of stringing two words together, I don't see how he could have managed it. Skinwalkers in particular? Well, talking about them makes them stronger, plus they seem fairly obscure, and Harry had no reason to expect that anyone he knew would ever run into them, so I think that falls under the category of "can't be reasonably foreseen."

Quote
It isn't that they might not die but rather that they didn't fully understand the risks.

This might be true. If they didn't know much about any high-level enemy, then they couldn't have understood the risks. But I had always thought they'd gotten a perfunctory briefing about "there's lots of things way more dangerous than you, and you just have to stay out of their way if possible" before the big battle in Summer Knight--I may be wrong, though.

Quote
And this is true in all the early books, with Kim Delaney and Susan.  Both were foolish, but it's one thing to be foolish and another to be ignorant and foolish.

Nope. The risks were the thing Harry was extremely clear about in both these cases. It was the other details he wasn't sharing.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 12:00:03 AM
I made a simple declarative statement.  Guilt has nothing to do with it.  Harry sought refuge, by doing so he caused Kirby to be killed.  Pure cause and effect. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 01:09:55 AM
Quote
I made a simple declarative statement.  Guilt has nothing to do with it.  Harry sought refuge, by doing so he caused Kirby to be killed.  Pure cause and effect.

Oh, is that what you were saying? Sorry, I misunderstood. I'd thought you were talking about Harry not giving the Alphas information on the supernatural world, since Harry not sharing information is the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 03:23:20 AM
Here is the conversation in Fool Moon, paperback page -5 6...

Kim has just asked Harry several questions behind the theory of holding circles and how they work, she has drawn a picture of it.  He answers her about the first two rings,  then she asks about using a third...  He asks her if she copied it right..
Let's back up to the first page...  He is speaking of a full moon, then what Kim has shown him..
He goes on to warn her not to mess with it, even the knowledge is dangerous.  Page 2 she totally lies to him...
Page 3 Harry asks her again....
He answers some of her questions and she eagerly takes notes until we get to the third inner circle..
Harry realizes there is something fishy a foot...
pages 5-6

Harry stops giving her straight answers to her further questions and continues to warn her... She insists that she is strong enough to activate such a circle... He answers page 6 

He goes on to tell her even if she did, he'd still warn her against it because if she made a mistake, it could hurt a lot of people... Then she gets pissed and stalks off...  Then on page 8

Harry adds talking to himself now...
1]  Kim never told Harry the truth..
2] That it was for a Loop never entered his mind, until he talked to Bob Harry had doubts that they
even existed
3] He thought he was helping her keep her head by not giving her anymore information, just knowing it was dangerous...
4] He had no idea that she was going to try and attempt it even without all the information she needed...  He really thought she had more sense...

Harry blames himself, but honestly if she wasn't willing to tell him the truth, what else could he have done but what he did do?
Mr Death
See above, he did question her closely and she blew him off, and out and out lied to him... Consider how different it could have turned out,  if she had told him the truth about the Loop and what had happened... If I know our Harry, he would have  jumped up without finishing his steak and insisted that he be taken to the subject that so badly needed containing and do the circle himself..  However given those determined that the Loop get out, it still might not have been enough..

Now you understand why the white council is so intolerant. You mess with something above your pay grade, and they come down at you like a ton of bricks, your reasons and excuses be damm. And Harry is officially a wizard of the white council.

He should had taken more proactive action. The only excuse Harry has to explain this mistake is youth and inexperience. If it is Morgan, Kim would have been interrogated at sword point.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 03:30:58 AM
You say this.
Quote
Harry feels guilty for just about everything bad that happens to the people around him, regardless of whether he's actually at fault. Given this, Harry's guilt does not appear to be an accurate indicator of whether or not Harry's actually responsible for something.
I never said anything about guilt.  I said Harry was responsible for Kirby dying.  This is pure cause and effect.  The original response contained Billy's statement to Harry and as such can't be clarified.  This is precisely what Billy is telling Harry.  Harry, you're not giving me enough information to do what it is I do.  Which is to assess the risk to his pack.

@Mira

They train soldiers so that they pay attention to orders without thinking and practice their responses to the situations that they expect to see in the field.  What they try not to do is let inexperienced people into situations that could kill them with out the knowledge they need to stay alive.  Run through your mind about the type of things Jim has Harry do to Molly that runs along this vain when he acquires Molly as an apprentice.  If he was going to bring Kim or Susan into his realm, he incurred an obligation to give them them that knowledge. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 03:38:54 AM
I'll go book by book to jog my memory.

1. The second Sells/Beckitt victim, the prostitute... Jenny? The one he meets at the airport. She's the only one Harry may have been able to intervene for, and even then, he pulls a classic sitcom mistake and schedules two dates at the same time. So he was in the process of attempting to help her when the storm broke and she got a bad case of heart...explosion. Maybe, if he had told her that her heart was in danger of exploding out of her chest, she may have taken it more seriously and come to him earlier for help. But I chalk it up to a case of missed opportunity rather than withholding information.
2. Kim. I can go either way on this one. It's not really Harry's fault because he was deceived.
3. Susan. Nope, Susan made her own bed. She picked up the Idiot Ball and ran with it. What she did was way more dangerous than even what war correspondents do when they report from the field; it's very rare that you see a reporter go to an ISIS party to chase down a story about a day in the life of a terrorist.
4. Summer Knight... nothing comes to mind. The only people involved are either clued in, or, in Murphy's case, get clued in.
5. Death Masks... nothing on this one. The only death I can recall is Shiro, and he knew more than Harry (including that he was going to die).
6. Blood Rites... there's an argument to be made about the actresses on set. I think Harry could have outright told the producer (Genosa? I can't remember) that there WAS a curse, but I think he kept it vaguer than necessary. But I can go either way on this one.
7. Dead Beat... he clues Butters in pretty well. No, I don't think there's anyone he kept anything from (unless you count Luccio?) who got hurt because of it.
8. Proven Guilty. This time, it happened to Harry. If Molly had gone to him with what she knew about her magic, Proven Guilty pretty much doesn't happen. Ditto Thomas shadowing Harry all over town instead of being up front with him.
9. White Night. Nothing comes to mind. Harry's pretty up front with the Ordo. The only thing he held back at first was Beckitt's criminal past, and that didn't affect much.
10. Small Favor. Again, it was done to Harry with his blasting rod (which I've always thought was an unnecessarily macho term for "wand.") Harry lays out his cards pretty openly. Michael's the one who got hurt, but not because Harry didn't say "Hey, watch out for Ak-47s."
11. Turn Coat. Nope. Nada.
12. Changes. Again, this happened TO Harry. If Susan had told him they'd had a daughter, Harry would've made it his business to incinerate anyone who looked at her the wrong way. There's an argument to be made that he shouldn't have brought Molly along (and we all saw the consequences there). And Susan... Harry manipulated her at the altar. He telepathically told Susan that Martin's knife couldn't hurt her because of her Fae armor, but knew it was a lie (since the blade was steel). He convinced her to kill Martin, knowing she'd drain him and turn, all so he could kill the Red Court.
13. Ghost Story. Nothing comes to mind.
14. Cold Days. Molly, maybe? Not really, though. He doesn't withhold much of anything from her.
15. Skin Game. The only one who's hurt is Murphy, and she went in with open eyes.

So I think there are only a few across the whole series. Maybe there are some examples in the short stories, but I don't recall most of them in great detail.

The point is Susan should have known about the supernatural at all. This is all started when Harry advertise himself as a wizard in the yellow pages. He open the Pandora's box right there. There is a reason why the white council looks poorly about Harry in this matter. It may look innocent at the start, but Harry's advertisement draws amateurs into the the game of supernaturals. All because Harry can't maintain secrecy at the start and fail to fully clued in people when secrecy fails.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 03:45:03 AM
Um, he warned both Kim and Susan as best he could, let's not forget some information Harry isn't at liberty to share...  Let's be fair here,  did Kim tell Harry why she really wanted the plans?  No...  When Harry mentioned that such a circle was only used to contain the likes of archangels and demigods, did she say who or what she was trying to contain?  NO!  Her answer was sheer stupidity about Harry thinking she isn't strong enough to build such a circle.. Even if Harry had given her ALL the information it is doubtful that she could have pulled it off under pressure...

Susan, what more could Harry have told her?   All she cared about was getting a story so she blew off Harry's warnings about the party and who was there, hell he didn't want to go it was so dangerous...  After witnessing the run in with the Loop, and the Frog Demon in Storm Front you'd think she'd trust Harry's word when he says something is just too dangerous for mere vanilla mortals to come up against... The smart thing would have been to trust his word and use common sense... When someone tells you not to touch the red hot stove, don't touch it or you might get badly burned...  She was, and Kim paid with her life..   Both had pretty informed choices to make and they made them, they chose to disregard Harry's warnings.  It's like a mine field with signs that say, "DO NOT GO INTO THE MINE FIELD, DANGER!!!!"  You know mines can kill, you know they can rip off arms and legs etc.... You've been told by an explosives expert that these are very powerful mines easily triggered and they can reduce you to a red stain in the dirt...   But you've never seen this yourself, and though this person is an expert, he has to be over protective, just how dangerous can they really be?  You make your informed choice and take a walk in the marked field... You may get lucky and not trip anything, does that make the warnings wrong?  Or you step on one and are reduced to red goo...  You made an informed choice, what more information could the explosive expert have given you to keep you out of that damn field?

They don't know about the white council. They don't know that supernaturals has factions as powerful as nations and maybe even more. They don't know that Harry himself is a relatively small fry when the bigger picture is at play. They see the pond but they don't know how deep it is, and Harry is the one who introduce them to the pond.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 03:50:51 AM
Quote
He should had taken more proactive action. The only excuse Harry has to explain this mistake is youth and inexperience. If it is Morgan, Kim would have been interrogated at sword point.

About what?  Harry wasn't a Warden at that time, and just asking about the ring isn't forbidden..  He asks her again and again why she wants the information, she answers in the hypothetical...  When he realizes that she is trying to lead him into forbidden classified information open only to certified wizards only to be used in the most special of cases he shuts down the information..  He has no authority to either hold her or assault her to find out why she wants the information.  Up until that point he had no clue that there was a Loop loose upon the world that she was trying to contain...  If it is anyone's fault it is Kim's for thinking just because she can ride a bicycle she fly a jet without any training..  It is about her ego her response to Harry's warnings is, you think I am not strong enough to make one. She is pissed because Harry is roughly her age and he is a full wizard where as she isn't even an apprentice... That says to me she thinks she has something to prove, not that she is really concerned about anyone's safety...  It's her decision to go back and try to make the circle without all the information she needs, and she gets herself killed..  She also has some idea if not fully aware of what she is trying to contain when Harry warns her about the dangers..  Yet she elects to say nothing to him...  She doesn't want any realhelp from him, no, she is out to prove something that was beyond her and it got her killed...   There is no proactive against that...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 04:08:38 AM
Quote
Now you understand why the white council is so intolerant. You mess with something above your pay grade, and they come down at you like a ton of bricks, your reasons and excuses be damm. And Harry is officially a wizard of the white council.

He should had taken more proactive action. The only excuse Harry has to explain this mistake is youth and inexperience. If it is Morgan, Kim would have been interrogated at sword point.

What proactive action would you have him take? Remember, he's not a Warden--he has no authority to actually do anything to her.

Quote
I never said anything about guilt.  I said Harry was responsible for Kirby dying.  This is pure cause and effect.

1) You said that Harry "owns it." I assumed you meant that Harry feels guilty/responsible for what happened.

2) No, the Skinwalker was responsible for Kirby dying. It was the one who chose to take the job against Harry, to follow Harry, and to kill Kirby. Harry gave it the opportunity to kill Kirby by going to Will's house, but Harry is not responsible for Kirby's death any more than Will is for calling him for help.

Quote
The point is Susan should have known about the supernatural at all. This is all started when Harry advertise himself as a wizard in the yellow pages. He open the Pandora's box right there. There is a reason why the white council looks poorly about Harry in this matter.

There's no evidence of that. I had always believed that both Susan and Kim found Harry because they already believed in the supernatural.

Quote
It may look innocent at the start, but Harry's advertisement draws amateurs into the the game of supernaturals. All because Harry can't maintain secrecy at the start and fail to fully clued in people when secrecy fails.

Nope. Susan was already a paranormal reporter when she met Harry, and Kim met the Loup Garou (I forget his name) independently of Harry. None of that is on him.

Quote
They don't know about the white council. They don't know that supernaturals has factions as powerful as nations and maybe even more.

And they don't need to to avoid the dangers they get into.

Quote
They don't know that Harry himself is a relatively small fry when the bigger picture is at play.

In both cases, Harry explicitly warns them that he's not sure he can handle the issue, actually.

Quote
They see the pond but they don't know how deep it is, and Harry is the one who introduce them to the pond.

See above regarding: Nope.

Quote
About what?  Harry wasn't a Warden at that time, and just asking about the ring isn't forbidden..  He asks her again and again why she wants the information, she answers in the hypothetical...  When he realizes that she is trying to lead him into forbidden classified information open only to certified wizards only to be used in the most special of cases he shuts down the information..  He has no authority to either hold her or assault her to find out why she wants the information.  Up until that point he had no clue that there was a Loop loose upon the world that she was trying to contain...  If it is anyone's fault it is Kim's for thinking just because she can ride a bicycle she fly a jet without any training..  It is about her ego her response to Harry's warnings is, you think I am not strong enough to make one. She is pissed because Harry is roughly her age and he is a full wizard where as she isn't even an apprentice... That says to me she thinks she has something to prove, not that she is really concerned about anyone's safety...  It's her decision to go back and try to make the circle without all the information she needs, and she gets herself killed..  She also has some idea if not fully aware of what she is trying to contain when Harry warns her about the dangers..  Yet she elects to say nothing to him...  She doesn't want any realhelp from him, no, she is out to prove something that was beyond her and it got her killed...   There is no proactive against that...

This.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 04:20:28 AM
Quote
They train soldiers so that they pay attention to orders without thinking and practice their responses to the situations that they expect to see in the field.  What they try not to do is let inexperienced people into situations that could kill them with out the knowledge they need to stay alive.  Run through your mind about the type of things Jim has Harry do to Molly that runs along this vain when he acquires Molly as an apprentice.  If he was going to bring Kim or Susan into his realm, he incurred an obligation to give them them that knowledge. 

He didn't bring either one of them into his realm, they volunteered.. He took neither on as an apprentice... Susan was a reporter, in the beginning she wanted to use Harry to get the story...
She worked for a supernatural rag, she wanted to use Harry to gain her own fame... Yeah, she fell in love with him along the road, but don't pretend that she didn't blind herself to the fact that Harry had"danger Will Robinson" written all over him... She chose to ignore it at her own peril...

Quote
The point is Susan should have known about the supernatural at all. This is all started when Harry advertise himself as a wizard in the yellow pages. He open the Pandora's box right there. There is a reason why the white council looks poorly about Harry in this matter. It may look innocent at the start, but Harry's advertisement draws amateurs into the the game of supernaturals. All because Harry can't maintain secrecy at the start and fail to fully clued in people when secrecy fails.

The amateurs are in it any way,  the young warlocks that lose their heads annually are not Harry's fault..   Victor got there all on his own, not because of some two line ad in the Yellow Pages, he never sought the help from a professional...
Quote
They train soldiers so that they pay attention to orders without thinking and practice their responses to the situations that they expect to see in the field.  What they try not to do is let inexperienced people into situations that could kill them with out the knowledge they need to stay alive.  Run through your mind about the type of things Jim has Harry do to Molly that runs along this vain when he acquires Molly as an apprentice.  If he was going to bring Kim or Susan into his realm, he incurred an obligation to give them them that knowledge. 

Again he never lead either woman....  He warned Kim that she had neither the knowledge nor the training to build that circle... Given the time constraint, full moon in the next day or two, it is doubtful he could have given her either enough knowledge or training to build one if he knew what she really wanted the knowledge for...  It isn't reasonable to think he could prepare her when she refused to give him the information about what she was really up to..

What training could he possibly have given Susan to keep her safe at the party?   Given her hunger for the story, the more information he could give her about the guests would only fuel her desire more to be there...  She stole the fricken invitation, crashed the party, is Harry responsible for that? 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 04:23:51 AM
About what?  Harry wasn't a Warden at that time, and just asking about the ring isn't forbidden..  He asks her again and again why she wants the information, she answers in the hypothetical...  When he realizes that she is trying to lead him into forbidden classified information open only to certified wizards only to be used in the most special of cases he shuts down the information..  He has no authority to either hold her or assault her to find out why she wants the information.  Up until that point he had no clue that there was a Loop loose upon the world that she was trying to contain...  If it is anyone's fault it is Kim's for thinking just because she can ride a bicycle she fly a jet without any training..  It is about her ego her response to Harry's warnings is, you think I am not strong enough to make one. She is pissed because Harry is roughly her age and he is a full wizard where as she isn't even an apprentice... That says to me she thinks she has something to prove, not that she is really concerned about anyone's safety...  It's her decision to go back and try to make the circle without all the information she needs, and she gets herself killed..  She also has some idea if not fully aware of what she is trying to contain when Harry warns her about the dangers..  Yet she elects to say nothing to him...  She doesn't want any realhelp from him, no, she is out to prove something that was beyond her and it got her killed...   There is no proactive against that...

He is not a warden, but he is a full fledge member of the white council. At the least, he should have reported to the council that there is suspicious activities in Chicago. Someone is playing with a circle use to capture Archangels, that is a big red alert right there. I am sure if it is book 12 Harry facing similar situations, he'll dig 6 feet into the ground to find out.

Imagine a traffic police officer. Someone ask this officer how to produce narcotics, in deatail and it involve highly technical stuff. The officer recognize the problem and tried to persuade the person, but he did not try to investigate further. He also did not consult with his superior officers about the matter. In the end the officer found out that the person died of drug overdose and it involve a drug cartel too.

What do you think about this traffic officer?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 04, 2019, 04:27:49 AM
To answer the original question, I think only once has Harry's withholding of information actually gotten people hurt. In this formulation, I take withholding to mean the willful and deliberate denial of information to others Harry is not trying to hurt. There are times when Harry hasn't shared information quickly enough either because it didn't occur to him or he just got the information too late, but never has his denial of information to people lead to injury with the exception of the Storm Front example from earlier. There are times when he was unable to impress the danger of certain situations onto people (Kim and Susan, mostly), but I see that as entirely their fault.

Mario Andretti: I wouldn't drive that fast. I'd fear for my safety if I was doing it.
Susan: Whatever you nancy.
Kim: You think I'm a bad driver!
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 04:29:24 AM
What proactive action would you have him take? Remember, he's not a Warden--he has no authority to actually do anything to her.

1) You said that Harry "owns it." I assumed you meant that Harry feels guilty/responsible for what happened.

2) No, the Skinwalker was responsible for Kirby dying. It was the one who chose to take the job against Harry, to follow Harry, and to kill Kirby. Harry gave it the opportunity to kill Kirby by going to Will's house, but Harry is not responsible for Kirby's death any more than Will is for calling him for help.

There's no evidence of that. I had always believed that both Susan and Kim found Harry because they already believed in the supernatural.

Nope. Susan was already a paranormal reporter when she met Harry, and Kim met the Loup Garou (I forget his name) independently of Harry. None of that is on him.

And they don't need to to avoid the dangers they get into.

In both cases, Harry explicitly warns them that he's not sure he can handle the issue, actually.

See above regarding: Nope.

This.

I am not sure about Kim Deloney, but Susan is definitely drawn into the supernatural via Harry. She saw his advertisement and come to interview Harry. She trick Harry into a soulgaze and thus confirm the existence of the supernatural. She wouldn't have found Harry if not for the advertisement. She would not have trick Harry into a soulgaze if Harry did not proclaim in the advertisement that he is a real wizard.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 04:34:40 AM
Quote
o answer the original question, I think only once has Harry's withholding of information actually gotten people hurt. In this formulation, I take withholding to mean the willful and deliberate denial of information to others Harry is not trying to hurt. There are times when Harry hasn't shared information quickly enough either because it didn't occur to him or he just got the information too late, but never has his denial of information to people lead to injury with the exception of the Storm Front example from earlier. There are times when he was unable to impress the danger of certain situations onto people (Kim and Susan, mostly), but I see that as entirely their fault.

I would agree with this.

Quote
I am not sure about Kim Deloney, but Susan is definitely drawn into the supernatural via Harry. She saw his advertisement and come to interview Harry. She trick Harry into a soulgaze and thus confirm the existence of the supernatural. She wouldn't have found Harry if not for the advertisement. She would not have trick Harry into a soulgaze if Harry did not proclaim in the advertisement that he is a real wizard.

Did you actually read my response? Because I explicitly said that Susan was already involved in the supernatural world (albeit in a limited capacity) because she was a paranormal reporter. This is why she came to interview Harry. Harry, therefore, cannot be held responsible for her interacting with the supernatural world, because doing so was a natural hazard of her job, and she took that job before she ever knew Harry existed.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 05:03:50 AM
I would agree with this.

Did you actually read my response? Because I explicitly said that Susan was already involved in the supernatural world (albeit in a limited capacity) because she was a paranormal reporter. This is why she came to interview Harry. Harry, therefore, cannot be held responsible for her interacting with the supernatural world, because doing so was a natural hazard of her job, and she took that job before she ever knew Harry existed.

In this you are wrong. Susan has never touch the real supernatural stuff until she met Harry. What her tabloid covers are mostly BS. Scrap that, it is all BS. Susan would not get any othentic supernatural news from any other source aside from Harry.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 05:20:52 AM
Quote
In this you are wrong. Susan has never touch the real supernatural stuff until she met Harry. What her tabloid covers are mostly BS. Scrap that, it is all BS. Susan would not get any othentic supernatural news from any other source aside from Harry.

She's specifically going around investigating supernatural stuff. The laws of probability show that at some point, she's going to run into the real thing, regardless of whether Harry is advertising as a wizard or not.

Some examples of her getting involved investigating supernatural stuff unrelated to Harry:
-She was investigating three-eye before Harry even realized that it was a magical drug.
-I believe that part of the reason she asked Harry out on a date was that she was also investigating the magical murders happening in Storm Front.
-She started investigating the werewolf murders independently and parallel to Harry.

If Harry weren't around, she would still be investigating all these things, and things like them.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 05:35:56 AM
She's specifically going around investigating supernatural stuff. The laws of probability show that at some point, she's going to run into the real thing, regardless of whether Harry is advertising as a wizard or not.

Some examples of her getting involved investigating supernatural stuff unrelated to Harry:
-She was investigating three-eye before Harry even realized that it was a magical drug.
-I believe that part of the reason she asked Harry out on a date was that she was also investigating the magical murders happening in Storm Front.
-She started investigating the werewolf murders independently and parallel to Harry.

If Harry weren't around, she would still be investigating all these things, and things like them.

She snoops around, but she gotten nowhere.

I don't remember she investigate the 3 eye drug, but even if she does, I don't remember she gotten anywhere. The only time she has any contact with the matter is when she visits Harry in his apartment.

She heard about the serial murder case in book 2, but she would never gotten into anything until Harry call her for help.

Susan can never find the supernatural, because before she and Hary actually soulgaze, I doubt she really believes in the supernatural. She is just a tabloid reporter trying to find sensational news. Therefore, even her investigations over the 3 eye drug and the serial murder case in book 2 is prompted by her encounter with Harry, otherwise it wouldn't cross her mind that this things are truly supernatural in origin.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 05:50:25 AM
Quote
I don't remember she investigate the 3 eye drug, but even if she does, I don't remember she gotten anywhere. The only time she has any contact with the matter is when she visits Harry in his apartment.

Yes, she hadn't gotten anywhere. This is because A) She was focussing on Harry, which she wouldn't do if Harry wasn't involved; and B) Harry wrapped up the three-eye thing extremely quickly.

If Harry wasn't involved (and if he wasn't advertising as a wizard, he wouldn't be involved with police cases either) then the whole thing would have taken longer, and Susan would have been exploring different avenues--for example, poking around those connected to the victims of Victor Sells, like, say, Bianca.

(Also, if Harry wasn't involved, a lot more people would have died.)

Quote
She heard about the serial murder case in book 2, but she would never gotten into anything until Harry call her for help.

Really? I'd figure reporter tactic 101 would be to start talking to police officers and following them around, and I somehow don't think the FBI hexenwolves would take well to that.

Susan seems to have been following SI's cases in the first few books, so as long as SI was getting supernatural cases, Susan had a high chance of stumbling into something genuinely supernatural.

Quote
Susan can never find the supernatural, because before she and Hary actually soulgaze, I doubt she really believes in the supernatural. She is just a tabloid reporter trying to find sensational news. Therefore, even her investigations over the 3 eye drug and the serial murder case in book 2 is prompted by her encounter with Harry, otherwise it wouldn't cross her mind that this things are truly supernatural in origin.

Really? Because the book says that Harry's soulgaze of Susan showed that she was driven by a passion to find the truth, and between that and the fact that she's explicitly stated to be a good reporter who would be well-respected if not for the supernatural stuff, I had always thought that it was clear that Susan only got into paranormal reporting because she believed in the supernatural.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 05:54:54 AM
The shapeshifter is a force of nature.  While he delivered the blow, Harry was the cause.  He didn't go looking for the pack, he went looking for Harry.  And Jim through the way he writes Harry, seems to feel the same way.  In Cold Front in a bid to reduce possible collateral damage, he breaks in to Butters apartment to steal Bob rather then knocking and saying please.  Harry is a lightning rod and he owes it to everyone around him to explain the danger of standing near him in lightning storms.  After Turn Coat he's figured this out and all his allies are clued in.

From the Dresden Wiki.
Quote
She was part of the occult community of Chicago, and a young woman who Harry Dresden helped teach to control her magical talent.
Perhaps apprentice is too strong a word.
Quote
Dresden feels incredibly guilty over her death, and very responsible for not giving her enough data to make an informed decision.[2]  There are many parallels between her situation and Susan Rodriguez's later on. The early mistake with Delaney and Rodriguez undoubtedly made it so that he now has a more honest and open relationship with his later apprentice, Molly Carpenter.(reference needed)
I wish I had read this before I responded.  I would have quoted it then as it is simpler then what I wrote.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 06:10:54 AM
Quote
The shapeshifter is a force of nature.  While he delivered the blow, Harry was the cause.

No it isn't. The shapeshifter does not have free-will, but that only means that it cannot change its essential nature, ie it cannot suddenly decide not to torture people. It absolutely could have decided to, for example, kill Andi instead of Kirby, or to lurk outside Harry's apartment and kidnap his apprentice instead of following Harry, or to not take the job of dealing with Harry and Morgan in the first place and go torture people in Alaska.

And even if the Skinwalker is not responsible, I still don't see how that makes Harry completely responsible either. Here is the chain of events: Someone decides to hire the Skinwalker to go after Morgan; Morgan decides to go to Harry; Harry decides to help Morgan, and further to go to Will's house after he sees the Skinwalker; Will decides to let him in and call the rest of the pack; Kirby decides to come and to patrol. Why is it Harry's fault instead of the fault of Kirby, Will, Morgan, or whoever hired the Skinwalker?

Quote
And Jim through the way he writes Harry, seems to feel the same way.

Jim writes Harry as having a guilt complex and blaming himself for things that aren't his fault.

Quote
Harry is a lightning rod and he owes it to everyone around him to explain the danger of standing near him in lightning storms.

I'd like it noted that I feel uncomfortable with the claim that Harry owes it to people around him to explain everything, and I have a gut feeling that it's wrong. However, it's after 2am here, so I cannot find the words to explain why I feel that way. I may come back to this after I've gotten some sleep.

I know that the above paragraph is a crappy argument. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 04, 2019, 07:44:34 AM
Yes, she hadn't gotten anywhere. This is because A) She was focussing on Harry, which she wouldn't do if Harry wasn't involved; and B) Harry wrapped up the three-eye thing extremely quickly.

If Harry wasn't involved (and if he wasn't advertising as a wizard, he wouldn't be involved with police cases either) then the whole thing would have taken longer, and Susan would have been exploring different avenues--for example, poking around those connected to the victims of Victor Sells, like, say, Bianca.

(Also, if Harry wasn't involved, a lot more people would have died.)

Really? I'd figure reporter tactic 101 would be to start talking to police officers and following them around, and I somehow don't think the FBI hexenwolves would take well to that.

Susan seems to have been following SI's cases in the first few books, so as long as SI was getting supernatural cases, Susan had a high chance of stumbling into something genuinely supernatural.

Really? Because the book says that Harry's soulgaze of Susan showed that she was driven by a passion to find the truth, and between that and the fact that she's explicitly stated to be a good reporter who would be well-respected if not for the supernatural stuff, I had always thought that it was clear that Susan only got into paranormal reporting because she believed in the supernatural.

Susan has been following SI's cases, and if not for Harry medlling, Murphy and SI would have stonewall her and effectively so.

Susan would never get into anything big if not for Harry, that is in the unlikely case she could find anything at all. And it certain that she could not have known about the vampire party or forge an invitation in the firstplace if she is not Harry's girlfriend.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 10:08:20 AM
Quote
Why is it Harry's fault instead of the fault of Kirby, Will, Morgan, or whoever hired the Skinwalker?
I want you to attempt to see the difference between guilt and responsibility.  The Skinwalker is guilty of murder, Harry was the reason that Kirby got murdered.  The first is a crime, the second a failing.  The only penalty for the second is the death of your friends.  I gave you a direct quote from Billy that states this explicitly.
Quote
He nodded. “So. If I’d had this conversation with you sooner, maybe they wouldn’t be. Maybe if we’d had a better idea about what’s actually going on in the world, it would have changed how we approached things. They follow my lead, Harry. I(Billy) have a responsibility to make sure that I do everything in my power to make them aware and safe.”
Note that Billy doesn't say he can keep them alive, merely that he gives them the best chance at doing so.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 11:39:58 AM
Quote
The shapeshifter is a force of nature.  While he delivered the blow, Harry was the cause.  He didn't go looking for the pack, he went looking for Harry.  And Jim through the way he writes Harry, seems to feel the same way.  In Cold Front in a bid to reduce possible collateral damage, he breaks in to Butters apartment to steal Bob rather then knocking and saying please.  Harry is a lightning rod and he owes it to everyone around him to explain the danger of standing near him in lightning storms.  After Turn Coat he's figured this out and all his allies are clued in.

Hold it, you are blaming the potential victim for the crime..  Yes, Harry was the target, but his friends were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time..  That doesn't make it his fault, they chose to be with him.  Yes, he may feel some responsibility but that doesn't make it rational, which pushed him to do they type of thing he did to try an protect Butters..  Which is understandable, but not totally rational.
Quote
I'd like it noted that I feel uncomfortable with the claim that Harry owes it to people around him to explain everything, and I have a gut feeling that it's wrong. However, it's after 2am here, so I cannot find the words to explain why I feel that way. I may come back to this after I've gotten some sleep.
Same here, but whether or not Harry "owes" it to people to explain everything is a silly argument as you are trying to point out.  For one thing, I am almost though my first cup of coffee, anyway most of the time he cannot explain everything because he himself doesn't know everything at that moment...  He could try to explain to Billy and company about the Skinwalker, but they don't have
the sight so they cannot see it for what it really is..  They work as a pack so they think they are pretty bad ass and can fight above their weight class,  Harry when he takes refuge at Billy's place is nearly catatonic from what he had just witnessed...   
Quote
Yes, she hadn't gotten anywhere. This is because A) She was focussing on Harry, which she wouldn't do if Harry wasn't involved; and B) Harry wrapped up the three-eye thing extremely quickly.

She was coming on to Harry to get information, very true.. He allowed her to do it because he hadn't really been with a woman since Elaine...  However their first date nearly ended in tragedy because of the Frog Demon attack....  "Danger Will Robinson...."  Susan was a big girl, prides herself on being a smart one....  Her choice from then on out to continue with Harry or not...  She did fall in love with him, but she also was a moth attracted to a flame, knowing him and getting the information would make her career... She may have loved him, but in the end she used him, stealing that invitation wasn't an act of love..  You may think he owed her all the information he knew, but other than using it to expose things to the public that might get them killed, wouldn't have stopped her from going headlong into a nest of vipers for her career... None of that is Harry's fault, Susan made her choice and took her chances, she paid for it.
Quote

I am not sure about Kim Deloney, but Susan is definitely drawn into the supernatural via Harry. She saw his advertisement and come to interview Harry. She trick Harry into a soulgaze and thus confirm the existence of the supernatural. She wouldn't have found Harry if not for the advertisement. She would not have trick Harry into a soulgaze if Harry did not proclaim in the advertisement that he is a real wizard.

First of all, Susan wasn't drawn into the supernatural world because of Harry... She already worked for a paranormal rag... Upon her soul gaze with Harry she promptly fainted...  I've already stated what happened on their first date...  She knew very well from that point on just how dangerous hanging out with Harry could be...  She made her choices and decided the danger was worth the story and later the love..  Or part of her continued to deny the truth that this kind of knowledge could get her killed, or worse..  In spite of what she had witnessed and by Grave Peril she had witnessed plenty, she still chose to believe that Harry was exaggerating the dangers, and chose to steal that invitation... 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 03:22:04 PM
Hold it, you are blaming the potential victim for the crime..  Yes, Harry was the target, but his friends were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time..  That doesn't make it his fault, they chose to be with him.  Yes, he may feel some responsibility but that doesn't make it rational, which pushed him to do they type of thing he did to try an protect Butters.
I quoted Billy and what he thought about it, not Harry.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 03:26:02 PM
I quoted Billy and what he thought about it, not Harry.

Who knows in the emotion of the moment,  Billy is also the pack leader he feels responsibility for stuff as well...  Since he and Georgia were on the island for the showdown with the Skinwalker, he apparently didn't hold too much against Harry...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 04:57:34 PM
Quote
I want you to attempt to see the difference between guilt and responsibility.

Here's the definition I found on google:
Quote
re·spon·si·ble
adjective
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
"the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer"
synonyms:   accountable, answerable, to blame
antonyms:   guiltless

Also, could you please respond to the points I have made in response to this claim? I'll list the major ones:
1) the Skinwalker is responsible for its own actions
2) there are several people (the person who sent the Skinwalker, Billy, and Kirby) who are at least as responsible as Harry
3) Harry's actions regarding the sharing or not sharing of information about the supernatural world would not have made a difference, so therefore his lack of sharing information cannot be what makes him responsible
        3a) A general briefing about the supernatural world would not have included Skinwalkers, and for good reason
        3b) Harry was incapable of sharing any information from the time he used his Sight on the Skinwalker until he had recovered in Will's guest room

Quote
I quoted Billy and what he thought about it, not Harry.

And I responded by saying that Will was speaking from a place of ignorance, and admitted that. Therefore, he could not know whether the information Harry might have given him would have made a difference.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 06:03:44 PM
Quote
   3b) Harry was incapable of sharing any information from the time he used his Sight on the Skinwalker until he had recovered in Will's guest room

He didn't even know what he had seen except it was real bad...  Page 28 Turn Coat..  Harry is recovering from seeing it, he had been down for 82 minutes...

Quote
"What is it?"  Billy asked quietly.
"I don't know," I said.  "But it is real bad."

Harry did ask Billy to call the pack together...  However he wasn't withholding any information because he didn't have any...  Just that it was bad enough to send him into a near catatonic state.. It should have been a holy shit moment for Billy to hold back protecting his pack until they got more information.. There was no more information to be had, except it was bad, ugly, and extremely dangerous.   For the record....
Billy DID NOT blame Harry for what happened to Kirby....  page 35 Turn Coat hardback
Quote
I stared toward the knot of officers around Kirby's corpse.  "I didn't mean for this to happen."
"Kirby was an adult, Dresden," Billy said. "He knew what could happen.  He chose to be here."
 

Harry knows that was true, but he still felt responsible, but then admitted he couldn't have known.. same page

Quote
I hadn't known what the skinwalker was before, beyond something awlful, but that didn't change anything.
Harry hadn't withheld any information before hand, he told Billy it was something very, very bad, no clue as to what it was he saw, except bad.  So bad it made him catatonic for over eighty minutes after seeing it with his sight... Billy knew that and still agreed to call his pack in..

Billy, now Will goes on to say to Harry....same page..

Quote
"You didn't know it was going to come down like that, man.  We all owe you our lives, Harry, I'm glad we got the chance to be there for you."

As Nadia says, whoever sent the skinwalker in the first place is the the blame, the real guilty party.. The skinwalker is a sadistic creature doing it's bidding, it enjoys it's job..  Neither Harry nor Billy nor any of the other of it's victims are the blame...  Will and his pack made a choice to back Harry, Kirby paid the ultimate price for doing that, but it was his choice... Even if they had understood it was a skinwalker and all that implied, would they have made the same choice?  Yeah, I think so...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 04, 2019, 06:54:22 PM
1. Susan was deeply enough involved in the supernatural to trick Harry into a soulgaze. Only after that did she focus on Harry as her best avenue into the supernatural world. She would have found another way as is shown by Valmont in Skin Game talking about how easy it was. If Harry didn't advertise, but did consult, she would have found him anyway. If he didn't consult with the police, she would have likely doggedly pursued a supernatural entity that wasn't as keen as Harry was on getting attention. It's actually good for Harry because it helps his business. Almost any other entity would have killed/eaten her for the attention.

2. Harry caused Kirby's death in Turn Coat. But for Harry going to Billy's, Kirby wouldn't have been involved. Harry being the "but-for" cause does not make him responsible, either legally or morally. Legally, being the cause in fact if necessary but not sufficient for culpability. I'd say it is the same for morally, but morality is infinitely debatable. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not Kirby died because Harry withheld information from Billy. I agree with the arguments that he did not and don't think I've seen an argument other than "Billy said so" on the other side.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 07:06:49 PM
Here's the definition I found on google:
Also, could you please respond to the points I have made in response to this claim? I'll list the major ones:
1) the Skinwalker is responsible for its own actions
2) there are several people (the person who sent the Skinwalker, Billy, and Kirby) who are at least as responsible as Harry
3) Harry's actions regarding the sharing or not sharing of information about the supernatural world would not have made a difference, so therefore his lack of sharing information cannot be what makes him responsible
        3a) A general briefing about the supernatural world would not have included Skinwalkers, and for good reason
        3b) Harry was incapable of sharing any information from the time he used his Sight on the Skinwalker until he had recovered in Will's guest room

And I responded by saying that Will was speaking from a place of ignorance, and admitted that. Therefore, he could not know whether the information Harry might have given him would have made a difference.
1) Yes.  The Skinwalker murdered Kirby, he could hang or go to hell.
2) True.  So?
3) Billy disagrees. Since you can't read the future or JB's mind just how would you know that? And it is here that we find the crux of the problem.
3a)  Again you can't know that, since JB hasn't told you.  Billy assumes that in general more information is better, possibly not in specifics, but for judging the level of danger that is possible even if never encountered.  Since Billy makes it clear that he won't work with Harry if Harry isn't more open, then we can assume that Harry tells Billy enough to satisfy the conditions that Billy laid down..

3b)Read that line back to yourself and say.  "That is a failure of planning on Harry's part."

@Mira
Quote
“Billy,” I said quietly. “This isn’t stuff you can unlearn. Right now, you’re insulated from the worst of what goes on because you’re . . . I don’t want to be insulting, but you’re a bunch of amateurs without enough of a clue to be a real threat to anyone.”
His eyes darkened. “Insulated from the worst?” he asked in a quiet, dangerous voice. “Tell that to Kirby. Tell that to Andi.”
Obviously if he has been shielding then from the worst they can't of had any idea that something like the Skinwalker was a possibility.  And if that isn't clear then there is this.
Quote
I couldn’t treat him like a child anymore. Will was ignorant of the supernatural world beyond the fairly minor threats that lurked around the University of Chicago. He and the other werewolves had been kids who learned one really neat magic trick, almost ten years before. I hadn’t shared more with them, and the paranormal community in general is careful about what they say to strangers. He had, at best, only a vague idea of the scope of supernatural affairs in general, and he had not the first clue about how hot the water really was around me right now.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 07:40:39 PM
Quote
1) Yes.  The Skinwalker murdered Kirby, he could hang or go to hell.
2) True.  So?

So the point of this is that you can't say that Harry is solely, or even mostly, responsible for Kirby's death. Which is what you were saying, and which these points refute.

Quote
3) Billy disagrees. Since you can't read the future or JB's mind just how would you know that? And it is here that we find the crux of the problem.
3a)  Again you can't know that, since JB hasn't told you.  Billy assumes that in general more information is better, possibly not in specifics, but for judging the level of danger that is possible even if never encountered.  Since Billy makes it clear that he won't work with Harry if Harry isn't more open, then we can assume that Harry tells Billy enough to satisfy the conditions that Billy laid down..

I have already explained my logic in previous posts. I will quote it here:
Quote
As for Kirby, I just don't think that any amount of information would have helped him against a skinwalker in that scenario. He knew that he was going up against something both powerful and dangerous--I can't think how specifics would have stopped him getting ambushed. Furthermore, even if Harry had given the Alphas a briefing about the supernatural world (like the one he gave them after Kirby's death) earlier, it almost certainly wouldn't have contained information about the skinwalker, because 1) as I recall, Harry didn't know much about them himself; 2) they're extremely rare, and Harry had no reason to expect anyone to run into them; and 3) there are very good reasons not to talk about them, because being afraid of them actually makes them stronger.
Quote
He might have been more cautious. But A) he knew something super-bad might be out there already, because Will and Georgina had seen the state that Harry arrived in; and B) so long as he was out patrolling at all, the Skinwalker would have got him--it's just too good.
Quote
Quote
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't really know what Harry's told them about the dangers out there. Harry wasn't prepared for the skinwalker, so I have a hard time imagining he could have sufficiently prepared the Alphas.

The bottom line is that the case of Kirby is a weak argument for Harry's withholding of information being harmful.

This.
Quote
Quote
They couldn't make an informed choice because he kept them in the dark.
An informed choice about what? Fighting monsters generally? Well, Harry may not have given them all the information, but they've been doing it long enough at this point that I think it's safe to assume that they've made a reasonably informed decision regarding whether they want to keep doing that. The fact that Harry was followed? Well, it would have been helpful if he'd shared more information about that, but given that he was barely conscious and hardly capable of stringing two words together, I don't see how he could have managed it. Skinwalkers in particular? Well, talking about them makes them stronger, plus they seem fairly obscure, and Harry had no reason to expect that anyone he knew would ever run into them, so I think that falls under the category of "can't be reasonably foreseen."
Also, I'd like to add that textual evidence has been cited establishing that Harry knew nothing about Skinwalkers until after Kirby was killed by one, so even if Harry had given Will an exhaustive list of every supernatural creature he knew of, it still wouldn't have told Will anything about Skinwalkers.

Quote
Yes, but Billy was quite explicitly coming from a place of ignorance. For all he knew, these things were as common as faeries, and with similar weaknesses.
Quote
And I responded by saying that Will was speaking from a place of ignorance, and admitted that. Therefore, he could not know whether the information Harry might have given him would have made a difference.

Quote
3b)Read that line back to yourself and say.  "That is a failure of planning being unable to see the future on Harry's part."

Fixed it for you. Seriously, how was Harry supposed to plan for something that he didn't have any reason to know might happen? And how should he have planned for it? Please provide a step-by-step plan for how to deal with nearly having your mind destroyed by looking at an ancient evil with the Sight, keeping in mind that he had no way of anticipating said ancient evil, no practical experience with having the Sight cause such a reaction, and no meaningful ability to function from the moment he Saw it until at least a couple of hours after being locked in a dark room with no stimuli.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 04, 2019, 07:48:15 PM
@Morris: I always took the last sentence of that quote to be about the political situation more than the "how dangerous some entities are" side of it. I also think Billy knows more than Dresden thinks Billy knows, or at least he did in the earlier books.

And how should he have planned for it?

Use a scale for threat level. I know people always make fun of things like the terror alert level colors or the DragonBallZ thing where they have the power reader "it's over 9,000!" stuff, but a shorthand for how bad is the monster/how bad is the situation is probably a really good idea.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 07:54:52 PM
Also, to come back to my objection to this:

Quote
Harry is a lightning rod and he owes it to everyone around him to explain the danger of standing near him in lightning storms.

I've figured out why I object to it. My problem is two-fold:
1) First, that it claims that Harry is the reason for all the nasty stuff happening around him. Whether Harry were around or not, the problems of Storm Front, Fool Moon, Summer Knight, Death Masks, part of Blood Rites, Dead Beat (probably), possibly Proven Guilty (depending on what people's motivations were--we just don't know yet), Turn Coat (although it wouldn't have happened in Chicago), and possibly Cold Days, would still have happened. And most of them would have happened in the same place. So how is Harry considered responsible for bringing down all that trouble onto people?
2)"Everyone around him" is too broad a category. Harry does not owe it to the entire city of Chicago to tell them about the supernatural world. You could as easily claim that Harry owes it to everyone around him to go live as a hermit and never get close to anyone, because trouble might find him and hurt those around him. It's just unreasonable.

If you'd said, "Harry owes it to those he involves in his fights/cases to explain the dangers," I would agree with you.

Quote
@Morris: I always took the last sentence of that quote to be about the political situation more than the "how dangerous some entities are" side of it. I also think Billy knows more than Dresden thinks Billy knows, or at least he did in the earlier books.

I tend to agree with this.

Quote
Use a scale for threat level. I know people always make fun of things like the terror alert level colors or the DragonBallZ thing where they have the power reader "it's over 9,000!" stuff, but a shorthand for how bad is the monster/how bad is the situation is probably a really good idea.

This would probably work, except that I tend to think that Harry was too catatonic to be expected to remember it in order to tell Will at the time. Other people may interpret his level of non-functionality differently, however.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 08:11:01 PM
Quote
2. Harry caused Kirby's death in Turn Coat. But for Harry going to Billy's, Kirby wouldn't have been involved. Harry being the "but-for" cause does not make him responsible, either legally or morally. Legally, being the cause in fact if necessary but not sufficient for culpability. I'd say it is the same for morally, but morality is infinitely debatable. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not Kirby died because Harry withheld information from Billy. I agree with the arguments that he did not and don't think I've seen an argument other than "Billy said so" on the other side.

Which he clearly didn't say if one cares to read the text.. Billy is emphatic that it wasn't Harry's fault.

Quote
    “Billy,” I said quietly. “This isn’t stuff you can unlearn. Right now, you’re insulated from the worst of what goes on because you’re . . . I don’t want to be insulting, but you’re a bunch of amateurs without enough of a clue to be a real threat to anyone.”
    His eyes darkened. “Insulated from the worst?” he asked in a quiet, dangerous voice. “Tell that to Kirby. Tell that to Andi.”

Obviously if he has been shielding then from the worst they can't of had any idea that something like the Skinwalker was a possibility.  And if that isn't clear then there is this.
Quote

  Because as I have written from when it happened, Will was not blaming Harry...  Harry hadn't been trying to shield them from anything because he didn't know what in the hell he had just seen except it was very bad and dangerous...


The quote you cite is on page 220,  Harry now knows what they are after and it is on the island.  Will is willing to help, but he no longer wants to be shielded from the danger by Harry..   He wasn't assessing blame for Kirby's death to Harry, he was saying that they are not kids anymore, and earned the right to be fully filled in about what is going down..

Harry then says..
Quote
I pointed a finger at him.  "I don't want it.  I don't wantto drag you into what's going on/  I don't want you walking into more danger and getting hurt."  I sighed.  "But. . .there is a lot at stake, and I think I may need your help."

Will agrees, and Harry realizes they are not kids anymore, and promises to clue them in as much as he can from now on...
Quote
1) First, that it claims that Harry is the reason for all the nasty stuff happening around him. Whether Harry were around or not, the problems of Storm Front, Fool Moon, Summer Knight, Death Masks, part of Blood Rites, Dead Beat (probably), possibly Proven Guilty (depending on what people's motivations were--we just don't know yet), Turn Coat (although it wouldn't have happened in Chicago), and possibly Cold Days, would still have happened. And most of them would have happened in the same place. So how is Harry considered responsible for bringing down all that trouble onto people?

Because he is the lightning rod, and because for the most part he is the one who cares enough to want to do something about it... What is more has the talent to do something about it...  He is living the argument his mother used to make to the Senior Council, that wizards cannot lock themselves away in some ivory tower while the world falls down around them..  Other people naturally want to join his causes, they are very dangerous causes, and people get hurt and sometimes even killed.
Quote
2)"Everyone around him" is too broad a category. Harry does not owe it to the entire city of Chicago to tell them about the supernatural world. You could as easily claim that Harry owes it to everyone around him to go live as a hermit and never get close to anyone, because trouble might find him and hurt those around him. It's just unreasonable.
It is, but like he learned from Will, if someone is willing to put his or her life on the line, they deserve the complete skinny on as to why...
Quote
This would probably work, except that I tend to think that Harry was too catatonic to be expected to remember it in order to tell Will at the time. Other people may interpret his level of non-functionality differently, however.

The way I read the text and the aftermath of Kirby's death, Harry wasn't sure what he saw, he had never seen a skinwalker before that moment..  It wasn't until the fight was over that he realized what they were up against.. 
Page 33
Quote
"What was that thing?"
"I'm not certain,"  I answered, breathing hard.  Georgia was coming along behind us dragging my staff in her jaws. "But if it is what I think it is, things just got a lot worse."
Billy looked up at me, Kirby's blood all over his face and hands.  "What is it Harry?"
"A Native American nightmare," I said.  I looked at him gravely, "A skinwalker."
Quote
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Wolfeyes on June 04, 2019, 08:17:11 PM
I think a big differentiator in whether a) Harry just feels guilty b) Harry is culpable for someone getting hurt and/or killed through withholding information comes through in the narrative choices.

Whenever Harry makes a mistake like being in denial about his feelings towards Murphy, or being too afraid to bond with Maggie, or even just in how much guilt he feels about something, Butcher's usually good at throwing someone reliable at Harry to challenge him on those points-of-view. Murphy in Cold Days, Michael in Skin Game, and even Uriel in The Warrior short story, for example.

In the case of Kirby, the narrative doesn't challenge Billy's response to Kirby's death (contrasted to how the narrative challenged Butter in Skin Game). Billy is the one challenging Harry and is framed in justified in expecting Harry to share more information. Harry might not be the cause but there's culpability, otherwise Harry would have no reason to change how he does things.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 04, 2019, 08:40:14 PM
To me, the issue is not that Harry is in any way culpable in Kirby's death, but that, by refusing to share information, Harry allowed the possibility that other Alphas would get killed due to the lack of information. It's a hypothetical concern that was only really brought home to Will and Harry when Kirby died. For example, if the Alpha's had gotten into a fight with a Denarian and one of them had died, there's a good chance Harry would have had some culpability, because he had a bunch of information about Denarians that might have helped, but up until this point he hasn't shared it. This isn't true with the Skinwalker, of course, but it makes the possibilities clear.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 04, 2019, 08:44:13 PM
The point is Susan should have known about the supernatural at all. This is all started when Harry advertise himself as a wizard in the yellow pages. He open the Pandora's box right there. There is a reason why the white council looks poorly about Harry in this matter. It may look innocent at the start, but Harry's advertisement draws amateurs into the the game of supernaturals. 

No, it started when Susan went to work for The Arcane, well before she met Harry.  Harry attests they "once in a while" they documented genuine supernatural events; he cites a 1994 event in SF (published 2000, so written 1998ish(?)), before she and Harry met.

As Harry attests repeatedly, most of the reason Dresdenverse mundanes don't believe in the supernatural is because they don't want to.  She was following what SI did, what any "psychic consultant" for the cops did.  She was both clever and curious, and -- critically -- willing to believe.

Susan seems to have tricked Harry into a soulgaze, confirming (a) that magic is real, & (b) that Harry had magic.
 Susan was a reporter, and a good one; after that soulgaze, nothing would have shaken her loose from Harry.
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 04, 2019, 08:46:14 PM
You could as easily claim that Harry owes it to everyone around him to go live as a hermit and never get close to anyone, because trouble might find him and hurt those around him.

That is what Ebeneezer does.

Wolfeyes raises a good point arguing that Jim wants us to believe it is Harry's fault, not just in this case, but in all of them, that harm has come because he didn't share information. I don't believe he is ever told it's not his fault. He does repeatedly bring up the point that people have been hurt by him not informing them. He is often called out for blaming himself in general.

To me, the issue is not that Harry is in any way culpable in Kirby's death, but that, by refusing to share information, Harry allowed the possibility that other Alphas would get killed due to the lack of information. It's a hypothetical concern that was only really brought home to Will and Harry when Kirby died. For example, if the Alpha's had gotten into a fight with a Denarian and one of them had died, there's a good chance Harry would have had some culpability, because he had a bunch of information about Denarians that might have helped, but up until this point he hasn't shared it. This isn't true with the Skinwalker, of course, but it makes the possibilities clear.

Agree.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 04, 2019, 08:52:31 PM
To me, the issue is not that Harry is in any way culpable in Kirby's death, but that, by refusing to share information, Harry allowed the possibility that other Alphas would get killed due to the lack of information. It's a hypothetical concern that was only really brought home to Will and Harry when Kirby died. For example, if the Alpha's had gotten into a fight with a Denarian and one of them had died, there's a good chance Harry would have had some culpability, because he had a bunch of information about Denarians that might have helped, but up until this point he hasn't shared it. This isn't true with the Skinwalker, of course, but it makes the possibilities clear.

He could have said something.  But only something vague.

And he did.  "This is bad.  Really bad."

As one might expect, this did not suffice.  Most people don't want to believe in their own mortality; most young people don't seem able to.  And the Alpha's?  Supernaturally tough, dangerous?  What did THEY have to be afraid of?  One scared wizard's vague warnings.

Even if Harry had said to them, "There are things in the supernatural realm that can tear a werewolf apart... tear a PACK of werewolves apart.  And one of them is here in town, right now, hunting the neighborhood," I don't think ti would have disuaded them.
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 08:54:20 PM
Quote
To me, the issue is not that Harry is in any way culpable in Kirby's death, but that, by refusing to share information, Harry allowed the possibility that other Alphas would get killed due to the lack of information. It's a hypothetical concern that was only really brought home to Will and Harry when Kirby died. For example, if the Alpha's had gotten into a fight with a Denarian and one of them had died, there's a good chance Harry would have had some culpability, because he had a bunch of information about Denarians that might have helped, but up until this point he hasn't shared it. This isn't true with the Skinwalker, of course, but it makes the possibilities clear.

In the fight that killed Kirby,  Harry did not know until after the fact what they were up against.. He gave them the information he had, it was bad and dangerous, that is all he knew..  What Will was saying on page 220 almost two hundred pages later is the fact that Kirby was willing to and did die to help Harry earned them the right to know fully what the stakes were before going in, they weren't kids anymore to be shielded...
Quote
Wolfeyes raises a good point arguing that Jim wants us to believe it is Harry's fault, not just in this case, but in all of them, that harm has come because he didn't share information. I don't believe he is ever told it's not his fault. He does repeatedly bring up the point that people have been hurt by him not informing them. He is often called out for blaming himself in general.

Will clearly tells him it isn't his fault...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 08:57:28 PM
Quote
He could have said something.  But only something vague.

And he did.  "This is bad.  Really bad."

But that was all the information Harry had in that moment...  And he did share it..
Quote
Even if Harry had said to them, "There are things in the supernatural realm that can tear a werewolf apart... tear a PACK of werewolves apart.  And one of them is here in town, right now, hunting the neighborhood," I don't think ti would have disuaded them.
 

Agreed, and that is what Will was trying to tell Harry afterwards, they knew the score, they are adults they made their choice...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 09:36:45 PM
Quote
In the case of Kirby, the narrative doesn't challenge Billy's response to Kirby's death (contrasted to how the narrative challenged Butter in Skin Game). Billy is the one challenging Harry and is framed in justified in expecting Harry to share more information. Harry might not be the cause but there's culpability, otherwise Harry would have no reason to change how he does things.

Not true...  What Will was saying was with Kirby's death they have proven that they are willing to pay the ultimate price, they are not kids that need to be protected..  That isn't assigning culpability for Kirby's death,  it is demanding respect as team members..  Harry realizes that, he knows he needs them in the coming fight, he realizes they are adults now, capable of making choices.  All he can do now is give them what information he can so they can make the choices right for them.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 04, 2019, 09:58:23 PM
  I've figured out why I object to it. My problem is two-fold:
1) First, that it claims that Harry is the reason for all the nasty stuff happening around him. Whether Harry were around or not, the problems of Storm Front, Fool Moon, Summer Knight, Death Masks, part of Blood Rites, Dead Beat (probably), possibly Proven Guilty (depending on what people's motivations were--we just don't know yet), Turn Coat (although it wouldn't have happened in Chicago), and possibly Cold Days, would still have happened. And most of them would have happened in the same place. So how is Harry considered responsible for bringing down all that trouble onto people?
You seem to have packed a lot of stuff in there; some of it unpacks, but lots of it overlaps...

Choice and free will... yeah, Harry takes more blame onto himself than he should, than is reasonable, than is true.  Hero complex, bigtime.  Guilt, etc.  He's big into "if only... " and "what if I..." and torments himself will all that.  Given that Harry is the narrator, it's easy to mistake his POV for "what we are supposed to think," but we are just seeing what Harry thinks about things, and we need to remember that's all we see.

That said...  Harry kinda-sorta IS a lightning rod.  It's not his fault that he is, but he is.

Harry realizes that there HAS to be some sort of "Black Council" because of Just How Much Shit comes to Chicago.  It gets black magic of various stripes, werewolves, Kemmlerites -- Kemmlerites, fer gawdsake, haven't been reliably seen for DECADES, and suddenly they hold their Homecoming Dance in Chi-Town??!? -- warring Faerie Queens (repeatedly), Denarians (30 of them for the whole world and they keep coming (usually in multiples) to Chicago?!), etc etc etc.  All the way back to penny-ante Sells, a marginal talent who gets MULTIPLE magics that Harry (full WC Wizard) doesn't know how to do.  "srsly, dude, wtf?"

Not being entirely stupid, Harry has concluded that something else is sending and/or luring All This Shit to his city.  Too much of it smacks of mortal magic... hence wizards... hence a Black Council.

Is that his fault?  Is any of that Harry's fault?  No, it isn't.

BUT, he's the most-visible, most-obvious Supernatural in town.  It... kinda makes sense that every Darth Bathrobe who visits has just gotta go poke him with a stick.  Just, y'know... to see.  And that makes him a "lightning rod."
 
And then we get to the whole "Starborn" business.  The books don't give us much data, beyond it being potent vs Outsiders; don't recall how much more WoJ gives.  But there's (a) possible  Fate / Destiny / Chosen One  stuff going on, and (b) possible Supernatural Attention (and maybe more) toward any Starborn.  Again -- Not Harry's Fault.  But it may still be a true thing about Harry.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 04, 2019, 10:11:01 PM
@Morris: I always took the last sentence of that quote to be about the political situation more than the "how dangerous some entities are" side of it. I also think Billy knows more than Dresden thinks Billy knows, or at least he did in the earlier books.
Your right in part. But it doesn't really matter.  The Senior Council could wipe the floor with the Alphas and not break a sweat. They are as much as an existential threat as the skinwalker.  But by this point Jim has made his point about how Harry treats his allies. 

What bemuses me is that everyone seems to want Harry to be guilty of a crime if he bears the responsibility.  And it doesn't work that way.  Harry's made a choice to live the way he does and he assumes the responsibility and his moral ground.  He quotes Stan Lee often enough.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 04, 2019, 10:27:25 PM
Quote
What bemuses me is that everyone seems to want Harry to be guilty of a crime if he bears the responsibility.  And it doesn't work that way.  Harry's made a choice to live the way he does and he assumes the responsibility and his moral ground.  He quotes Stan Lee often enough.

I don't disagree except I think Harry takes responsibility as opposed to bares responsibility..  The first is Harry feels responsible for a lot of things even when he isn't... He may take responsibility for Kirby's death, but it really wasn't his fault... As opposed to baring responsibility for reversing the curse that wiped out the Red Court..  But then again neither is all that simple...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 05, 2019, 03:10:27 AM
1. Susan was deeply enough involved in the supernatural to trick Harry into a soulgaze. Only after that did she focus on Harry as her best avenue into the supernatural world. She would have found another way as is shown by Valmont in Skin Game talking about how easy it was. If Harry didn't advertise, but did consult, she would have found him anyway. If he didn't consult with the police, she would have likely doggedly pursued a supernatural entity that wasn't as keen as Harry was on getting attention. It's actually good for Harry because it helps his business. Almost any other entity would have killed/eaten her for the attention.

2. Harry caused Kirby's death in Turn Coat. But for Harry going to Billy's, Kirby wouldn't have been involved. Harry being the "but-for" cause does not make him responsible, either legally or morally. Legally, being the cause in fact if necessary but not sufficient for culpability. I'd say it is the same for morally, but morality is infinitely debatable. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not Kirby died because Harry withheld information from Billy. I agree with the arguments that he did not and don't think I've seen an argument other than "Billy said so" on the other side.

Many people is involve in the supernatural world, at least pheriferally. Most members of SI for example. Most of them isn't dead. The only one confirm to died after involving himself too deeply in the supernatural world by himself is Jack Murphy. Heck, most of SI does not even get hurt that much.

Most people who get into the supernatural world via Harry however, is either dead or suffer considerable losses. That should say something.

Susan could possibly involve herself in the supernatural by herself. But without Harry's help, she is unlikely to enter into the deep end of the pool. Even if she eventually gets there, it wouldn't be that fast and if she did manage to end up in the deep end of the pool by her own skill and wit , she'll be a different person than her version in book 3. I doubt even book 3 Murphy could survive the vampire bawl. The only reason she manage to survive until now, it is  because Murphy enter into the pool step by step and under guidance.

For vanilla mortals and lower end practicianers, Harry is a big league player. Anyone who gets involve with him is playing in the deep end of the pool.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 05, 2019, 03:29:41 AM
Quote
BUT, he's the most-visible, most-obvious Supernatural in town.  It... kinda makes sense that every Darth Bathrobe who visits has just gotta go poke him with a stick.  Just, y'know... to see.  And that makes him a "lightning rod."

Actually, most of the situations he's involved in, he involved himself rather than getting "poked with a stick." And a lot of what happened also happened due to the location or due to Marcone (so if Harry was in a different city, it wouldn't be happening around him). So once again, I don't see how he's a "lightning rod." If anything, he's more of a storm chaser.

Quote
Many people is involve in the supernatural world, at least pheriferally. Most members of SI for example. Most of them isn't dead. The only one confirm to died after involving himself too deeply in the supernatural world by himself is Jack Murphy. Heck, most of SI does not even get hurt that much.

Most people who get into the supernatural world via Harry however, is either dead or suffer considerable losses. That should say something.

Actually, most of the vanilla mortals we see involved in the supernatural world are in situations like being eaten by vampires, having made bad deals with faeries, getting killed by denarians, getting killed by vampires, or getting killed by necromancers, getting killed by faeries.

By those standards, Harry's friends are doing quite well.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 05, 2019, 03:41:12 AM
Will clearly tells him it isn't his fault...

Does he? His statement is equivocal as to whose at fault. It's definitely not someone checking Harry like Michael does in Skin Game or Murphy does in White Night. I think it's a good point. I don't agree with the conclusion, but I respect it.

It... kinda makes sense that every Darth Bathrobe who visits has just gotta go poke him with a stick.

I was thinking he usually pokes them with a stick first. Then I was reviewing, and he does the initial poking three to five times. Depends on how you count instances of good guys roping Harry into something without telling him everything that's actually going on.

What bemuses me is that everyone seems to want Harry to be guilty of a crime if he bears the responsibility.  ...  He quotes Stan Lee often enough.

I think that turns on a different understanding of the word "responsibility." For example, I take the Stan Lee quote to mean that Harry has a responsibility to act, but he isn't responsible for unforeseeable consequences of his actions. I look at responsibility closer to the culpability end of the spectrum than the cause-in-fact end of the spectrum.

Most of them isn't dead.

You sure about that? How many died in Fool Moon?

Most people who get into the supernatural world via Harry however, is either dead or suffer considerable losses.

1. Most people who get involved in the supernatural world via Harry do so because they are desperate. 2. Susan didn't get involved in the supernatural world via Harry, and honestly, neither did anyone else in the books that I can think of. They're all involved and that's how they meet Harry.

Susan could possibly involve herself in the supernatural by herself. But without Harry's help, she is unlikely to enter into the deep end of the pool. Even if she eventually gets there, it wouldn't be that fast and if she did manage to end up in the deep end of the pool by her own skill and wit , she'll be a different person than her version in book 3.

I disagree for reasons previously stated.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 05, 2019, 03:55:22 AM
Actually, most of the situations he's involved in, he involved himself rather than getting "poked with a stick." And a lot of what happened also happened due to the location or due to Marcone (so if Harry was in a different city, it wouldn't be happening around him). So once again, I don't see how he's a "lightning rod." If anything, he's more of a storm chaser.

Actually, most of the vanilla mortals we see involved in the supernatural world are in situations like being eaten by vampires, having made bad deals with faeries, getting killed by denarians, getting killed by vampires, or getting killed by necromancers, getting killed by faeries.

By those standards, Harry's friends are doing quite well.

With the exception of those people who make deals with the fae, the rest you mention are not people who get involve with the supernatural world. They are downright victims. The supernatural get involve with them, not the other way around. Normal vanilla mortals are not very likely to bump into vampires on a daily basis, and even those who pokes around searching won't find the supernatural so easily. To suspect, to heard something, to realize the existence of the supernatural is not that difficult. To truly has an encounter with one however is not that simple, especially the high level powerhouse like a vampire Baron.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 05, 2019, 04:03:22 AM
Quote
With the exception of those people who make deals with the fae, the rest you mention are not people who get involve with the supernatural world. They are downright victims. The supernatural get involve with them, not the other way around. Normal vanilla mortals are not very likely to bump into vampires on a daily basis, and even those who pokes around searching won't find the supernatural so easily. To suspect, to heard something, to realize the existence of the supernatural is not that difficult. To truly has an encounter with one however is not that simple, especially the high level powerhouse like a vampire Baron.

You're wrong.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 05, 2019, 04:22:39 AM
You're wrong.

I don't think so. Book 1 for example. Even if Murphy know that Bianca is a vampire, she can tore the mask open. Bianca also does not go around sucking Murphy's blood just because Murphy is annoying her. Unless someone truly touch her bottom line, the likes of Bianca will play via mortal means. Using money and political pressure to handle matters.

So even one have contact with a supernatural like Bianca, it is not that easy to actually enter the game. This is especially true during the early part of the series. The supernatural world is still peaceful at the time, and even the war with the red court is unlikely to start so early if not for Harry triggering it. Under such a peaceful times, the supernaturals tends to hide more. Later part of the series, especially after the red court is wiped and the appearance of the fomor resulted in the loosening  of the veil of secrecy, but that is far from book 3. If Susan could survive until book 12 on her own, she'll would become a different person.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 05, 2019, 04:31:05 AM
Quote
Does he? His statement is equivocal as to whose at fault. It's definitely not someone checking Harry like Michael does in Skin Game or Murphy does in White Night. I think it's a good point. I don't agree with the conclusion, but I respect it.

Really?  page 35 Turn Coat...
Quote
"Kirby was an adult, Dresden," Billy said. "He knew what could happen. He chose to be here."
There is nothing equivocal about that statement..  Kirby chose to put himself in harm's way.. He was an adult making adult choices..  He had chosen to be part of the pack as a werewolf long before he met Harry..   
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 05, 2019, 04:46:29 AM
Quote
So even one have contact with a supernatural like Bianca, it is not that easy to actually enter the game. This is especially true during the early part of the series. The supernatural world is still peaceful at the time, and even the war with the red court is unlikely to start so early if not for Harry triggering it. Under such a peaceful times, the supernaturals tends to hide more. Later part of the series, especially after the red court is wiped and the appearance of the fomor resulted in the loosening  of the veil of secrecy, but that is far from book 3. If Susan could survive until book 12 on her own, she'll would become a different person.

Victor Sells, self taught sorcerer making Three Eye to sell to addicts and stupid kids.. Did Harry trigger that?   Or the remote ripping out of hearts...Did Harry trigger that?  Or how secret was either one of those acts?  Or Bianca sucking the life out of her vanilla secretary because Harry brought her the news about what happened to her friend... Or the F.B.I. wearing the Hexenbelts ripping apart some people that didn't deserve it... Or the kids that Bianca groomed to either be turned or food at the party that night?  Some may have burned up because Harry let loose, but the reason they were at that party wasn't because the Red Court was just minding it's own business peacefully.. 

Susan may have become a different person by book 12, for one thing she had already paid a very heavy price for her own stupidity, that tends to change a person..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 05, 2019, 04:58:06 AM
Quote
I don't think so. Book 1 for example. Even if Murphy know that Bianca is a vampire, she can tore the mask open. Bianca also does not go around sucking Murphy's blood just because Murphy is annoying her. Unless someone truly touch her bottom line, the likes of Bianca will play via mortal means. Using money and political pressure to handle matters.

That is because Murphy is a police officer. It is explicitly stated that the supernatural world goes out of its way to avoid involving mortal authorities.

Quote
So even one have contact with a supernatural like Bianca, it is not that easy to actually enter the game. This is especially true during the early part of the series. The supernatural world is still peaceful at the time, and even the war with the red court is unlikely to start so early if not for Harry triggering it. Under such a peaceful times, the supernaturals tends to hide more. Later part of the series, especially after the red court is wiped and the appearance of the fomor resulted in the loosening  of the veil of secrecy, but that is far from book 3. If Susan could survive until book 12 on her own, she'll would become a different person.

I agree with Mira's response here. I'd also like to add that I flat-out don't believe that if someone goes looking for vampires and gets reasonably close to them, that a vampire isn't going to eat them. Vampires, after all, need to eat, so there's no reason not to multitask and get rid of threats to the masquerade while doing so. I'd also like to note that the Churchmice involved themselves with the supernatural via stealing a magic artifact (and according to Skin Game, they were originally hired by Nicodemus) and got killed by Denarians (mostly) for their trouble. Also, you're forgetting all the minor practitioners, many or most of whom were almost certainly vanilla mortals before they went looking for the supernatural and learned a few tricks--and then got targeted by vampires as a result. Face it, the Alpha's before Harry gave them a full explanation of the supernatural world were way better off than the Ordo Lebes before Harry got involved with them.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 05, 2019, 07:26:19 AM
That is because Murphy is a police officer. It is explicitly stated that the supernatural world goes out of its way to avoid involving mortal authorities.

I agree with Mira's response here. I'd also like to add that I flat-out don't believe that if someone goes looking for vampires and gets reasonably close to them, that a vampire isn't going to eat them. Vampires, after all, need to eat, so there's no reason not to multitask and get rid of threats to the masquerade while doing so. I'd also like to note that the Churchmice involved themselves with the supernatural via stealing a magic artifact (and according to Skin Game, they were originally hired by Nicodemus) and got killed by Denarians (mostly) for their trouble. Also, you're forgetting all the minor practitioners, many or most of whom were almost certainly vanilla mortals before they went looking for the supernatural and learned a few tricks--and then got targeted by vampires as a result. Face it, the Alpha's before Harry gave them a full explanation of the supernatural world were way better off than the Ordo Lebes before Harry got involved with them.

The average people won't get involve much, unless the supernatural is plotting something like what the white court did in book 9 or what the fomorians did after book 12. In such case, nobody is safe.

Susan for example. She is a reporter. She is looking for a scoop. The only she could keep getting into othentic supernatural news is if someone direct her into it. Without someone like Harry, she can only snoop around randomly. The likelihood she'll actually get into deep water is if she truly has rotten luck. Gotten strike by lighting on a clear day kind of rotten luck. It is possible, but unlikely.

Part of the reason why Bianca targeted her is because she is Harry's girlfriend as well. So without that layer of relationship she wouldn't get into the bawl, nor would she get the special attention andenmity from the likes of Bianca. The average vampire will only see her as just another bag of blood and there is plenty of blood bag out there. The poor, the homeless, the desperate. why should they target her?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 05, 2019, 10:47:26 AM
Quote

Susan for example. She is a reporter. She is looking for a scoop. The only she could keep getting into othentic supernatural news is if someone direct her into it. Without someone like Harry, she can only snoop around randomly. The likelihood she'll actually get into deep water is if she truly has rotten luck. Gotten strike by lighting on a clear day kind of rotten luck. It is possible, but unlikely.
po
She was working for a supernatural rag... She was a smart driven young woman, she never snooped randomly... Reporters, good ones, don't do that... She wanted to make a big enough splash so that she could move up to a bigger paper.  That is what motivated her to steal that invitation... 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Kindler on June 05, 2019, 03:54:06 PM
My things with Kirby are that
1. when the Alphas actually engaged the Skinwalker immediately after Kirby got his throat ripped out and Andi was beaten, they successfully drove it off. They didn't beat it, or hurt it, but they put it at a temporary disadvantage long enough for it to not see enough profit in continuing the engagement. So I don't think the Alphas were defenseless. Kirby just picked up the Idiot Ball. It was like he was the character in a ghost story going to investigate the strange noise in the attic by climbing up the stairs backwards with a flashlight that keeps turning off.
2. Kirby was standing watch on the other side of the parking lot, dozens of yards away from any help. He was standing under a streetlight, as a human rather than a wolf, holding a brightly lit cellphone in his hand. He wasn't ready for a surprise attack, even though the guy was supposed to be standing watch. Dresden recognizes the danger Kirby's in, and runs out to call him back when the Skinwalker gets him.
3. If Harry Flippin' Dresden, Big Bad Brother Harry, as Butters calls him—the guy who the Alphas saw take down an entire group of Fae cavalry with one spell, a guy they've personally witnessed take on a pack of Hexenwulves AND a loup-garou, a guy with a reputation for being tough, competent, and extremely powerful (relative to them)—if THAT guy came to me, desperately calculating prime numbers to maintain his grip on his sanity, white as a sheet, telling me that he needed a dark, quiet place for an hour and a half before he was stable enough to function, and that whatever was after him was "really bad," my first response wouldn't be "Let's post two guards several dozen yards away from any kind of protection." It would be "Everyone come into my apartment; we're going to keep watch through the windows and guard ourselves behind a threshold, because something terrifying and powerful enough to send the most badass person we've ever met into gibbering madness is coming, and it's pretty obvious we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves without engaging it."

I mean, shouldn't Billy or Georgia have been smart enough to think, "Hey, maybe this thing could reduce us to insanity too?" And shouldn't Kirby have thought, "Hey, I not only have better senses as a wolf, but I'm faster, stronger, and harder to kill, so I should probably stay as a wolf while I know something dangerous is around?"

Yes, Harry led the skinwalker to the area. But a couple of things about that. 1. Harry didn't have much of a choice. There was, quite literally, nowhere else to go. He couldn't have made it back to his apartment where a threshold would have protected him in the state he was in. He couldn't hide in a crowd of people, because there would be too much noise or light for him to do what he had to. Billy's place was the only one that would be both safe and quiet enough for him to recover. And 2. They don't take Harry's warning seriously enough. Applying even an ounce of genre savviness would have been enough for the Alphas to have escaped without permanent injury.

Maybe you can argue that Harry should have given Billy the rundown on the greater supernatural world, but I don't think it would've done them any good. They already knew there were things like the Loup Garou out there that they couldn't handle. They knew that there were WolfWeres like Tera West that were old and powerful enough to train humans to turn into wolves, so they had to know that the supernatural was bigger, weirder, and more dangerous than they thought. And when you have the guy who sets the bar for humanity's stand against the Spooky Things in the Night come to you and tell you that something really bad is coming, you take all the steps you can to make sure that you and yours stay alive.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 05, 2019, 06:04:53 PM
Quote
3. If Harry Flippin' Dresden, Big Bad Brother Harry, as Butters calls him—the guy who the Alphas saw take down an entire group of Fae cavalry with one spell, a guy they've personally witnessed take on a pack of Hexenwulves AND a loup-garou, a guy with a reputation for being tough, competent, and extremely powerful (relative to them)—if THAT guy came to me, desperately calculating prime numbers to maintain his grip on his sanity, white as a sheet, telling me that he needed a dark, quiet place for an hour and a half before he was stable enough to function, and that whatever was after him was "really bad," my first response wouldn't be "Let's post two guards several dozen yards away from any kind of protection." It would be "Everyone come into my apartment; we're going to keep watch through the windows and guard ourselves behind a threshold, because something terrifying and powerful enough to send the most badass person we've ever met into gibbering madness is coming, and it's pretty obvious we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves without engaging it.""
At what point do you think the Alphas could have done anything, had the Skin Walker wanted all of them dead?  In a bunch or one by one, it would have made zero difference.

Later in the book the skin walker will attack at the Raith Mansion.  There are 3 or 4 White Court vampires at home, not to mention a passel of merc's.  The house is booby trapped and two powerful Wardens are on the ground and aware of what might be chasing them.  The Skin Walker goes through the place like s**t through a goose and leaves a trail of dead and injured and only leaves because he made his point.  Kirby was a snippet of Morse code, a message.  A corpse used to send a message to Harry.

Bad Alias wrote this response and I was tired so my response was poor.
Quote
@Morris: I always took the last sentence of that quote to be about the political situation more than the "how dangerous some entities are" side of it. I also think Billy knows more than Dresden thinks Billy knows, or at least he did in the earlier books.
The whole point of the attack was about Council politics and  Peabody's attempt to cover his mistakes to maintain his position as a mole in the White Council.  Things that Dresden had withheld from his Mushrooms(the Alphas).  They knew almost nothing of the Council or the fact that that there was an overarching plot in the works to destroy the Council by a traitor.  Which is, if I may say, several orders of magnitude above any threat the Alphas had been exposed to by that point.

In the case of Susan and Kim Harry either makes too much or too little information available.  In Susan's case she is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, she over estimates her competence, Harry would have done better to involve her more and make her aware of the hazards and the mechanics of how the supernatural world works, like the privileges of guests for example.  In Kim's case if he wasn't going to help he should have never drawn the circle on the piece of paper, the same piece that triggers Murphy's attack.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 05, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
My things with Kirby are that
1. when the Alphas actually engaged the Skinwalker immediately after Kirby got his throat ripped out and Andi was beaten, they successfully drove it off. They didn't beat it, or hurt it, but they put it at a temporary disadvantage long enough for it to not see enough profit in continuing the engagement. So I don't think the Alphas were defenseless. Kirby just picked up the Idiot Ball. It was like he was the character in a ghost story going to investigate the strange noise in the attic by climbing up the stairs backwards with a flashlight that keeps turning off.
2. Kirby was standing watch on the other side of the parking lot, dozens of yards away from any help. He was standing under a streetlight, as a human rather than a wolf, holding a brightly lit cellphone in his hand. He wasn't ready for a surprise attack, even though the guy was supposed to be standing watch. Dresden recognizes the danger Kirby's in, and runs out to call him back when the Skinwalker gets him.
3. If Harry Flippin' Dresden, Big Bad Brother Harry, as Butters calls him—the guy who the Alphas saw take down an entire group of Fae cavalry with one spell, a guy they've personally witnessed take on a pack of Hexenwulves AND a loup-garou, a guy with a reputation for being tough, competent, and extremely powerful (relative to them)—if THAT guy came to me, desperately calculating prime numbers to maintain his grip on his sanity, white as a sheet, telling me that he needed a dark, quiet place for an hour and a half before he was stable enough to function, and that whatever was after him was "really bad," my first response wouldn't be "Let's post two guards several dozen yards away from any kind of protection." It would be "Everyone come into my apartment; we're going to keep watch through the windows and guard ourselves behind a threshold, because something terrifying and powerful enough to send the most badass person we've ever met into gibbering madness is coming, and it's pretty obvious we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves without engaging it."

I mean, shouldn't Billy or Georgia have been smart enough to think, "Hey, maybe this thing could reduce us to insanity too?" And shouldn't Kirby have thought, "Hey, I not only have better senses as a wolf, but I'm faster, stronger, and harder to kill, so I should probably stay as a wolf while I know something dangerous is around?"

Yes, Harry led the skinwalker to the area. But a couple of things about that. 1. Harry didn't have much of a choice. There was, quite literally, nowhere else to go. He couldn't have made it back to his apartment where a threshold would have protected him in the state he was in. He couldn't hide in a crowd of people, because there would be too much noise or light for him to do what he had to. Billy's place was the only one that would be both safe and quiet enough for him to recover. And 2. They don't take Harry's warning seriously enough. Applying even an ounce of genre savviness would have been enough for the Alphas to have escaped without permanent injury.

Maybe you can argue that Harry should have given Billy the rundown on the greater supernatural world, but I don't think it would've done them any good. They already knew there were things like the Loup Garou out there that they couldn't handle. They knew that there were WolfWeres like Tera West that were old and powerful enough to train humans to turn into wolves, so they had to know that the supernatural was bigger, weirder, and more dangerous than they thought. And when you have the guy who sets the bar for humanity's stand against the Spooky Things in the Night come to you and tell you that something really bad is coming, you take all the steps you can to make sure that you and yours stay alive.

Exactly to all of that... That is basically what Will told Harry as well, they knew the risks, they are adults they made their choice it wasn't his fault...  Later on page 220 is a bit different, Will mentions Kirby, but not because he is blaming Harry for his death, but because of his willing sacrifice and the fact that they are not kids any more,  Harry doesn't need to and shouldn't shield them or think he has to shield them from the ugliness out there..  They want to help and fight along side of him, so Harry shouldn't hide anything from them.  And Harry agreed..

Quote

In the case of Susan and Kim Harry either makes too much or too little information available.  In Susan's case she is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, she over estimates her competence, Harry would have done better to involve her more and make her aware of the hazards and the mechanics of how the supernatural world works, like the privileges of guests for example.  In Kim's case if he wasn't going to help he should have never drawn the circle on the piece of paper, the same piece that triggers Murphy's attack.

He did...  She was there when he took down the Loop, made hay with her newspaper over the scoop..  If that didn't tell her how dangerous things can get, what would..  But she wanted the scoop and the fame that gave her, plus part of her never bought into how fricking dangerous these beings can be... Her reaction when Harry tried to tell her was he was being over protective of her... Truth of the matter is she never listened to a word he said on the matter.

As far as Kim goes, she swore to him it was merely an academic exercise, and continues to swear that it is.  Why wouldn't he teach her the basics?  In physics class the instructor may draw out the basic plan as to how an A-Bomb works, even how to build one..  However I doubt the same instructor would do it if he or she knew you had enough weapons grade uranium back in your locker to make a bomb.. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: noblehunter on June 05, 2019, 07:35:19 PM
What Harry could have done with Susan--which after learning better, he does with Murphy--is recognize that she wasn't to going to listen to advice that amounted to leave the supernatural alone because it's too dangerous. Since she was never going to be sensible, he probably should have clued her enough that she understood that she needed to drastically change how she approached the  supernatural.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 05, 2019, 08:16:50 PM
What Harry could have done with Susan--which after learning better, he does with Murphy--is recognize that she wasn't to going to listen to advice that amounted to leave the supernatural alone because it's too dangerous. Since she was never going to be sensible, he probably should have clued her enough that she understood that she needed to drastically change how she approached the  supernatural.
Exactly.  Susan's case was too little info.  He should have fed her more.
Kim Delaney was the exact opposite.  Too much info. Without the diagram she couldn't have done Jack.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mr. Death on June 05, 2019, 08:41:09 PM
Telling someone that the supernatural is dangerous is not the same as telling them how it's dangerous.

Susan knew the supernatural was dangerous -- that's why she goes to the party with holy water and a gun. But she thought she could handle it because Harry didn't really detail how dangerous it would be, i.e., that if she was caught with a fake invitation she wouldn't just be kicked out, she'd be eaten or worse.

Exactly.  Susan's case was too little info.  He should have fed her more.
Kim Delaney was the exact opposite.  Too much info. Without the diagram she couldn't have done Jack.
I thought Kim already had the diagram when she came to Harry.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 05, 2019, 09:11:00 PM
Quote
Susan knew the supernatural was dangerous -- that's why she goes to the party with holy water and a gun. But she thought she could handle it because Harry didn't really detail how dangerous it would be, i.e., that if she was caught with a fake invitation she wouldn't just be kicked out, she'd be eaten or worse.

First of all he didn't know until he saw her at the party that she had stolen then forged, then crashed the party..  Harry very clearly warns her, "they are vampires, they eat people..."  He wasn't going to go because he felt it was too dangerous for him.  She was hot to trot about the scoop and she handled the Loop etc...  Yeah, she'd seen a few Dracula movies and perhaps read the book so she was prepared...  How much information beyond "they eat people" do you need?  Susan is a smart girl, she never asked, "what do you mean they eat people? How do they do that?"  No, she was too focused on the scoop, the exclusive...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 05, 2019, 09:31:12 PM
I thought Kim already had the diagram when she came to Harry.
I stand corrected.  Then instead it is too little.
Quote
I had done the right thing. Keeping that kind of information out of Kim’s hands had been the right decision. I had been protecting her from danger she didn’t, couldn’t, fully appreciate.
I had done the right thing—even if she had trusted me to provide answers for her, as I had in the past, when teaching her to contain and control her modest magical talents. Even if she had trusted me to show her the answers she needed, to be her guide through the darkness.
I’d done the right thing.
Dammit.
Where have we heard this before?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 05, 2019, 10:04:54 PM
I don't think so. Book 1 for example. Even if Murphy know that Bianca is a vampire, she can tore the mask open. Bianca also does not go around sucking Murphy's blood just because Murphy is annoying her. Unless someone truly touch her bottom line, the likes of Bianca will play via mortal means. Using money and political pressure to handle matters.

So even one have contact with a supernatural like Bianca, it is not that easy to actually enter the game. This is especially true during the early part of the series. The supernatural world is still peaceful at the time, and even the war with the red court is unlikely to start so early if not for Harry triggering it. Under such a peaceful times, the supernaturals tends to hide more. Later part of the series, especially after the red court is wiped and the appearance of the fomor resulted in the loosening  of the veil of secrecy, but that is far from book 3. If Susan could survive until book 12 on her own, she'll would become a different person.

Using Bianca as an example, Murphy questioning her about the death of a prostitute is nothing like Susan trying to expose Bianca as a vampire to the general public. The reason Bianca doesn't kill Murphy is because that sort of thing is likely lead to a mob burning the scary monster.

Really?  page 35 Turn Coat...There is nothing equivocal about that statement..  Kirby chose to put himself in harm's way.. He was an adult making adult choices..  He had chosen to be part of the pack as a werewolf long before he met Harry..   

Quote
Harry: I'm sorry.
Billy: [Shrugs. Portion you quoted].

This could be taken as "yeah it is your fault, but Kirby knew that you were going to get us killed eventually." I don't read it like that, but I don't read it as "it's not your fault, Harry" either. I don't know what's more equivocal than a shrug. To "raise (one's shoulders) slightly and momentarily to express doubt, ignorance, or indifference." I think the strongest readings are doubt as to if it's Harry's fault on one end and indifference on the other.

@Kindler: Hit the nail on the head, though Morris is right that one of the exposed Alphas was dead whether or not Kirby picked up the idiot ball and ran with it. I'm not entirely sure if staying behind a threshold would be of sufficient protection. If we go by the toad demon in Storm Front, the answer is definitely no.

The whole point of the attack was about Council politics and  Peabody's attempt to cover his mistakes to maintain his position as a mole in the White Council.  Things that Dresden had withheld from his Mushrooms(the Alphas).  They knew almost nothing of the Council or the fact that that there was an overarching plot in the works to destroy the Council by a traitor.  Which is, if I may say, several orders of magnitude above any threat the Alphas had been exposed to by that point.

In the case of Susan and Kim Harry either makes too much or too little information available.  In Susan's case she is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, she over estimates her competence, Harry would have done better to involve her more and make her aware of the hazards and the mechanics of how the supernatural world works, like the privileges of guests for example.  In Kim's case if he wasn't going to help he should have never drawn the circle on the piece of paper, the same piece that triggers Murphy's attack.

I don't see how informing the Alpha's about all that would have helped. Your point about Susan is good. Harry wasn't perfect, but he was right.

The way I see it is that these people, not the Alphas, acknowledge Harry as an expert who knows what he's talking about while they don't. They ask him questions and then ignore his answers. It infuriates me when people do this with me.

@Morris: I really think Kim is completely at fault. She had no idea what she was doing. Harry would have been completely irresponsible to tell her all about a greater summoning circle she wasn't prepared for, but was clearly planning on using. She could have unleashed some horrible elder thing on the third largest city in America. She could easily have told Harry what was going on. MacFinn could definitely afford his rates. If all the good guys had been straight with Harry in Fool Moon, Harry would have had the case wrapped up in 24 hours without much danger. Of course that would have made a terrible story.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mr. Death on June 05, 2019, 11:10:53 PM
First of all he didn't know until he saw her at the party that she had stolen then forged, then crashed the party..  Harry very clearly warns her, "they are vampires, they eat people..."  He wasn't going to go because he felt it was too dangerous for him.
Missing the point. It doesn't matter that Harry didn't know what she was going to do. Harry told her a pretty bare bones assessment "they are vampires, they eat people," which she didn't take seriously. He could have told her more that would have made her more wary about the situation.

Quote
She was hot to trot about the scoop and she handled the Loop etc...
She "handled" it by waiting in the van and then doing nothing but hold the camera while Harry killed it.

Quote
Yeah, she'd seen a few Dracula movies and perhaps read the book so she was prepared...  How much information beyond "they eat people" do you need?
Lots of things can eat people. I know bears eat people, but I still go hiking in the woods. There's a lot more to vampires than "they eat people," and honestly putting it like that just doesn't get across the real horror of them.

Quote
Susan is a smart girl, she never asked, "what do you mean they eat people? How do they do that?"  No, she was too focused on the scoop, the exclusive...
Right, and Harry -- who knows how intrepid a reporter she is -- does nothing to further inform her.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 06, 2019, 12:11:49 AM
Quote
Susan for example. She is a reporter. She is looking for a scoop. The only she could keep getting into othentic supernatural news is if someone direct her into it. Without someone like Harry, she can only snoop around randomly. The likelihood she'll actually get into deep water is if she truly has rotten luck. Gotten strike by lighting on a clear day kind of rotten luck. It is possible, but unlikely.

We have explicit canon evidence that it is easy to find out about the supernatural if you go looking for it. Anna Valmont says so in Skin Game.

Quote
The average vampire will only see her as just another bag of blood and there is plenty of blood bag out there. The poor, the homeless, the desperate. why should they target her?

Because she went looking for them. The vampires explicitly don't want the masquerade broken, and even if they didn't care about that, why would they turn down food that willingly delivers itself to them?

Quote
1. when the Alphas actually engaged the Skinwalker immediately after Kirby got his throat ripped out and Andi was beaten, they successfully drove it off. They didn't beat it, or hurt it, but they put it at a temporary disadvantage long enough for it to not see enough profit in continuing the engagement. So I don't think the Alphas were defenseless.

I'd always assumed, based on the fight at the Raith house, that the Skinwalker allowed itself to get chased off because it had done what it wanted to do there.

Quote
If Harry Flippin' Dresden, Big Bad Brother Harry, as Butters calls him—the guy who the Alphas saw take down an entire group of Fae cavalry with one spell, a guy they've personally witnessed take on a pack of Hexenwulves AND a loup-garou, a guy with a reputation for being tough, competent, and extremely powerful (relative to them)—if THAT guy came to me, desperately calculating prime numbers to maintain his grip on his sanity, white as a sheet, telling me that he needed a dark, quiet place for an hour and a half before he was stable enough to function, and that whatever was after him was "really bad," my first response wouldn't be "Let's post two guards several dozen yards away from any kind of protection." It would be "Everyone come into my apartment; we're going to keep watch through the windows and guard ourselves behind a threshold, because something terrifying and powerful enough to send the most badass person we've ever met into gibbering madness is coming, and it's pretty obvious we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves without engaging it."

I mean, shouldn't Billy or Georgia have been smart enough to think, "Hey, maybe this thing could reduce us to insanity too?" And shouldn't Kirby have thought, "Hey, I not only have better senses as a wolf, but I'm faster, stronger, and harder to kill, so I should probably stay as a wolf while I know something dangerous is around?"

Yes, Harry led the skinwalker to the area. But a couple of things about that. 1. Harry didn't have much of a choice. There was, quite literally, nowhere else to go. He couldn't have made it back to his apartment where a threshold would have protected him in the state he was in. He couldn't hide in a crowd of people, because there would be too much noise or light for him to do what he had to. Billy's place was the only one that would be both safe and quiet enough for him to recover. And 2. They don't take Harry's warning seriously enough. Applying even an ounce of genre savviness would have been enough for the Alphas to have escaped without permanent injury.

Maybe you can argue that Harry should have given Billy the rundown on the greater supernatural world, but I don't think it would've done them any good. They already knew there were things like the Loup Garou out there that they couldn't handle. They knew that there were WolfWeres like Tera West that were old and powerful enough to train humans to turn into wolves, so they had to know that the supernatural was bigger, weirder, and more dangerous than they thought. And when you have the guy who sets the bar for humanity's stand against the Spooky Things in the Night come to you and tell you that something really bad is coming, you take all the steps you can to make sure that you and yours stay alive.

This.

Quote
In Susan's case she is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, she over estimates her competence, Harry would have done better to involve her more and make her aware of the hazards and the mechanics of how the supernatural world works, like the privileges of guests for example.

Given that Susan was involved in the big werewolf fight at the end of Fool Moon, I feel like she had enough information to realize that, when Harry said the vampire party was too dangerous for him, it was also too dangerous for her. Also, if Harry had told her more about the supernatural world, she would have published it, and that would have been disastrous.

Quote
In Kim's case if he wasn't going to help he should have never drawn the circle on the piece of paper, the same piece that triggers Murphy's attack.

I thought that didn't draw it, but rather that  Kim brought the paper with the circle on it with her.

Quote
What Harry could have done with Susan--which after learning better, he does with Murphy--is recognize that she wasn't to going to listen to advice that amounted to leave the supernatural alone because it's too dangerous. Since she was never going to be sensible, he probably should have clued her enough that she understood that she needed to drastically change how she approached the  supernatural.

The problem here is that I'm 99% certain that there was nothing Harry could have done to stop Susan publishing the information if he had given it to her at that point, and that would have been disastrous.

Quote
But she thought she could handle it because Harry didn't really detail how dangerous it would be, i.e., that if she was caught with a fake invitation she wouldn't just be kicked out, she'd be eaten or worse.

Really? I'd thought that Harry made it perfectly clear that he considered going to the party tantamount to suicide.

Quote
Using Bianca as an example, Murphy questioning her about the death of a prostitute is nothing like Susan trying to expose Bianca as a vampire to the general public. The reason Bianca doesn't kill Murphy is because that sort of thing is likely lead to a mob burning the scary monster.

This.

Quote
The way I see it is that these people, not the Alphas, acknowledge Harry as an expert who knows what he's talking about while they don't. They ask him questions and then ignore his answers. It infuriates me when people do this with me.

@Morris: I really think Kim is completely at fault. She had no idea what she was doing. Harry would have been completely irresponsible to tell her all about a greater summoning circle she wasn't prepared for, but was clearly planning on using. She could have unleashed some horrible elder thing on the third largest city in America. She could easily have told Harry what was going on. MacFinn could definitely afford his rates. If all the good guys had been straight with Harry in Fool Moon, Harry would have had the case wrapped up in 24 hours without much danger. Of course that would have made a terrible story.

This.

Quote
Missing the point. It doesn't matter that Harry didn't know what she was going to do. Harry told her a pretty bare bones assessment "they are vampires, they eat people," which she didn't take seriously. He could have told her more that would have made her more wary about the situation.

I'm unconvinced that Susan would have taken anything Harry might have told her as a warning seriously enough to avoid going. Also, see above regarding the inadvisability of sharing this kind of information with someone you know is going to publish it.

Quote
She "handled" it by waiting in the van and then doing nothing but hold the camera while Harry killed it.

I think the point is that she saw how dangerous it was.

Quote
Lots of things can eat people. I know bears eat people, but I still go hiking in the woods.

Sure, but I bet you wouldn't go up to a bear that the bear expert said was to dangerous for him to get near, and try to get a selfie with it.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 06, 2019, 12:43:17 AM
@Bad Alias
Let's approach this from a different direction.  What purpose does Kirby's death serve in the story?  The only thing that occurs is the opportunity for Billy and Harry to have that talk. Will effectively says, if we can die helping you than you need to tell us why we should help.  We're owed that for what we might have to give. I'll discuss it further if we can agree on that point.

@nadia.skylark
Quote
I thought that didn't draw it, but rather that  Kim brought the paper with the circle on it with her.
Asked and answered.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 06, 2019, 01:31:53 AM
Harry told her a pretty bare bones assessment "they are vampires, they eat people," which she didn't take seriously. He could have told her more that would have made her more wary about the situation.

That he said it was too dangerous for him to go under the protection of guest right would have been enough for me. That's the part that makes me put the blame 100% on Susan (as between the two of them).

@Bad Alias
Let's approach this from a different direction.  What purpose does Kirby's death serve in the story?  The only thing that occurs is the opportunity for Billy and Harry to have that talk. Will effectively says, if we can die helping you than you need to tell us why we should help.  We're owed that for what we might have to give. I'll discuss it further if we can agree on that point.

@nadia.skylark [Objection!] Asked and answered.

I agree to that point, but don't see it's relevance to the question "How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt..." Kirby died for a couple of story reasons. One is to raise the tensions and stakes. One is to give Billy the moral authority to demand to be read in. I'll even agree that JB did it so that Harry would start moving in the direction of letting others choose if they were going to subject themselves to dangerous knowledge. To let adults choose their own fate instead of having Harry protect them. That's a slow narrative shift that started in Summer Knight with Murphy. I'd say (but don't really remember) that narrative direction ended here with it moving in a new direction of Harry hiding things to protect himself, though an element of that has always been there. That's part of the reason Harry didn't tell Kim about Archangels and Demonlords or whatever it was.

I just don't see how Harry better informing the Alphas of the wider world of supernatural creatures or politics would have helped in this situation. I do see how establishing protocols/threat levels/tactics, etc. with simple titles like "code blue," "red alert," or "omega protocol" could have changed things and whether or not Harry should have established something like that. I would be happy to discuss such, but that isn't the point I'm making.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: forumghost on June 06, 2019, 02:12:42 AM
Missing the point. It doesn't matter that Harry didn't know what she was going to do. Harry told her a pretty bare bones assessment "they are vampires, they eat people," which she didn't take seriously. He could have told her more that would have made her more wary about the situation.

He did. He told her that the Host of the Party (Bianca) had a grudge against him specifically and was almost definitely planning on using the Party as cover for an assassination attempt.

And Susan insisted on going anyway, because she was clutching the Idiot Ball so tightly her knuckles probably went white.

"Oh so this is a trap to kill Harry as a revenge plot, I'm sure that there's no danger in me The Woman he's publicly dating going there!"

Like, there's stupid, and then there's just plain dumb.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 06, 2019, 03:50:30 AM
Quote
I just don't see how Harry better informing the Alphas of the wider world of supernatural creatures or politics would have helped in this situation.
Nothing was ever going to make this any better, that should be obvious from the attack at Raith Manor. However the question is answered directly in the text.
Quote
He nodded. “So. If I’d had this conversation with you sooner, maybe they wouldn’t be. Maybe if we’d had a better idea about what’s actually going on in the world, it would have changed how we approached things. They follow my lead, Harry. I have a responsibility to make sure that I do everything in my power to make them aware and safe.”
And Jim throws a little irony around later when he throws out this little snippet.
Quote
“As far as the Council is concerned, the U.S. Wardens are a bunch of mushrooms.”
“Eh?”
“Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.”
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 06, 2019, 11:22:12 AM
Quote
Missing the point. It doesn't matter that Harry didn't know what she was going to do. Harry told her a pretty bare bones assessment "they are vampires, they eat people," which she didn't take seriously. He could have told her more that would have made her more wary about the situation

No, I am not,   he didn't just tell her they eat people, he emphasized that he felt it was too dangerous even for himself.  Susan prided herself on being a good reporter,they gather information, but she never pushed him with one question about them, not one...  All she could think about was "what a great scoop" it would be and that Harry was being over protective... Once that got on her brain she was deaf to any further warnings he tried to give her...  She had gotten though the other things safely, discounting luck and the fact that Harry was there to save the day... So how dangerous could a nest of vampires be? She didn't need his protection she decided.  It still comes back to who stole, forged the invitation, and crashed the party?  Who?  In my book that makes Susan solely responsible for her actions and what happened to her..  She had wanted to make her name so badly with an exclusive, it didn't matter how much information Harry gave her.  In fact the more he told her the more excited and deaf she became to any warnings against it.

Quote
She "handled" it by waiting in the van and then doing nothing but hold the camera while Harry killed it.
She didn't exactly wait in the van, she took a video of it remember?   Of Harry killing it if I remember correctly..  She said she had handled it, in her mind she had, it doesn't matter in her mind that she had gotten it all out of perspective, and the fact that if Harry hadn't been able to kill it she could very well have been toast..
Quote
    I just don't see how Harry better informing the Alphas of the wider world of supernatural creatures or politics would have helped in this situation.

Nothing was ever going to make this any better, that should be obvious from the attack at Raith Manor. However the question is answered directly in the text.
Quote

    He nodded. “So. If I’d had this conversation with you sooner, maybe they wouldn’t be. Maybe if we’d had a better idea about what’s actually going on in the world, it would have changed how we approached things. They follow my lead, Harry. I have a responsibility to make sure that I do everything in my power to make them aware and safe.”

And Jim throws a little irony around later when he throws out this little snippet.
Quote

You are still ignoring the fact that when the pack first came up against the skinwalker, when Kirby got killed.   Harry had no clue what they were up against except it was bad and dangerous.. The attack on the Raiths came later in the book..  Will made his point because Harry was vague about the island, Kirby's death earned them the right to have all the information when they go up against something, and Harry agreed... But again, in the attack where Kirby got killed, Harry had given  them the only information he had in the moment or was able to give because he was totally freaked out by it.   The pack still decided to back him, their choice... Harry wasn't responsible that that, from then on if the pack decided to follow him, and he knew now what it was, then it is his duty to tell them all he knows about what they are getting into and not to shield them..


clue what it was, just that it w
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 06, 2019, 04:32:52 PM
@Morris: What, precisely, does that quote answer? It's reasons why Billy thinks he should be fully informed. He's not really even asking that Harry inform the Alphas of everything, only their leader. He's also stating that changing past actions could have, but not necessarily would have, changed the outcome. And as you said, what happened at the Raith mansion is pretty strong evidence that Harry could not have adequately prepared them for the attack.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 06, 2019, 05:38:52 PM
@Morris: What, precisely, does that quote answer? It's reasons why Billy thinks he should be fully informed. He's not really even asking that Harry inform the Alphas of everything, only their leader. He's also stating that changing past actions could have, but not necessarily would have, changed the outcome. And as you said, what happened at the Raith mansion is pretty strong evidence that Harry could not have adequately prepared them for the attack.

However Kirby's death happened before the attack on the Raith mansion...   Harry had no clue until the aftermath of the attack that killed Kirby that it was a skinwalker..  At that point Harry didn't know that much himself about them except they were bad ass and looking at one with his wizard's sight made him nearly catatonic for an hour and half...  So basically when Kirby and company came to Harry's aid that first time he had no information to give beyond what he had... So again, as Will himself said, Kirby's death was not on Harry...  Keeping stuff back after that when he had more information is another story...  All of the above is in the text...  Saying that Harry owes them more information doesn't mean he blames him for Kirby's death... All Will is saying they have proven with Kirby's death that they are willing to lay it all on the line for him, and that the least Harry can do is give them all the information he has...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 06, 2019, 05:55:04 PM
All of the above is in the text...  Saying that Harry owes them more information doesn't mean he blames him for Kirby's death... All Will is saying they have proven with Kirby's death that they are willing to lay it all on the line for him, and that the least Harry can do is give them all the information he has...

I think it should be pretty clear that it isn't all in the text because you say the text says 1, I say it says 0, and Morris says it says -1. Either two of us are idiots, or there is room for interpretation.

I read Will's statement as Harry shouldn't be the one deciding for them whether or not they should be informed and take on the danger and responsibility of knowing.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 06, 2019, 06:29:32 PM
The OP's question, how often does withholding information get people hurt, is answered explicitly in the text, at least for the Alphas.  Harry's strategy of keeping the Alphas in the dark to protect them, failed.  Kirby dies and Andi is badly injured.
Quote
I’d been careful to control what information he and the Alphas had gotten from me, in an effort to protect them. And it had worked—for a while.
But now things were different. Kirby’s death had seen to that.
This seems fairly straightforward.

@Mira
The point of bringing up the attack at Raith Manor is to point out that once Harry had led the skinwalker to the Alphas, that someone would die if the skinwalker wanted them dead.  The Alphas had not a chance in hell.  This is the nature of Harry's failure.  Harry as written, believed in two contradictory things, that he could protect them by keeping them in the dark and that he could use them without this eventually happening.

Fun facts.  Jim evidently is fond of beating us over the head with things by using them twice in a book. 

When the skinwalker kills the lights, Kirby uses his phone and is revealed by the light.  He uses this a second time when Peabody kills the lights and releases the mordite and everybody that creates lights, are killed.

In the second example, first Jim has Will complain about Harry keeping them in the dark and then has Harry complaining about the Council doing the same thing.
I think it should be pretty clear that it isn't all in the text because you say the text says 1, I say it says 0, and Morris says it says -1. Either two of us are idiots, or there is room for interpretation.

I read Will's statement as Harry shouldn't be the one deciding for them whether or not they should be informed and take on the danger and responsibility of knowing.
I volunteer as the idiot.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 06, 2019, 06:49:36 PM
1. Kirby died because Harry withheld information.
2. The skinwalker was going to kill Kirby no matter what Harry did.

I don't understand how anyone can agree with both statements. (I agree with statement two, mostly. The skinwalker killed Kirby as a message; therefore, it could have killed a different Alpha because Harry did something that lead to different results, but the skinwalker was definitely going to kill an Alpha if Harry went to Will's place).

I read the quote, mostly because I can't see how fully briefing Billy would have changed anything, as either Harry illogically blaming his withholding of information for Kirby's death or simply stating that Billy wasn't going to follow blindly because Kirby died. Kirby's death cements the seriousness of Will's role as leader for Will.

No one has demonstrated how Harry briefing Billy on the wider world of the supernatural could have saved Kirby. Until someone does that, I'm going to remain obstinate in my position that Harry's withholding of information did not get Kirby killed. I'll go so far as to say it is hypothetically possible, but that's it until someone can at least give me a hypothetical.

Even if in the text Billy said "Kirby is dead because you withheld information from us," and Dresden said "That is correct," I would still say "what" because, as you said, the skinwalker was going to kill whoever it wanted anyway.

How about instead, we take everyone's position, average them, and agree that I'm right?  ;)
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 06, 2019, 08:09:45 PM
  ... How about instead, we take everyone's position, average them, and agree that I'm right?  ;) 

They say one of the hallmarks of a good compromise is that nobody is really satisfied with the outcome.





Ergo:  nobody is "right."
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 06, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
Quote
@Mira
The point of bringing up the attack at Raith Manor is to point out that once Harry had led the skinwalker to the Alphas, that someone would die if the skinwalker wanted them dead.  The Alphas had not a chance in hell.  This is the nature of Harry's failure.  Harry as written, believed in two contradictory things, that he could protect them by keeping them in the dark and that he could use them without this eventually happening.

No, the event with Kirby happened before that attack on Raith Manor... Biggest point Harry had no clue what is was he saw, it put him in a state of collapse when he showed up at Will and Georgia's house... Only after the first battle did he realize it was a skinwalker, and he told Will straight off....
Quote
1. Kirby died because Harry withheld information.
No, Harry had with held nothing, all he knew was it was big, bad, and so ugly it made him catatonic, he conveyed that information, the pack still backed him..
Quote
2. The skinwalker was going to kill Kirby no matter what Harry did
Most likely, only difference Kirby would have known what killed him when it did..

Quote
I don't understand how anyone can agree with both statements. (I agree with statement two, mostly. The skinwalker killed Kirby as a message; therefore, it could have killed a different Alpha because Harry did something that lead to different results, but the skinwalker was definitely going to kill an Alpha if Harry went to Will's place).

I read the quote, mostly because I can't see how fully briefing Billy would have changed anything, as either Harry illogically blaming his withholding of information for Kirby's death or simply stating that Billy wasn't going to follow blindly because Kirby died. Kirby's death cements the seriousness of Will's role as leader for Will.

No one has demonstrated how Harry briefing Billy on the wider world of the supernatural could have saved Kirby. Until someone does that, I'm going to remain obstinate in my position that Harry's withholding of information did not get Kirby killed. I'll go so far as to say it is hypothetically possible, but that's it until someone can at least give me a hypothetical.

Even if in the text Billy said "Kirby is dead because you withheld information from us," and Dresden said "That is correct," I would still say "what" because, as you said, the skinwalker was going to kill whoever it wanted anyway.

How about instead, we take everyone's position, average them, and agree that I'm right?  ;)

Page 29, Harry is just coming out of his catatonic state at Will's house...
Quote
"What is it?" Billy asked quietly.
"I don't know," I said. "But it is real bad."  I glanced at Georgia.
"How long was I down?"
She checked her watch./  "Eighty-two minutes."

page 33 Just after Kirby died..
Quote
Billy looked up at me, Kirby's blood all over his face and hand.
"What is it, Harry?"
"A Native American nightmare,"  I said, I looked at him grimly, "A skinwalker."
Then on page 35
Quote
"What are you going to do?"
"Find out why it's here," I said.  "There's Council business afoot.  Christ, I didn't mean to bring you into this."  I stared toward the knot of officers around Kirby's corpse.  "I didn't mean for this to happen."
"Kirby was an adult, Desden,"Billy said.  "He knew what could happen.  He chose to be here."
Which was the truth.  But it didn't help.  Kirby was still dead.I hadn't known what a skinwalker was before, beyond something awlful, but that didn't change things..

The attack on Raith Manner didn't happen until page 180... So how could have Harry used that information to warn the Alphas about the skinwalker that he had run into back on page 20 something that he only knew was bad, ugly, and dangerous, no name?  When as we saw back on page 33 he just found out was a skinwalker and Kirby was already dead!  Since Harry had no clue what the big bad ugly thing was how did was he deceptively leading the Alphas to it?

page 219.... Will tells Harry he had talked to Kirby's folks....

Quote
I sighed.  "I'm sorry."
He shrugged.  "Kirby knew the risks.  He'd rather have died than stand by and do nothing..

It is a little further down when Harry says...
Quote
I nodded.  "It's part of something bigger I cannot talk about everything that is going on. 

That is when Will becomes unglued, he does say perhaps if they knew more, maybe Kirby would still be alive... However he knows perfectly well as we the readers know Harry didn't know what it was they were going up against when Kirby died back on page 33... And even if he knew, Kirby and company would still have been there for Harry..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 06, 2019, 08:40:50 PM
@Mira
The attack at Raith Manor reflects the attack on the Alphas.  The point, to me, is to show this isn't about how Kirby could be saved.  It's about showing that Harry's strategy isn't working. See below.

Quote from: Bad Alias
1. Kirby died because Harry withheld information.
2. The skinwalker was going to kill Kirby no matter what Harry did.
Yeah I'm having trouble with people seeing this point. :'(

I assert the second to disprove the first.  Harry's strategy is what failed. He held incompatible beliefs.
 
1)The first belief was that there was safety in ignorance.
2)The second that he could involve them without exposing them to what he said he was trying to protect them from.

Harry denies them the ability to exercise informed consent.  It isn't about changing the outcome, it's about Wills right to make his own judgement about what is best for his pack and how best to move. 
Quote
Maybe if we’d had a better idea about what’s actually going on in the world, it would have changed how we approached things.
They say one of the hallmarks of a good compromise is that nobody is really satisfied with the outcome.

Ergo:  nobody is "right."
 
Particularly when you consider that the White God, by capricious whim can devastate a dearly held theory and crush all your dreams.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 06, 2019, 09:35:23 PM
No, Harry had with held nothing, all he knew was it was big, bad, and so ugly it made him catatonic, he conveyed that information, the pack still backed him..

Just to be clear, by stating the premise, I wasn't endorsing it.

@Morris: Okay, I see what you're saying and agree with your conclusion about Harry wrongly denying them informed consent. It's a little trickier than "informed consent" because I think, in the DF, people are incapable of making an informed decision about gaining knowledge. This applies to Harry as well. There are several situations in which he chooses knowledge knowing there are likely to be negative consequences and he has no way of knowing the kind or degree of those consequences. (His mother's gift, and the knowledge of the Outer Gates). But they can at least choose for themselves if they are willing to take the risk of knowledge or remain ignorant. Then again, how many of us are exercising informed consent when making medical decisions? I'm certainly not a physician. So maybe "informed consent" is the perfect analogy.

I think that there is truth there being safety in ignorance, but, like all things, it's not all to the good. There is danger in both knowledge and ignorance. "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing," for example. I do believe that Harry can limit their danger by keeping them in the dark about certain things, that keeping them in the dark about other things would increase their danger, that it is very hard to tell the difference between the two, and it, at a certain point, shouldn't be Harry's choice.

I'm in complete agreement that it is all about Will choosing what risks, with regard to knowledge, that he is going to take as the leader of the Alphas, and not Harry.

Throughout the novels, we have seen the themes of information is power, sharing that power is a responsibility not to be taken lightly, and the third theme that I'm not quite certain how to word. The third theme involves that the responsibility for sharing information, which is power, isn't only on the person sharing. There is a point when it would be wrong to share information and a point when one should leave the decision to the recipients after warning them as best you can of the consequences. For an example, later in the series, Harry is keeping secrets from Karrin. She starts to get mad and confronts Harry. She says something like "you better not be doing this to protect me," and Harry responds along the lines of "no, I'm doing this to protect me." Then she is okay with it. She's okay with it because he isn't denying her agency.

I think a good example of this idea is Eb keeping the fact that Lord Raith murdered Margaret from Harry. If he had told Harry about it at any point before Harry's soulgaze with Thomas, Harry would have fought Raith and died. If he had refused to tell him about it in Blood Rites, Harry would have fought Raith in order to save Thomas and died. Eb was right to keep the information from Harry until Harry had the "insight" from his mother, but Eb never knew about the "insight." My point being that Eb couldn't know that the information was necessary for Harry's survival. Eb's reasons for withholding information were about as solid as they could have been and were still wrong.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 06, 2019, 10:42:14 PM
Quote
Mira
The attack at Raith Manor reflects the attack on the Alphas.  The point, to me, is to show this isn't about how Kirby could be saved.  It's about showing that Harry's strategy isn't working. See below.

It is a poor comparison....  It doesn't fit because when Kirby was killed, all Harry knew was this big
ugly thing was following him and had him all screwed up..  Will's place was the closest where he found refuge... That is all he knew, he had no strategy because he himself didn't know what he was going up against except it was very bad....   He couldn't withhold what he didn't know, plain and simple..

The attack on the Raith mansion is when Luccio and Harry have an interview with Lara to find out if it is she who has hired someone to follow Dresden, also if she has anything to do with the framing of Morgan..  That is when the skinwalker attacks and leaves the necklace that belongs to Thomas hinting at a trade... He is also trying to get Lara to cooperate...  So far I see nothing in common with what happened to Kirby, or that withholding information on Harry's part would have made any difference at the mansion..

Quote
1)The first belief was that there was safety in ignorance.
2)The second that he could involve them without exposing them to what he said he was trying to protect them from.

However that isn't what happened when Kirby died...  What set Will off what Harry said he couldn't tell him what was really going down on the island.. Will countered that he has the right to know, which Harry agreed that he did..
Quote

Harry denies them the ability to exercise informed consent.  It isn't about changing the outcome, it's about Wills right to make his own judgement about what is best for his pack and how best to move.
Quote
From that stand point it is ALL Will's fault that Kirby died...  He is the one who called his pack to fight even though Harry was unable to give him any more information than he did about what they were up against...  End of story...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 07, 2019, 12:35:48 AM
@Mira
I made that comparison to show that in a fight that Harry and the werewolves were outmatched.  There was no defense possible.  In the book the only one who gets close is Listens To Wind.
Quote from: Bad Alias
Okay, I see what you're saying and agree with your conclusion about Harry wrongly denying them informed consent. It's a little trickier than "informed consent" because I think, in the DF, people are incapable of making an informed decision about gaining knowledge.
The devil is in the details, but I think we are in the same Church, but in different pews.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt..
Post by: kbrizzle on June 07, 2019, 02:39:29 AM
Saying that Harry is responsible for the death of Kirby is a bit like saying he is also responsible for HWWB killing the gas station attendant when Harry was 16....

I agree with @nadia, Mira & Bad Alias - Harry’s lack of sharing knowledge has not yet been the sole reason anyone dies in the series so far. In each of the deaths, there is definitely more culpability from the victims (less so in Kirby’s case granted) or the perpetrators. If anything, Harry’s withholding info is a smaller piece of the mosiac that explains the deaths of the 3 people being discussed, but it is in no way the sole or most important piece. 

That Harry feels it is does not make it so - as has been pointed out by Michael, Harry (like the WC) is sometimes arrogant to the point of idiocy. Just because Harry could have theoretically prevented something (with 20/20 hindsight), he feels like he should have done so & blames himself for not doing it. This is not rational....
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 07, 2019, 09:17:49 AM
Saying that Harry is responsible for the death of Kirby is a bit like saying he is also responsible for HWWB killing the gas station attendant when Harry was 16....

I agree with @nadia, Mira & Bad Alias - Harry’s lack of sharing knowledge has not yet been the sole reason anyone dies in the series so far. In each of the deaths, there is definitely more culpability from the victims (less so in Kirby’s case granted) or the perpetrators. If anything, Harry’s withholding info is a smaller piece of the mosiac that explains the deaths of the 3 people being discussed, but it is in no way the sole or most important piece. 

That Harry feels it is does not make it so - as has been pointed out by Michael, Harry (like the WC) is sometimes arrogant to the point of idiocy. Just because Harry could have theoretically prevented something (with 20/20 hindsight), he feels like he should have done so & blames himself for not doing it. This is not rational....
I don't think that at any point in this exchange that I said anything about Harry's feelings one way or the other.  Your first statement is comparing apples and oranges.  Harry has no secrets to keep at that point.  And in the books there are multiple layers of responsibility for everything that happens.  In this case the primary culprit is the skinwalker.

In terms of Kim Delaney.  In some of the tritest dialog in the books Harry worries about the obligation of the cost of the meal.
Quote
The bottom line was I was strapped for cash. I’d been eating ramen noodles and soup for too many weeks. The steaks Mac had prepared smelled like heaven, even from across the room. My belly protested again, growling its neolithic craving for charred meat.
But I couldn’t just go and eat the dinner without giving Kim the information she wanted. It’s not that I’ve never welshed on a deal, but I’ve never done it with anyone human—and definitely not with someone who looked up to me.
Quote
“Save it,” I told her. “You’re sitting on a tiger cage, Kim.” I thumped a finger on the paper for emphasis. “And you wouldn’t need it if you weren’t planning on trying to stick a tiger in there.”
Quote
I had done the right thing—even if she had trusted me to provide answers for her, as I had in the past, when teaching her to contain and control her modest magical talents. Even if she had trusted me to show her the answers she needed, to be her guide through the darkness.
I’d done the right thing.
Dammit.
My stomach was soured. I didn’t want any more of Mac’s delicious meal, steak or no steak. I didn’t feel like I’d earned it.
Obviously he doesn't really think he's done the right thing.  So he knows she will attempt it.  Obviously she has some idea about how to empower the circle since he has been working with her.  Major f****p.
Quote
And I abruptly understood Kim Delaney’s request. She had to have known Harley MacFinn, maybe through her environmental activism. She must have learned of his curse, and wanted to help him. When I had refused to help her, she had attempted to re-create the greater summoning circle upstairs in the bedroom, to hold in MacFinn once the moon rose. As I had warned her would happen, she had failed. She hadn’t had the knowledge necessary to understand how such a construct would function, and consequently, she hadn’t been able to make it work.
MacFinn had killed her. Kim was dead because I had refused to share my knowledge with her, because I hadn’t given her my help. I had been so secure in my knowledge and wisdom; withholding such secrets from her had been the action of a concerned and reasoned adult speaking to an overeager child. I couldn’t believe my own arrogance, the utter confidence with which I had condemned her to death.
So he had misgivings at Mac's and surprise, surprise, she dies.  So McFinn killed her, because the FBI agents destroyed his circle, because she made a bad choice, because she knew just enough to get her killed, and Harry could have said show me your problem and if I can I will help. Break any of those links in the chain and Kim doesn't die.  Harry was the last man standing who could have changed the outcome once the events were moving.  Harry's moral failure is in assuming responsibility for helping her, and then not doing so.


Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 07, 2019, 11:47:49 AM
Quote
Quote

    And I abruptly understood Kim Delaney’s request. She had to have known Harley MacFinn, maybe through her environmental activism. She must have learned of his curse, and wanted to help him. When I had refused to help her, she had attempted to re-create the greater summoning circle upstairs in the bedroom, to hold in MacFinn once the moon rose. As I had warned her would happen, she had failed. She hadn’t had the knowledge necessary to understand how such a construct would function, and consequently, she hadn’t been able to make it work.
    MacFinn had killed her. Kim was dead because I had refused to share my knowledge with her, because I hadn’t given her my help. I had been so secure in my knowledge and wisdom; withholding such secrets from her had been the action of a concerned and reasoned adult speaking to an overeager child. I couldn’t believe my own arrogance, the utter confidence with which I had condemned her to death.

So he had misgivings at Mac's and surprise, surprise, she dies.  So McFinn killed her, because the FBI agents destroyed his circle, because she made a bad choice, because she knew just enough to get her killed, and Harry could have said show me your problem and if I can I will help. Break any of those links in the chain and Kim doesn't die.  Harry was the last man standing who could have changed the outcome once the events were moving.  Harry's moral failure is in assuming responsibility for helping her, and then not doing so.

No, Kim is dead because MacFinn killed her...  Kim is dead because she thought she could handle something that was way above her pay grade... She is dead because she didn't trust Harry enough to tell him the truth about why she wanted the knowledge in the first place.  Harry did help her, he began to answer her questions as an academic exercise... That is what she said she wanted... He asks her again and again, same answer.....  Kim is dead because she withheld knowledge from Harry.  Do you think for on moment he wouldn't have helped her if she actually told him why she needed the circle?   The answer is no, he would have helped her in a heart beat and maybe have died beside her..

Harry feels responsible because he gave her some knowledge but not all... However as he told her, she didn't have the training to pull it off... I can give you a book on how to fly a jet, but it takes a lot more than a how to book to actually do it..  So even if he gave all the information to her, most likely she still would have failed, if for no other reason she'b be trying to construct is under all kinds of pressure..  Harry beats himself up because of his arrogance thinking because he refused to give her forbidden knowledge she died... Yeah, it is arrogant thinking it was his fault..  It isn't, it was Kim's arrogance in not telling Harry the truth, very much like the same mistake Susan made, in spite the warnings from Harry she believes she can pull it off as easily as he, a full wizard could... After all how hard can it be?  How dangerous can a Loop really be?  MacFinn was herclient, she wasn't going to share either the fee nor the fame with Harry, so she withheld knowledge because she didn't want him butting in...  She refused to listen when Harry brought up training..  Training isn't the same as knowledge, it is about muscle memory and a lot of other things, she didn't have it to pull off such a thing as Harry had told her...  Her response was childish,"you think I don't have the juice..." because how hard can it be??
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 07, 2019, 12:43:59 PM
@Mira
I made that comparison to show that in a fight that Harry and the werewolves were outmatched.  There was no defense possible.  In the book the only one who gets close is Listens To Wind. The devil is in the details, but I think we are in the same Church, but in different pews.

Again, at the point when Kirby died, Harry had no clue what they were up against.... However by Will's own logic, that he is responsible for the safety of his pack, it is all his fault that Kirby died...  Will knew what it had done to Harry and more to the point he also knew that at that moment Harry couldn't or wouldn't give him more information about what was after him.... Will still called in his pack to face unknown danger.  End of story..   No, if there is responsibility to taken, it is on Will..

He isn't wrong about informed consent, that he is responsible for his people and they have to know what they are up against before they go in...  It is hard to say whether or not Kirby would have lived had they known and chose to still go in.. As you say a skinwalker was beyond all of them in the first place... However at that moment, none of them knew what it was, not Harry, not anyone.. Yet, Will called his team in and they elected to back Harry and fight..  Given his own sound logic, when Will told Harry that Kirby might have lived had they known more, Will was blaming himself, not Harry. Because it was Will's decision to send his team in blind..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 07, 2019, 05:55:31 PM
[1.] In the book the only one who gets close is Listens To Wind. ... [2.] I think we are in the same Church, but in different pews.

1. I'd say Harry got close on the island. 2. That's clever. I like it and will steal it at the first opportunity.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 07, 2019, 06:01:09 PM
What would your moral ground be like if you left a gun out where a child could get it, with no more protection for the child  then your assertion to the child that the gun was dangerous and they should leave it be?  If you hesitate before you answer, don't have kids.  They have no agency, they can't be responsible.  Children die every year because parents fail to understand this.

You will probably not agree with me when I assert that Kim had no agency in this matter.  She simply wasn't experienced enough with magic to gauge her capabilities.  This will arise again when he takes on Molly as an apprentice.  In Turn Coat Molly will attempt to use mind magic on Luccio. And it is only because Morgan chooses to take that knowledge to the grave that Molly and Harry don't lose their heads.  And Molly knew she was under the Doom of Damocles.  In other words Harry and the Council put the gun on the table and told her not to touch it.

Kim heard Harry say, you aren't able to and shouldn't do this.  Because it was important to her she attempted to do so irregardless.  But she was evidently unable to  correctly judge her level of knowledge.  This is why humans under the age of 30 typically pay more for car insurance.  Harry had assumed the role of teacher to help her when she came into her magic.  He failed in the obligation he assumed.  As a moral agent he has to accept that he has failed. One purpose of guilt and remorse is to keep you from repeating those failures.
1. I'd say Harry got close on the island. 2. That's clever. I like it and will steal it at the first opportunity.
Feel free, I stole it from someone else.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 07, 2019, 08:10:17 PM
Quote
Kim heard Harry say, you aren't able to and shouldn't do this.  Because it was important to her she attempted to do so irregardless.  But she was evidently unable to  correctly judge her level of knowledge.  This is why humans under the age of 30 typically pay more for car insurance.  Harry had assumed the role of teacher to help her when she came into her magic.  He failed in the obligation he assumed.  As a moral agent he has to accept that he has failed. One purpose of guilt and remorse is to keep you from repeating those failures.

Except you are asking too much....    You are omitting Kim's failure to be honest with Harry as to why she wanted to know how to make this circle..  Kim is young, but she was an adult, not a child..  One of the things that pissed her off is Harry was close to her age and he knew how make it and she didn't.. 

Quote
What would your moral ground be like if you left a gun out where a child could get it, with no more protection for the child  then your assertion to the child that the gun was dangerous and they should leave it be?  If you hesitate before you answer, don't have kids.  They have no agency, they can't be responsible.  Children die every year because parents fail to understand this.

Poor analogy...   As a parent you keep the guns locked up, however if your child should ask how a gun works, you answer as best you can, also conveying that they can kill, with the assumption that your child isn't going to get his or her hands on a gun, at least not in your house.... You cannot be responsible for what the other parents do in their houses... So if you kid goes to his friends house thinking he knows how to shoot a gun that was left out just because you answered his questions.. Does that make you responsible? Or the the parents of his friend?  Or might your kid have grabbed and shot the gun anyway even if you had refused to tell him anything about how a gun worked.... Or possible, because you gave some information adding how dangerous they were, your kid doesn't touch it, but the other kid does and he still dies...
Quote
You will probably not agree with me when I assert that Kim had no agency in this matter.  She simply wasn't experienced enough with magic to gauge her capabilities.  This will arise again when he takes on Molly as an apprentice.  In Turn Coat Molly will attempt to use mind magic on Luccio. And it is only because Morgan chooses to take that knowledge to the grave that Molly and Harry don't lose their heads.  And Molly knew she was under the Doom of Damocles.  In other words Harry and the Council put the gun on the table and told her not to touch it.

Doesn't work, Molly knows perfectly well what she is capable of, that is why she does the mind magic on Luccio.  Her motives might have been good, but she was well aware that she was breaking one of the Seven Laws by doing so... She simply chose to disregard them..

Quote
Kim heard Harry say, you aren't able to and shouldn't do this.  Because it was important to her she attempted to do so irregardless.  But she was evidently unable to  correctly judge her level of knowledge.  This is why humans under the age of 30 typically pay more for car insurance.  Harry had assumed the role of teacher to help her when she came into her magic.  He failed in the obligation he assumed.  As a moral agent he has to accept that he has failed. One purpose of guilt and remorse is to keep you from repeating those failures.

I disagree, she knew perfectly well what she was doing...  That is why she repeatedly lied to Harry about what she wanted the information for.  She may have misjudged her capabilities, but she wasn't innocently asking Harry academic questions for the sake of knowledge... She was using him trying to trick him into passing on restricted knowledge to her.   Actually the irresponsible thing for him to do would be to give her the whole how to..   She wasn't even an apprentice and a little knowledge is dangerous, especially is she got tempted by the dark...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: kbrizzle on June 07, 2019, 08:14:00 PM
@morriswalters

I think that one of the central themes of the series, a leitmotif even, is agency & free will. Kim freely made a decision to do something that her ‘teacher’ disagreed with - she is an adult & nearly Harry’s age, so I don’t agree at all that she has no agency.... I mean isn’t it Kim’s fault for doing this?? Clearly she was going to do it regardless of what Harry said, so I don’t see why Harry gets the blame for her death.

She freely made the choice to perform the ritual binding circle, even when Harry tells her she isn’t up to it. Your argument is that Harry should’ve somehow known that Kim was going to defy him with disastrous consequences & that he should interfere with a freely made decision by another who doesn’t really want his help beyond a few “theoretical” questions.

If your answer is that yes he should’ve abrogated her free will because he feels like she is in danger - note how Murphy responds every time he does this - it is her decision to be involved & not Harry’s. Harry also keeps a fair amount of secrets from Murphy, especially in the early books.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 07, 2019, 10:31:44 PM
Quote
Kim freely made a decision to do something that her ‘teacher’ disagreed with - she is an adult & nearly Harry’s age, so I don’t agree at all that she has no agency.... I mean isn’t it Kim’s fault for doing this??
I'm not assessing fault. Were I, in the story, it would be the FBI agents.  What I keep suggesting is that Harry bears a moral responsibility for what happens.  He chose to teach Kim some things about magic.  Nobody made him.  We are told that magic is dangerous.  Had he not taught Kim anything about magic she couldn't have done anything.  And had he said nothing about the diagram on the paper, she couldn't have tried to use it. 

It's possible in the course of this discussion that I have moved the goalposts to some degree or another.  If I have then I offer everyone an apology.  I don't think so but this has drug on long enough that I'm losing the thread.
Quote
Your argument is that Harry should’ve somehow known that Kim was going to defy him with disastrous consequences & that he should interfere with a freely made decision by another who doesn’t really want his help beyond a few “theoretical” questions.
I'll make a stronger statement, the text tells you he doesn't believe her.
Quote
“And you wouldn’t need it if you weren’t planning on trying to stick a tiger in there.”
Quote
If your answer is that yes he should’ve abrogated her free will because he feels like she is in danger - note how Murphy responds every time he does this - it is her decision to be involved & not Harry’s. Harry also keeps a fair amount of secrets from Murphy, especially in the early books.
Not telling her what the diagram represents, is not abrogating her free will.

@Mira
I know Kim was lying.  My great grandchild would have known Kim was lying.  And Harry pretty much knew but he was evidently starving.

I didn't offer an analogy, I offered a hypothetical regarding morals and ethics.  If you intend to keep guns you should teach your kids and you should safe your guns.  Any failure to do so could get you locked up if your child kills themselves or someone else.  Which happens all to frequently.

Molly knows better but she does so anyway.  So if a threat of a death penalty and Harry's constant carping doesn't stop her why would anything stop Kim, who compared to Molly is a kindergartner?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: forumghost on June 07, 2019, 11:21:49 PM
I mean if you want to use Gun safety as an analogy, then Harry was absolutely cooperative, when Kim was asking things like "How does gunpowder work?" or "What does the hammer do?" But when Kim asked him "Btw, hypothetically, how would I switch off the safety?" At which point he said (fairly reasonably) "Yeah no, I'm not telling you that, you don't know how not to shoot yourself."

Then Kim went out, bought a gun, and shot herself.

All Harry told her was 'this is what each part of the Circle is for'. Given that she'd obviously copied it from Macfinn's place, she knew that (at least generally). Nothing that Harry told her that day would have aided her in using it (which is why he feels guilty- because 'maybe if I'd told her how to perform this advanced brain-surgery procedure she'd have done it right, despite her being a year-one Med student').

TLDR: Kim killed herself because of her own Ego and her refusal to talk to Harry about what she was doing properly, despite it being obviously beyond her experience. Harry blames himself because he has a guilt complex, in particular with regards to women being hurt (Thanks Elaine)
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: 123Chikadee on June 08, 2019, 01:30:32 AM
Mr. Death: Telling someone that the supernatural is dangerous is not the same as telling them how it's dangerous.

Which is why I think Harry could do a bit more to impress on people how dangerous the supernatural is. I do agree that  each of these scenarios are not clear cut, but I do think Harry could stand to be more open, but he's being a product of his wizard environment with secret keeping-

Hm, you know something just occurred to me. Harry had deep down still thought the White Council was right to keep secrets, even as he was trying to rebel by being an openly practicing wizard.  This could be why his attempts to both shield and inform his friends end so badly. Its less that I think that Harry is at fault in a actions-consequences type of way. More in an attitude way.

Though I think I'll handle the Susan  one first. Honestly, the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that it's a text book example of the 'Idiot Plot'. In order for the war to get kicked off, Susan has to think that gatecrashing a vampire party is a good idea. It sticks out at me as really contrived and it's easily one of the weakest spots in JB's writing. I kinda understand why she was dismissive of Harry, as he was sexist at the time and that would have effected her. I know that as audience members we get that the supernatural is dangerous but sometimes characters don't know all that they should know.  Though if I'm honest, I never liked Susan anyway.

With the Alphas, It's even more murky than Susan's scenario. The only thing that I think could have helped would have been not to lead the Skinwalker to the Alphas, but where else would he have gone to? I have no idea.  I'm with Bad Alias on why the scenario works from a Doylist angle and I do think the Alphas could have done better to defend themselves since they were so ill-prepared to handle it. They didn't take into account Harry's state when he got there and they should have. Unfortunately, Harry did have some contributions to that by treating the Alphas like kids. Even if the Alphas wouldn't be able to do anything against a Skinwalker, but hey at least it could help somehow.

As for Kim, yeah I think Harry could have down more. I think huangjimmy108 made a really good point about comparing a traffic police officer to Harry. I hadn't ever thought of it that way and that's a pretty helpful way of putting it, since this one Harry is a bit more culpable in the sense that Harry could have done more. Barring all that, I do think that Harry takes too much on himself.

I think that might be it for me. I'm not too sure what else I can say, but anyone is welcome to respond. :)
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 08, 2019, 02:13:40 AM
I mean if you want to use Gun safety as an analogy, then Harry was absolutely cooperative, when Kim was asking things like "How does gunpowder work?" or "What does the hammer do?" But when Kim asked him "Btw, hypothetically, how would I switch off the safety?" At which point he said (fairly reasonably) "Yeah no, I'm not telling you that, you don't know how not to shoot yourself."

Then Kim went out, bought a gun, and shot herself.

All Harry told her was 'this is what each part of the Circle is for'. Given that she'd obviously copied it from Macfinn's place, she knew that (at least generally). Nothing that Harry told her that day would have aided her in using it (which is why he feels guilty- because 'maybe if I'd told her how to perform this advanced brain-surgery procedure she'd have done it right, despite her being a year-one Med student').

TLDR: Kim killed herself because of her own Ego and her refusal to talk to Harry about what she was doing properly, despite it being obviously beyond her experience. Harry blames himself because he has a guilt complex, in particular with regards to women being hurt (Thanks Elaine)
What I asked was what Moral obligation did Harry incur for someone he had chosen to help learn about magic?  I gather from the answers to this point the answer is he incurred no obligation at all. So that pretty much is that.

In terms of what she knew about the circles?  Going in she knew nothing more then what the circle as a whole did.  Going out she knew what each individual ring did.  In my argument it doesn't really matter.  You have to assume that when Harry started to teach her she didn't know Jack.  Had he not chosen to bring her into supernatural society she would have been just another stranger on the street and the circle would have been just another pretty picture.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 08, 2019, 03:05:12 AM
If you have guns and kids (really, other people in general regardless of age) in the same house, you should teach them gun safety. What constitutes gun safety varies depending on the age, but most kids who can talk in complete sentences can learn the rules of gun safety. You should also keep your guns secure. Even the best kids are disobedient little whatsits at times.

There are two common formulations of the basic rules of gun safety. The NRA's three rules (with additional rules), https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ (https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/), and "the Four Rules of Gun Safety" that I believe are attributed to Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, https://www.hunter-ed.com/gun-safety/ (https://www.hunter-ed.com/gun-safety/).

@123Chickadee: For the record, I'm not a big fan of Doylist interpretation because I think the text should make sense regardless of what the author is trying to do. I think this is why I've always hated Hollywood's moralizing but am fine with things like Aesop's fables. Aesop was competent at teaching a lesson in an obvious, but not clumsy, way. Hollywood fails more often than not.

@Morris: Harry does incur some moral obligations in being able to teach someone about magic before he even makes a decision. In this world, if he doesn't teach them anything, they are likely to try the "Jedi mind trick" and then it's too late. So, I think his minimal moral obligation is to say "these are the rules; if you break them, scary people will come and kill you." If he does anymore than that, it gets complicated fast. Magic is dangerous. He first has to teach the student how to not accidentally cause harm. Then he has to teach them a bunch of other stuff, all the while teaching them either obedience or trust, preferably, both. That's where he failed with Kim. She was neither obedient nor trustful towards Harry. Magic is "serious business." When you're teaching "serious business" to someone, there needs to be a relationship of trust and obedience. That's why it's a master and apprentice relationship. And when that relationship doesn't exist, and both parties are adults, then the fault isn't necessarily on the teacher.

Harry basically says "this is dangerous, do not do it." Kim neither trusted nor obeyed. We don't know enough about their relationship to say who has what proportion of blame, but Kim did come to him. That alone is an admission that Harry knows more than her. But this isn't a failure of withholding information. It's a failure of giving too much information before establishing the ground rules, if anything.

To get back to the guns analogy, it's kind of like teaching you the gun safety rules, the mechanics of shooting, and stopping at that. Just about no one seems capable of keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at first on a range. I have to stay on top of them and watch everything they do. Providing information isn't enough. Maybe providing more information would have worked for Kim, but Harry shouldn't have given her anymore information. It's a summoning circle. If it's primary purpose was binding things already here, it would be called a binding circle. As she is clearly lying about her intentions, Harry shouldn't help her because she's probably trying to summon some terrible being. He should probably have contacted Morgan about it, but obviously never would have because of Morgan's behavior (an example of bad police work, there).
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: KurtinStGeorge on June 08, 2019, 05:26:36 AM
I'm late to this discussion, so if someone has already mentioned this incident, I apologize, but it seems to me there is one time when Harry withholding information has led to someone getting hurt and it's in Storm Front and it's not Linda Randall.

Quote
"Don't make me choose, Harry." Her voice softened, if not her eyes or her face. "Please."

I thought about it. I could bring everything to her. That's what she was asking - not half the story, not part of the information. She wanted it all. She wanted all the pieces in front of her so she could puzzle them together and bring the bad guys in. She didn't want to work the puzzle knowing that I was keeping some of the pieces in my pocket.

What could it hurt? Linda Randall had called me earlier that evening. She had planned on coming to me, to talk to me. She was going to give me some information and someone had shut her up before she could.

I saw two problems with telling Murphy that. One, she would start thinking like a cop. It would not be hard to find out that Linda wasn't exactly a high-fidelity piece of equipment. That she had numerous lovers on both sides of the fence. What if she and I were closer than I was admitting? What if I'd used magic to kill her lovers in a fit of jealous rage and then waited for another storm to kill her, too? It sounded plausible, workable, a crime of passion - Murphy had to know that the DA would have a hell of a time proving magic as a murder weapon, but if it had been a gun instead, it would have flown.

The second problem, and the one that worried me a lot more, was that there were already three people dead. And if I hadn't gotten lucky and creative, there would have been two more dead people, back at my apartment. I still didn't know who the bad guy was. Telling Murphy what little more I knew wouldn't give her any helpful information. It would only make her ask more questions, and she wanted answers.

If the voice in the shadows knew that Murphy was heading the investigation to find him, and was on the right track, he would have no qualms about killing her, too. And there was nothing she could do to protect herself against it. She might have been formidable to your average criminal, but all the aikido in the world wouldn't do her any good against a demon.

Then, too, there was the White Council. Men like Morgan and his superiors, secure in their own power, arrogant and considering themselves above the authority of any laws but their own, wouldn't hesitate to remove one police lieutenant who had discovered the secret world of the White Council.

I looked at the bloodstained sheets and thought of Linda's corpse. I thought of Murphy's office, and what it would look like with her sprawled on the floor, her heart torn from her chest, or her throat torn out by some creeping thing from beyond.

"Sorry, Murph," I said. My voice came out in a rasping whisper. "I wish I could help you. I don't know anything useful." I didn't try to look up at her, and I didn't try to hide that I was lying.

So Harry trying to protect Murphy led to her treating him as a suspect.  It led to Murphy searching Harry's office because she didn't have the information she needed and I'm certain you will all remember, it led to Murphy getting stung by Victor Sells ever growing scorpion construct or demon.  (Whatever it was.)

Now it could be argued that Murphy sometimes makes questionable to bad decisions, but I see that more in Fool Moon than in Storm Front.  Murphy's view of supernatural world in Storm Front is like someone looking through a keyhole rather than a nice large window and Harry tries to keep it that way; and though Harry does it mostly to protect Murphy, it backfires instead.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 08, 2019, 06:26:34 AM
Quote
What would your moral ground be like if you left a gun out where a child could get it, with no more protection for the child  then your assertion to the child that the gun was dangerous and they should leave it be?  If you hesitate before you answer, don't have kids.  They have no agency, they can't be responsible.  Children die every year because parents fail to understand this.

A large part of the reason that children can't be considered responsible is actually their lack of physical brain development. They literally lack the equipment for the kind of decision-making that adults do. This, obviously, is not true of Kim.

Quote
I'm not assessing fault. Were I, in the story, it would be the FBI agents.  What I keep suggesting is that Harry bears a moral responsibility for what happens.

Can you please define how you are using the words "fault"/"guilt" and "responsibility"? Because you appear to be using them to mean different things, but the definition I found and posted says they're synonyms. As a result, I am not understanding what you are saying when you treat them as having different meanings.

Quote
Molly knows better but she does so anyway.  So if a threat of a death penalty and Harry's constant carping doesn't stop her why would anything stop Kim, who compared to Molly is a kindergartner?

I'm reasonably certain that the books explicitly say that black magic is addictive. As such, Molly's actions can in no way be compared to Kim's, since Molly is acting as an addict with her drug and Kim is not.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: 123Chikadee on June 09, 2019, 02:14:39 AM
@BadAlias: Oh, I do too. It's just with me, I can see what it is that the author wants alongside with the audience part of my brain, so it just leaps out at me. It can get a little irritating, so yeam I'm with yeah on that count.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 09, 2019, 02:57:11 AM
Quote
In philosophy, moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission performed or neglected in accordance with one's moral obligations.[1][2] Deciding what (if anything) counts as "morally obligatory" is a principal concern of ethics.
Quote
Culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction. It has been noted that the word, culpability, "ordinarily has normative force, for in nonlegal English, a person is culpable only if he is justly to blame for his conduct".[1] Culpability therefore marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held legally responsible and a randomly occurring event, like earthquakes, for which no human can be held responsible.
Quote
Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person believes or realizes—accurately or not—that they have compromised their own standards of conduct or have violated a universal moral standard and bear significant responsibility for that violation.[1] Guilt is closely related to the concept of remorse.
A large part of the reason that children can't be considered responsible is actually their lack of physical brain development. They literally lack the equipment for the kind of decision-making that adults do. This, obviously, is not true of Kim.

Can you please define how you are using the words "fault"/"guilt" and "responsibility"? Because you appear to be using them to mean different things, but the definition I found and posted says they're synonyms. As a result, I am not understanding what you are saying when you treat them as having different meanings.

I'm reasonably certain that the books explicitly say that black magic is addictive. As such, Molly's actions can in no way be compared to Kim's, since Molly is acting as an addict with her drug and Kim is not.
In order.
Brain development may not be complete until your middle 20's. I'm not going to support that. The subject is too complex.
The three quotes above give you a sketch of the ideas I'm discussing.
It's an easy out to rate Molly as an addict.  You, are in effect removing her agency, her ability to act as a moral agent.
Quote
Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.[1] A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."[2]
If she's an addict then she must not be capable of doing the right thing.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 09, 2019, 04:55:56 AM
Quote
It's an easy out to rate Molly as an addict.  You, are in effect removing her agency, her ability to act as a moral agent.

If she's an addict then she must not be capable of doing the right thing.

Addicts are capable of fighting their addiction; it's just difficult.

I brought up the addiction thing specifically in response to your claim that, since Molly violated the terms of her parole even though the consequence of doing so was death, then no consequence would be sufficient to prevent Kim from doing what she did. However, this is comparing apples to oranges. Molly is a recovering addict falling off the wagon. Kim is a college student who decides to shoplift because she doesn't want to admit to her parents that she needs money. The situations are not at all the same, and consequences that the addict will ignore can and frequently will be enough to prevent the college student from doing things.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 09, 2019, 06:14:17 AM
I'm late to this discussion, so if someone has already mentioned this incident, I apologize, but it seems to me there is one time when Harry withholding information has led to someone getting hurt and it's in Storm Front and it's not Linda Randall.

So Harry trying to protect Murphy led to her treating him as a suspect.  It led to Murphy searching Harry's office because she didn't have the information she needed and I'm certain you will all remember, it led to Murphy getting stung by Victor Sells ever growing scorpion construct or demon.  (Whatever it was.)

Now it could be argued that Murphy sometimes makes questionable to bad decisions, but I see that more in Fool Moon than in Storm Front.  Murphy's view of supernatural world in Storm Front is like someone looking through a keyhole rather than a nice large window and Harry tries to keep it that way; and though Harry does it mostly to protect Murphy, it backfires instead.

I believe I mentioned it, but put the consequences even further back. Murphy would have understood why Harry didn't want to do the research. He could have gone to Bianca's with Murphy and Carmichael. This would have prevented the whole plot line leading to Grave Peril. Harry wouldn't have been in the situation in which he gets jumped at the gas station and had to confront Marcone head on starting the rumors that he worked for Marcone, and that would have lead to Harry working more with S.I. because the I.A. investigation wouldn't have stopped Murphy from hiring him. Then he would have been in on the werewolf investigation earlier in a less desperate situation. On the other hand, he wouldn't have cleared himself of the Doom either. Morgan would constantly be over his shoulder looking for an excuse to kill him, and maybe he would have found one. The Grave Peril plot line wouldn't develop. The war with the Reds would have been delayed until a time when the Reds were more prepared. Mab would never have gotten Harry's debt because Bianca would have never given the athame to Lea. Harry wouldn't be forced into the role he had in Summer Knight and there would have been a disaster in the Faerie Courts that was probably worse than what was described in the books based on WoJ about what would have happened if Summer power was dumped into Winter. It could have theoretically lead to the end of existence. If everyone has survived to this point, would Harry have known Michael and gotten involved with the Denarians? Would he have survived if he had without the help of a half turned Susan? Would Harry have developed a good enough relationship with Thomas to keep Lord Raith from killing him? Would Mavra have been in a position to blackmail Harry to stop a dark god from arising?

Basically, the mistakes made in Storm Front set up Grave Peril which sets up the rest of the series in which Harry plays a big role in stopping an apocalypse every two to three years. Now Harry has a way finding trouble and it has a way of finding him, so maybe he still would have been a central figure in all these (or likely somewhat different) events and things would have turned out better. Who knows? And that's the point about sharing information in the DF that Harry eventually realizes. You can't predict the consequences of sharing information, so maybe you should let the people most likely to bear those consequences decide if they're willing to risk it.

@123Chikadee: Same, but I usually don't notice the Doylist reasons for why things are happening if the book, movie, etc. is well executed until after first consuming it because I was too busy being engrossed by the story. If I'm watching a movie and am impressed with anything technical (special effects, acting, cinematography, etc.), I feel like somebody messed up in the story telling.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: 123Chikadee on June 09, 2019, 07:45:18 AM
@BadAlias: Yeah I feel yeah on that, though I do make an exception for effects and the like if they're really good. But yeah I'm less forgiving when it's done badly. I guess I've just made my peace with seeing the Doylist, lol.
Huh, I never saw it that way, how Storm Front effects Grave Peril like that. Though I feel like a lot of that could be shown in Mirror Mirror. Man, I'm so excited for that book.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 09, 2019, 11:05:30 AM
Quote
I brought up the addiction thing specifically in response to your claim that, since Molly violated the terms of her parole even though the consequence of doing so was death, then no consequence would be sufficient to prevent Kim from doing what she did. However, this is comparing apples to oranges. Molly is a recovering addict falling off the wagon. Kim is a college student who decides to shoplift because she doesn't want to admit to her parents that she needs money. The situations are not at all the same, and consequences that the addict will ignore can and frequently will be enough to prevent the college student from doing things.


Comparing Kim to the college student who steals instead of admitting and asking her parents for money is perfect.    I think in Molly's case that she is an addict may be a bit simplistic,  I say that because she had a real rational for using it however misguided it might have been.

Perhaps brains are not fully formed until the mid-twenties, however that doesn't stop the law from allowing young men and women to drive a car, own a gun, [even now in many places 21, Kim was at least that age] go to war, drinking, voting, running for office,  marrying, becoming a parent, or receiving the death penalty and being put to death for actions they took before their brains are fully formed.   In other words whether the brain if fully formed or not, at some point young people are expected to take responsibility for their actions.. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 09, 2019, 07:47:50 PM
Murphy's view of supernatural world in Storm Front is like someone looking through a keyhole rather than a nice large window and Harry tries to keep it that way; and though Harry does it mostly to protect Murphy, it backfires instead.
Harry does this over and over.  He's protecting Murphy.  He's protecting Kim.  He's protecting Molly.  Can you see an ongoing pattern in what Harry is doing.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Avernite on June 09, 2019, 09:10:25 PM
Harry does this over and over.  He's protecting Murphy.  He's protecting Kim.  He's protecting Molly.  Can you see an ongoing pattern in what Harry is doing.
He was protecting all of Chicago too.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 10, 2019, 03:54:25 AM
Quote
Harry does this over and over.  He's protecting Murphy.  He's protecting Kim.  He's protecting Molly.  Can you see an ongoing pattern in what Harry is doing.

Are you implying that Harry concealed information from Molly against her will in an attempt to protect her? Because I don't ever remember that happening. The only times I remember him choosing to conceal information from Molly is A) at the end of White Night, when she specifically said it was all right for him to do so; and B) in Cold Days, when he's not talking about Nemesis to anyone because he's not sure who he can trust.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 10, 2019, 05:05:26 AM
No.  Harry is protecting them.

However, remember Mab's words to Harry after the fight on Demonreach in Cold Days. Quoting Mab.
Quote
You made her curious about what you could do, and nurtured that curiosity with silence.
And.
Quote
I stood there with my mouth open for a second.  "That...that isn't...what I did."
Mab leaned closer to me and said, "That is precisely what you did," she said.
I creatively edited those quotes.  What he does in Changes is the one time the trope is turned upside down.  He gets her to use Black Magic to wipe his mind so that Mab won't know he caused his own death.  Thus according to your addiction theory, giving heroin to a heroin addict. Bails on her, violating her probation.  And gets her shot and mind f****d at Chichen Itza.  If there is a clear example that Harry has hurt someone, this is it.  Anyway, as usual, it's been fun.  Thanks.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 10, 2019, 11:26:32 AM
Quote
However, remember Mab's words to Harry after the fight on Demonreach in Cold Days. Quoting Mab.
Quote

    You made her curious about what you could do, and nurtured that curiosity with silence.

And.
Quote

    I stood there with my mouth open for a second.  "That...that isn't...what I did."
    Mab leaned closer to me and said, "That is precisely what you did," she said.

I creatively edited those quotes.  What he does in Changes is the one time the trope is turned upside down.  He gets her to use Black Magic to wipe his mind so that Mab won't know he caused his own death.  Thus according to your addiction theory, giving heroin to a heroin addict. Bails on her, violating her probation.  And gets her shot and mind f****d at Chichen Itza.  If there is a clear example that Harry has hurt someone, this is it.  Anyway, as usual, it's been fun.  Thanks.

I repeat it gets complicated....  Just what do you mean by "creative editing?" 

As I said it gets complicated, first of all, it is still her choice whether to mind wipe Harry or not.. Molly admits that freely.. The Fae may not outright lie, however they can twist the truth to their own purpose, Mab wanted Molly herself, she knows Harry better than he knows himself and uses that knowledge to manipulate him...  Molly went to C.I. of her own free will, if I remember correctly Harry didn't want her to go in the first place..   In the spirit of what Mab told him about he should not have kept magical knowledge from Molly, that is why she went warlock in the first place is B.S.  To begin
with Harry had no clue she had talent in the first place until Proven Guilty..  He didn't know until then that Charity had had talent and misused it when young and kept that knowledge quiet...  So while Mab spoke the truth as far as Molly looking up to Harry, she omitted the above, which is rather critical..  Also as a huge advocate of parental responsibility,  her parents are the ones that bare the blame..  They never told him that Charity had talent or what to do if it shows up in one of their kids..
Charity nursed Harry's wounds, but she never approved of him or his magic, if he tried to teach anything to young Molly if he had guessed she was talented, Charity would have had made a coat with his guts... 

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 10, 2019, 12:12:19 PM
The passages I quoted would have been better had they been longer, I was lazy.


Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 10, 2019, 03:02:15 PM
The passages I quoted would have been better had they been longer, I was lazy.

   With all due respect, do not be lazy about your quotes..  Give page numbers as well as book titles, context is very important...  Not saying you are doing this, but quotes without context or edited can be easily twisted one way or another... At least by giving the page number, oh and saying it is hard back or paperback as well because the pages don't always line up, gives the rest of us to go back and read for ourselves...  It enhances the debate and give both sides of it better grounds to support or refute..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: noblehunter on June 10, 2019, 03:12:06 PM
   With all due respect, do not be lazy about your quotes..  Give page numbers as well as book titles, context is very important...  Not saying you are doing this, but quotes without context or edited can be easily twisted one way or another... At least by giving the page number, oh and saying it is hard back or paperback as well because the pages don't always line up, gives the rest of us to go back and read for ourselves...  It enhances the debate and give both sides of it better grounds to support or refute..

Major downside of ebooks/audiobooks. Much more difficult to direct people to the right spot for quotes.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 10, 2019, 03:35:35 PM
Major downside of ebooks/audiobooks. Much more difficult to direct people to the right spot for quotes.

True, but still important, even with audiobooks and ebooks, chapters at least can be given.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 10, 2019, 04:11:20 PM
Quote
No.  Harry is protecting them.

However, remember Mab's words to Harry after the fight on Demonreach in Cold Days. Quoting Mab.
Quote
You made her curious about what you could do, and nurtured that curiosity with silence.
And.
Quote
I stood there with my mouth open for a second.  "That...that isn't...what I did."
Mab leaned closer to me and said, "That is precisely what you did," she said.

So, you're saying that Harry was trying to protect Molly by not telling her about magic? That's not right. Harry wasn't around when Molly was learning about her magic because he was explicitly avoiding Michael due to the whole Lasciel situation. Protecting Molly didn't factor into it.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 10, 2019, 05:55:47 PM
Well. I'll keep that in mind for the future.  I would have thought Mab's final speech in Cold Days and the snippets I quoted were both obvious and easy to find. However on the Kindle version it is page 509 of 515.
So, you're saying that Harry was trying to protect Molly by not telling her about magic? That's not right. Harry wasn't around when Molly was learning about her magic because he was explicitly avoiding Michael due to the whole Lasciel situation. Protecting Molly didn't factor into it.
Read Chapter 15 of Death Masks.  At this point Molly is fourteen.  If you don't understand why I chose those quotes, with that context, me telling you will not provide any clarity.  Harry will pick up the coin at the end of the book and not be around Molly again until Proven Guilty.

Next I offer a speech from Chapter 34 of Turncoat.
Quote
I lifted a hand. “Don’t apologize. Maybe I’m the one who let you down. Maybe I should have taught you better.” I petted Mouse’s head gently, looking away from her. “It doesn’t matter at the moment. People have died because I’ve been trying to save Morgan’s life. Thomas might still die. And now, if we do manage to save Morgan’s crusty old ass, he’s going to report that you’ve violated your parole. The Council will kill you. And me.”
She stared at me helplessly. “I didn’t mean to—”
“Get caught,” I said quietly. “Jesus Christ, kid. I trusted you.”
Now contrast this against what he asks of her in Changes as revealed in Ghost Story.

Now read Ghost Story, starting around page 542.  I can't quote enough to give you the gist of the passage.



Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 10, 2019, 06:19:56 PM
I wouldn't argue that Harry hasn't hurt people. Harry is arguably a murderer. He has killed a lot of people and not people. My argument is very specific. Harry withholding information hasn't hurt anyone (in the short term because we can't predict long term effects) with the exception of not telling Murphy about the White Council and the Doom in Storm Front.

What he did in Changes doesn't really matter to that point.

I don't see the point of citing page numbers. There are so many different versions of the books it's basically pointless. I use fbreader, in which the page numbers are determined by the font the user selects.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: kbrizzle on June 10, 2019, 08:02:50 PM
To be honest, I believe that Harry is correct in keeping info from people on the lower rungs of power in the DV. It is not his fault that they (Susan, Kim etc) are independent & proud - they certainly deserve most of the blame for explicitly doing things Harry tells them not to - & they pay for it. They do this because being a go-getter in the mortal world has worked out for them, but the supernatural world plays by different rules where one’s power level generally unlocks appropriately dangerous knowledge. Kim & Susan don’t understand this - Murphy is more situationally aware from her police work & I don’t recall Molly getting hurt from Harry withholding info (he hurts her unintentionally). Blaming Harry for this removes his agency, not theirs.

Most of the arguments I’ve read in this thread seem to focus on Harry not going out of his way to explain the rules & dangers of the supernatural world appropriately to the noob ladies in his life, but I disagree - no one is forcing Kim to build a circle that Harry would have trouble with or Susan to come to Bianca’s shindig where Harry is unsure he’ll make it out alive -they made these decisions with his express disapproval. Additionally I don’t think for a second that if Harry turned them down, they wouldn’t have looked elsewhere (more dangerous places) for that info which might’ve worked out even worse for them. I don’t understand the commenters who think that without Harry, Kim & Susan wouldn’t have figured out a way to dabble in the supernatural world. They are smart, dogged & connected enough to make this happen regardless of Harry - he just made it easier since he’s a good person.

It’s kinda like abortion or teen sex - whether you agree or disagree about the morality of the acts, it’s not going to dissuade the determined from going through with it even if they’re aware of the dangers.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 10, 2019, 08:25:37 PM
I wouldn't argue that Harry hasn't hurt people. Harry is arguably a murderer. He has killed a lot of people and not people. My argument is very specific. Harry withholding information hasn't hurt anyone (in the short term because we can't predict long term effects) with the exception of not telling Murphy about the White Council and the Doom in Storm Front.

What he did in Changes doesn't really matter to that point.

I don't see the point of citing page numbers. There are so many different versions of the books it's basically pointless. I use fbreader, in which the page numbers are determined by the font the user selects.
They asked for page numbers and chapters, I supplied them. 

There will never be a point, where you can definitively  say Harry withholding X led to Y.  If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable.  You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it.  He trying to protect Kim.  She dies.  He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat.  He tries to protect the Alphas,  Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well.
Quote from: kbrizzle
To be honest, I believe that Harry is correct in keeping info from people on the lower rungs of power in the DV.
There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant.  Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all.  Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 10, 2019, 11:53:53 PM
To be honest, I believe that Harry is correct in keeping info from people on the lower rungs of power in the DV. It is not his fault that they (Susan, Kim etc) are independent & proud - they certainly deserve most of the blame for explicitly doing things Harry tells them not to - & they pay for it. They do this because being a go-getter in the mortal world has worked out for them, but the supernatural world plays by different rules where one’s power level generally unlocks appropriately dangerous knowledge. Kim & Susan don’t understand this - Murphy is more situationally aware from her police work & I don’t recall Molly getting hurt from Harry withholding info (he hurts her unintentionally). Blaming Harry for this removes his agency, not theirs.

Most of the arguments I’ve read in this thread seem to focus on Harry not going out of his way to explain the rules & dangers of the supernatural world appropriately to the noob ladies in his life, but I disagree - no one is forcing Kim to build a circle that Harry would have trouble with or Susan to come to Bianca’s shindig where Harry is unsure he’ll make it out alive -they made these decisions with his express disapproval. Additionally I don’t think for a second that if Harry turned them down, they wouldn’t have looked elsewhere (more dangerous places) for that info which might’ve worked out even worse for them. I don’t understand the commenters who think that without Harry, Kim & Susan wouldn’t have figured out a way to dabble in the supernatural world. They are smart, dogged & connected enough to make this happen regardless of Harry - he just made it easier since he’s a good person.

It’s kinda like abortion or teen sex - whether you agree or disagree about the morality of the acts, it’s not going to dissuade the determined from going through with it even if they’re aware of the dangers.

I agree with most of this...

Quote
I wouldn't argue that Harry hasn't hurt people. Harry is arguably a murderer. He has killed a lot of people and not people. My argument is very specific. Harry withholding information hasn't hurt anyone (in the short term because we can't predict long term effects) with the exception of not telling Murphy about the White Council and the Doom in Storm Front.
Harry has killed people, but that doesn't make him a murderer,  no more than a soldier under most circumstances is a murder in war.  Harry doesn't deliberately kill innocents.
Quote

There will never be a point, where you can definitively  say Harry withholding X led to Y.  If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable.  You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it.  He trying to protect Kim.  She dies.  He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat.  He tries to protect the Alphas,  Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well.

It would have made no difference as others have pointed out to tell Kim everything about that circle or not... She was determined to make it in spite of Harry telling her she didn't have the experience and training to do so... He might have known she was lying, but he couldn't force her to tell the truth either if she was determined to be the one to create the circle..  As pointed out with Susan, she wanted that damn scoop, she stole the invitation, she then forged it, how do you protect against that?  She sowed the seeds of her own fate, not Harry.  As to Kirby's death, Harry didn't try to protect the Alphas when that happened, he told them what he knew, which wasn't much save it was  bad and powerful...  It was Will who made the decision to send his team in even though they didn't have a whole lot of information as to what they were up against, and as he told Harry, they'd do it again..
Quote
There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant.  Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all.  Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.

And then there are secrets that must be kept, they are not Harry's secrets, but still as a member of the White Council he must keep them....
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 11, 2019, 04:09:46 PM
[1.] They asked for page numbers and chapters, I supplied them. 

[2.] There will never be a point, where you can definitively  say Harry withholding X led to Y.  If that is your argument, it's unimpeachable. [3]. You can impeach the reason that he uses for withholding information, by looking at outcomes against the times he's used it.  He trying to protect Kim.  She dies.  He's trying to protect Susan, he ends up cutting her throat.  He tries to protect the Alphas,  Kirby gets killed Andi almost so. As a strategy it appears to not work very well. [4.] There an old saying, you can't be a little bit pregnant.  Either tell everything you know or tell nothing at all.  Harry straddles the fence, and that just makes you sore.

1. That was more of a response to the conversation about page numbers than to you answering the question. Also an explanation of why I'm never giving anyone page numbers.
2. My argument, especially with Kirby, which I've explicitly stated before, is I don't see how him withholding information led to harm.
3. Harry specifically said it worked "until now" about Kirby, and it seems to be working with the Asian lady who replaced Susan at the Arcane. But if I'm being honest, I don't think it's a good general strategy for those "in the know" already.
4. I completely disagree with the whole "either or" view of sharing information. Harry hiding Bob from Molly when there's the chance she's going to go warlock is probably a good idea. Not telling the White Council about Elaine is probably a good idea. Not telling the White Council about Bob is probably a good idea. The majority of members of the Senior Council decided it was either a good idea to not tell Harry about Demonreach or that it wouldn't matter if they did. Eb only informs him that there is something they aren't telling him. Rashid agrees that there are some things the Council doesn't need to know.

[a.] Harry has killed people, but that doesn't make him a murderer,  no more than a soldier under most circumstances is a murder in war.  [b.] Harry doesn't deliberately kill innocents. 

Well, I said arguably because it is arguable. And since it seems you want to argue the point, I'll make the case.

a. Murder is the [1.] unlawful killing of [2.] another [3.] human being [4.] with malice aforethought, expressed or implied. 1. Harry killed Cassius. 2. Cassius is not Harry. 3. Cassius is a human being. 4. Harry meant the action that killed Cassius. I'm aware this isn't a full explication of my case, but figured it was best to leave it simple and see which points you don't agree with instead of typing up a couple of weeks of law school classes for no reason.

b. The innocence or guilt of the person killed is irrelevant.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 11, 2019, 06:12:24 PM
Quote
1. That was more of a response to the conversation about page numbers than to you answering the question. Also an explanation of why I'm never giving anyone page numbers.
Mea Culpa. My apologies for being harsh. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 11, 2019, 07:06:36 PM
I only took it as confusion as to who I was addressing as I was unclear.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 11, 2019, 07:19:55 PM
Quote
a. Murder is the [1.] unlawful killing of [2.] another [3.] human being [4.] with malice aforethought, expressed or implied. 1. Harry killed Cassius. 2. Cassius is not Harry. 3. Cassius is a human being. 4. Harry meant the action that killed Cassius. I'm aware this isn't a full explication of my case, but figured it was best to leave it simple and see which points you don't agree with instead of typing up a couple of weeks of law school classes for no reason.

Quote
b. The innocence or guilt of the person killed is irrelevant.

I disagree, so would a jury in many cases... 

A technically maybe, but Mouse killed Cassius, not Harry... On Harry's orders perhaps, but Harry was on his back,bleeding, about to pass out, Cassius was in the process of killing him rather painfully and slowly, would have too, when Butters and Mouse came in to save the day. And it was Butters who sicced Mouse on Cassius.. You might call that murder, but it sounds more like self defense or at the very least justified homicide..Nor was it premeditated.   Don't know about law school but if I was sitting on a jury, that is how I'd see it.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 11, 2019, 08:49:13 PM
I disagree, so would a jury in many cases... 

A technically maybe, but Mouse killed Cassius, not Harry... On Harry's orders perhaps, but Harry was on his back,bleeding, about to pass out, Cassius was in the process of killing him rather painfully and slowly, would have too, when Butters and Mouse came in to save the day. And it was Butters who sicced Mouse on Cassius.. You might call that murder, but it sounds more like self defense or at the very least justified homicide..Nor was it premeditated.   Don't know about law school but if I was sitting on a jury, that is how I'd see it.

If we were to give Mouse personhood, Harry and Mouse would be an accomplices, co-conspirators, or some other theory of joint liability, otherwise Mouse is a tool of Harry, so that doesn't matter either way.

Cassius was not in the process of doing anything. He had been defeated. Mouse had him under control.

Harry told Mouse to kill him, and Mouse did, not Butters.

For self defense to be applicable, Harry would have to have an imminent reasonable apprehension that Cassius was capable of causing him grievous bodily harm or death. Since we can read Harry's thoughts, we know that not to be the case. Whether or not he could convince a jury of lies isn't really relevant as to whether or not he did it.

Justified homicide isn't a thing. It's not really even a legal term. For example, a killing committed in self-defense is a form of justified homicide. Another interesting one is capital punishment. This is where I thought the argument would be for Cassius's death, and Slate's if I had remembered that one. Harry is a Warden of the White Council at this point. He has lawful authority to execute this guy, and probably a duty to, according to the White Council. I'm sure the prosecutor's office in Chicago would disagree. Vehemently. This is the reason I said it is arguable that Harry is a murderer.

Quote
Cassius froze in place in sudden terror, his eyes very wide. He stared at me.
For a second there was total silence.
"I gave you a chance," I told him, my voice quiet.
Quintus Cassius's liver-spotted face went pale with horrified comprehension. "Wait."
"Mouse," I said. "Kill him."

That is premeditation to the point that Cassius realized Harry intended to kill him. Malice aforethought, express or implied, is requisite mental state, not premeditation. I go into the different ways to show malice aforethought here: https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,53124.msg2319667.html#msg2319667 (https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,53124.msg2319667.html#msg2319667).

Not only does the above show malice aforethought, it also shows that Harry was not in fear of imminent bodily harm from Cassius.

I'm pretty sure breaking into the Field Museum is a felony, so he would have committed felony murder as well. (Illinois has amended the common law definition of murder with statutes that rule out felony murder for Harry in this case. Illinois only recognizes felony murder when the felony is a "forcible felony." Breaking into the Field Museum is not a forcible felony. Harry would still be guilty of first degree murder under Illinois law anyway).

You would be a "bad" juror because you would have to ignore the law and jury instructions to reach a not guilty verdict. (Or you would be a "good" juror because you exercised "jury nullification." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)). In my experience, juries follow their jury instructions (simple statements of the law applied to the facts of the case). If you agree that Harry is subject to the law of Illinois and that the paragraph I quoted happened, then Harry is a murderer. Same with Slate. Maybe even if he was in Faerie at the time. It depends on whether or not a supernatural nation counts as a nation under federal law.

I think the question that determines if Harry is a murderer is whether or not he is subject to mortal law when acting on behalf of a supernatural nation.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 11, 2019, 08:53:09 PM
Extrajudicial killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing) might be more descriptive.  Harry is essentially taking the law into his own hands.  Which, since Jim wants him to be a hero, means he will never screw up and kill an innocent.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 11, 2019, 09:11:51 PM
Extrajudicial killing basically means murder by the government (at least to me). I wouldn't apply it to any lawful killing. I'm also pretty sure the law in your link wouldn't apply to Harry in Chicago. Before it could, I'm pretty sure the White Council would have to be recognized as a foreign nation, and I'm not sure the law would apply even then.

Innocent or guilty doesn't matter to a legal analysis of whether or not Harry is a murderer. Most people murdered are not "innocent" under most conceptions of the term. Sometimes people use it to mean "not deserving of death." I find that a useless concept in acts of violence committed "on the street" or "in the field" because "deserve" usually has nothing to do with it.

And if one wants to argue that Harry isn't morally a murderer, I'd need an explanation of what that even means.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 11, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
Crappy link.  It should have pointed to the definition at the top of the article. Corrected.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 12, 2019, 03:11:59 AM
I looked at the first and second sentences. When it said citation needed, I thought boy howdy, only with profanity.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 12, 2019, 11:15:02 AM
Quote
Cassius was not in the process of doing anything. He had been defeated. Mouse had him under control.

Harry wasn't in the best of shape, I believe he passed out moments later.. One could argue his state of mind wasn't the best... And absolutely, Mouse and Butters should both be convicted as well.. So if Butters and Mouse hadn't come on the scene, you would of called Cassius actions self defense?  It was premeditated on Harry's part?
Um, it was was Cassius with the help of Grevane who ambushed and got Harry down in the first place so Cassius could slowly take him apart in hopes of gaining a coin, thinking he had the coin of Lasciel on him, his intent was to kill Harry slowly if he didn't get one...  So perhaps that makes me a bad juror, not convicting Harry according to you is how the law reads.  But on this evidence?  Convicting would be bad justice...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 12, 2019, 04:13:01 PM
Cassius was no longer trying to kill Harry because he couldn't. Harry then decided to kill Cassius. Then Harry killed Cassius. Whether or not that's premeditation doesn't really matter. It is intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Harry meant for Cassius to die. That meets the "malice aforethought" standard.

He passed out after being hit by a death curse. If he hadn't killed Cassius, he wouldn't have been hit by the death curse. Harry's state of mind probably wasn't the best, but that's not a justification; it's a mitigation. Under Illinois law, it might be enough to bump it down to second degree murder, but I don't think so. Butters should not be convicted because he acted in defense of others because Harry was in danger of grievous bodily harm or death when Butters acted. When Harry acted, he wasn't in danger of imminent grievous bodily injury or death.

Premeditated murder isn't always punished severely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche). My point isn't that Harry is a bad person or even wrong for killing Cassius. My point is that Harry has harmed people to the extent that he committed murder under mortal law.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM
I find it hard to believe that any jury would convict someone of even 2nd degree murder in the Cassius situation...

Let’s go through the events here - the ‘victim’ (Cassius) had just spent the last few minutes cutting the ‘murderer’s’ chest open & was just about to kill him when he was interrupted by a 3rd party (Butters). The victim then breaks the 3rd party’s nose & tries to kill him with the same knife. The murderer’s dog is able to intervene & kill the ‘victim’ while protecting its master.

There is no way to prove that Cassius wouldn’t have been able to get back to up & finish what he’d started - perhaps he would’ve been able to get the drop on Mouse (unlikely) or perhaps he would re-attempt this at a later date, given that’s exactly what Cassius was doing here (after the events of DM).

We only know that Harry gave the order to Mouse to kill Cassius because he expressly tells us so, why would he do this in a hypothetical court of law where he is being ‘accused’ of murder? Before Mouse managed to get his mouth around Cassius’ throat, Cassius was winning the fights against both Harry & Butters... Cassius was in better shape than either of them at that point & was planning on killing both if not for Mouse, who as a dog would be legally & morally venerated for protecting its owner, even if such an attack was fatal to the ‘victim’...

All of Harry’s ‘murders’ would probably count as justifiable homicides (especially if he could get a Sidhe lawyer) - including that of Corpsetaker in DB. Like Harry tells Sarissa in CD, the only 2 people he’s killed in cold blood were Susan & Lloyd Slate. Given that Susan’s body likely vanished after the Ramps were exterminated as a species, I doubt any mortal authority would be able to prove anything there (no body, almost impossible to prove the crime) & Lloyd Slate was murdered in the NN - well out of any mortal police’s jurisdiction & in full compliance/ being forced to do it by the ruler of that nation (Mab).

So I really don’t agree with the assessments of Harry being a ‘murderer’ according to American law. The legal definition of murder is just that, a legal definition - extenuating circumstances are always considered in such cases.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 12, 2019, 09:12:51 PM
Let’s go through the events here - the ‘victim’ (Cassius) had just spent the last few minutes cutting the ‘murderer’s’ chest open & was just about to kill him when he was interrupted by a 3rd party (Butters). The victim then breaks the 3rd party’s nose & tries to kill him with the same knife. The murderer’s dog is able to intervene & kill the ‘victim’ while protecting its master.

As you admit, that's not what happened. If Mouse had immediately killed Cassius when Mouse got his jaws on Cassius's neck, that would be different because 1) Harry was not involved, 2) it was done to stop an imminent threat, and 3) there was no deliberation.

[1.] There is no way to prove that Cassius wouldn’t have been able to get back to up & finish what he’d started - perhaps he would’ve been able to get the drop on Mouse (unlikely) or [2.] perhaps he would re-attempt this at a later date, given that’s exactly what Cassius was doing here (after the events of DM).

1. That's not the standard. Self defense requires not that the prosecutor prove there was no imminent threat, but for Harry to prove that there was one. I disagree with this ancient burden because "unlawful" is an element, so I believe the state has the burden of proving it, but judges for hundreds of years disagree. 2. Self defense requires there to be an imminent threat. Once the immediacy of the threat stops, the legal defense of self defense ceases to apply. Re-attempting at a later date is insufficient.

We only know that Harry gave the order to Mouse to kill Cassius because he expressly tells us so, why would he do this in a hypothetical court of law where he is being ‘accused’ of murder?

We don't need a jury to determine the facts so that we can conduct a legal analysis because we have the facts. The jury's only job is to determine the disputed facts of a case. Cf. jury nullification, sentencing. I've previously stated Harry could lie his way out of this one if he was charged.

[1.] All of Harry’s ‘murders’ would probably count as justifiable homicides ([2.] especially if he could get a Sidhe lawyer) - [3.] including that of Corpsetaker in DB. [4.] Like Harry tells Sarissa in CD, the only 2 people he’s killed in cold blood were Susan & Lloyd Slate. [5.] Given that Susan’s body likely vanished after the Ramps were exterminated as a species, I doubt any mortal authority would be able to prove anything there (no body, almost impossible to prove the crime) & [6.] Lloyd Slate was murdered in the NN - well out of any mortal police’s jurisdiction & in full compliance/ being forced to do it by the ruler of that nation (Mab).

1. If they are justifiable homicides, then they aren't murders. 2. If he gets away with murder, it doesn't mean he didn't commit murder. 3. I'd say that's self-defense/defense of others, but it would depend on the judge. 4. In Proven Guilty, Harry states "I murdered them. I've never killed, man...not like that. Cold." 5. Lea buries Susan's body, and it's arguable whether or not she is a human being at the time. Also, I don't know anything about homicide in civil law countries, much less Mexico specifically. 6. As I've previously stated, that depends entirely upon the U.S. governments determination of whether or not Winter is a "nation." The U.S. has extra-territorial jurisdiction.

[1.] So I really don’t agree with the assessments of Harry being a ‘murderer’ according to American law. [2.] The legal definition of murder is just that, a legal definition - extenuating circumstances are always considered in such cases.

1. His actions meet all the elements of the crime and don't meet any defense, so Harry is a murderer according to American law. 2. When we're talking about whether or not a crime occurred, it's the legal definitions that matter. When we're talking about whether or not to charge someone, pardon them, or sentencing, extenuating circumstances are sometimes considered.

People have been convicted on much less than what we have on Harry. That is, in clearer cases of self defense. In Texas, a father was brought before a grand jury when he killed a man he found raping his daughter. (Paywall) https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=274F1345C58C43E4518B5C9748AEE0AA&gwt=pay (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=274F1345C58C43E4518B5C9748AEE0AA&gwt=pay) (paywall). I have no idea why he was brought before a grand jury, but sometimes prosecutors are really just out to get someone.

I wouldn't be surprised if more people are wrongly convicted of murder because a court didn't find self defense/defense of others when it should have than when the authorities just convicted the "wrong guy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

That article's description of self defense is wrong. It's grossly under inclusive. The self defense page is better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)). It's "Retreat" section is technically wrong on a few counts. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions had adopted the majority rule of no duty to retreat well before "Stand Your Ground" laws ever showed up. The first adoption of the majority rule was by a court in New York, and not a legislature. I think it was in the Colonial period, but don't recall. It was definitely before anyone you've ever known was born.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 12, 2019, 09:32:27 PM
American law wasn't written with dark magic in mind. Murder as a crime exists because we define it as such, the killings in question don't fit in any legal system that doesn't include magic.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 12, 2019, 10:44:08 PM
American law wasn't written with dark magic in mind. Murder as a crime exists because we define it as such, the killings in question don't fit in any legal system that doesn't include magic.
Mortal law claims jurisdiction over everything except "acts of God."   No other supernatural agency is exempted.

It's wrong, of course, for purposes of the Dresdenverse.  But it still claims jurisdiction, assesses guilt & innocence.

For example, Murphy holding mortal Justice as relevant, and forcing Tiny to back down.
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 12, 2019, 11:03:47 PM
Reductio ad absurdum.  White vampire kills boy/girl in court, and claims death by orgasm.  Authorities can't prove different.  Vampire shoots bird at judge and goes on vacation somewhere warm. You can claim jurisdiction but you have to prove the crime.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 12, 2019, 11:13:17 PM
a. Murder is the [1.] unlawful killing of ... 

... This is where I thought the argument would be for Cassius's death, and Slate's if I had remembered that one. Harry is a Warden of the White Council at this point. He has lawful authority to execute this guy, and probably a duty to, according to the White Council. I'm sure the prosecutor's office in Chicago would disagree. Vehemently. This is the reason I said it is arguable that Harry is a murderer...
... If you agree that Harry is subject to the law of Illinois and that the paragraph I quoted happened, then Harry is a murderer...
I think the question that determines if Harry is a murderer is whether or not he is subject to mortal law when acting on behalf of a supernatural nation.

I think you have captured the essence of the matter.

Which laws apply?

Given the mortal laws ignorance, I'd argue that they do NOT apply.  How can the law apply to matters it does not acknowledge and therefore explicitly does not address?

Does the law mandate how cold Mab's ice may become?  Does it hold Kringle responsible for Equal Opportunity Gift-giving?  Does it impose any controls upon Denarians?  Or upon wizards?

Yes, mortal law does claim jurisdiction; and by strict (and thus ignorant) interpretation of said law... Harry has committed murder.

But I would argue that in this situation, mortal law is so ignorant as to be irrelevant.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 12, 2019, 11:23:09 PM
Reductio ad absurdum.  White vampire kills boy/girl in court, and claims death by orgasm.  Authorities can't prove different.  Vampire shoots bird at judge and goes on vacation somewhere warm. You can claim jurisdiction but you have to prove the crime.
Oh, I'm sure the murder couldn't be proven by mortals!  Even if somebody matched the wounds on Cassius to a casting of Mouse's jaws, Harry's extensive wounding from being tortured would have a jury saying "Good doggy!" and "Not Guilty" (probably in that order).

That doesn't alter the facts of the matter -- unknowable to mortal law -- which do fit the mortal law's definition of murder.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 13, 2019, 02:49:30 AM
I think you have captured the essence of the matter.

Which laws apply?

Given the mortal laws ignorance, I'd argue that they do NOT apply.  How can the law apply to matters it does not acknowledge and therefore explicitly does not address?

Does the law mandate how cold Mab's ice may become?  Does it hold Kringle responsible for Equal Opportunity Gift-giving?  Does it impose any controls upon Denarians?  Or upon wizards?

Yes, mortal law does claim jurisdiction; and by strict (and thus ignorant) interpretation of said law... Harry has committed murder.

But I would argue that in this situation, mortal law is so ignorant as to be irrelevant.

The failing of mortal law isn't that it doesn't foresee a Cassius like situation. That sort of thing happens all the time, and that's why I'm certain Harry's actions do not constitute the legal concept of self defense and do constitute murder. The problem is that Harry, having defeated his opponent, can't hand him off to the authorities because the authorities can't handle a warlock. Not that the Council could, either. That's why the Council has the death penalty for every breach of the Seven Laws.

While thinking of an alternative definition of murder, other than a legal one, I looked to some religious texts and could come up with an argument that Harry didn't commit murder, but instead he fulfilled a duty to protect others when he killed Cassius. I'm not going into detail because it's a "Forbidden Discussion Item."
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 13, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
The problem is magic.  You either have undetectable crimes or crimes with incomprehensible motives.  And however you define murder, a jury decides if murder actually occurs. The definition is not the fact.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 13, 2019, 12:42:04 PM
The failing of mortal law isn't that it doesn't foresee a Cassius like situation. That sort of thing happens all the time, and that's why I'm certain Harry's actions do not constitute the legal concept of self defense and do constitute murder. The problem is that Harry, having defeated his opponent, can't hand him off to the authorities because the authorities can't handle a warlock. Not that the Council could, either. That's why the Council has the death penalty for every breach of the Seven Laws.

While thinking of an alternative definition of murder, other than a legal one, I looked to some religious texts and could come up with an argument that Harry didn't commit murder, but instead he fulfilled a duty to protect others when he killed Cassius. I'm not going into detail because it's a "Forbidden Discussion Item."

Defense,  Harry feared for his life.... Evidence, multiple knife wounds on his body, torture, finger prints belonging to Cassius are on the knife, bonds that were used to tie Harry down...  We have a 200 pound sloppily grinning dog who broke the neck of the guy trying to kill his master.. But except for his size, Mouse would appear pretty harmless, and he has  the intelligence to appear harmless. To vanilla mortals, Foo dogs are stone statues that guard Chinese restaurants, not deadly divine guardians.  Harry, his mind clouded by pain, blood loss, and torture, gave the final command to his dog, but who is to say he still didn't still fear for his life?  It can be argued that he wasn't exactly rational at that moment.   Men have been acquitted of murder in real life on less compelling evidence ....   One case in particular comes to mind, but I don't want to step over the line..  You have the law, and then you have evidence, you also have circumstance....  That is why we have trials...
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 13, 2019, 07:07:28 PM
We have trials and juries because we don't know the facts and because police aren't competent to apply the facts to the law. The jury determines the facts. A judge applies those facts to the law. We have the facts. The law is clear until we consider the status of supernatural nations.

who is to say he still didn't still fear for his life?

Harry?

[1.] The problem is magic.  You either have undetectable crimes or crimes with incomprehensible motives.  [2.] And however you define murder, a jury decides if murder actually occurs. [3.] The definition is not the fact.

1. The problem is obtaining a conviction. It's exactly like saying Victor Sells didn't murder anyone in Storm Front because a jury would never convict. 2. No, juries answer a series of factual questions. The judge uses those factual findings and applies the law to them. 3. The definition is the law.

Here is what the jury instructions would look like (using Texas law, wherein the chief difference would probably be that Illinois doesn't have a separate sentencing portion of the trial; also note that I was wrong that Dresden would have to prove self defense; however, to claim self defense, he would have to admit to intentionally or knowingly killing Cassius):
Quote
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT

Accusation

The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of murder. Specifically, the accusation is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—

1.   the defendant caused the death of an individual; and

2.   the defendant did this intentionally or knowingly.

A person causes the death of another if, but for the person’s conduct, the death of the other would not have occurred.

Burden of Proof

The state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accusation of murder.

Definitions

Intentionally Causing the Death of an Individual

A person intentionally causes the death of an individual if the person has the conscious objective or desire to cause that death.

Knowingly Causing the Death of an Individual

A person knowingly causes the death of an individual if the person is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause that death.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that—

1.   the defendant, in Cook County, Illinois, on or about October 31, 20XX, caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius; and

2.   the defendant did this either intentionally or knowingly.

You must all agree on elements 1 and 2 listed above.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or both of elements 1 and 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the two elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant’s use of force was made in self-defense.
Self-Defense
You have heard evidence that, when the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Quintus Cassius by commanding the defendant’s dog to break the neck of Quintus Cassius, he believed his use of force was necessary to defend himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force.
Relevant Statutes
A person’s use of deadly force against another that would otherwise constitute the crime of murder is not a criminal offense if the person reasonably believed the force used was immediately necessary to protect the person against the other’s use of unlawful deadly force.

Self-defense does not cover conduct in response to verbal provocation alone. The defendant must have reasonably believed the other person had done more than verbally provoke the defendant.
Burden of Proof
The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.
Definitions
Reasonable Belief
“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.
Deadly Force
“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause death or serious bodily injury or force that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Application of Law to Facts
If you have found that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must next decide whether the state has proved that the defendant’s conduct was not justified by self-defense.

To decide the issue of self-defense, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following two elements. The elements are that—

1.    the defendant did not believe his conduct was immediately necessary to protect himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force; or

2.    the defendant’s belief was not reasonable.

You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of murder, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

Now these are the standard Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges. Jury charges are often modified in such a manner as "Did X happen?" Things are added and removed. If I was a prosecutor, I'd try to get a definition of immediate in there.

My position isn't that a prosecutor would have a strong case. It isn't that Harry couldn't convince them that things happened differently than they did. Though it's only in Proven Guilty that Harry notes that he has learned to lie, so it's questionable whether or not he could prove self defense. Honestly, it doesn't really matter if he had acted in self defense because he thinks he murdered Cassius. This alone would make proving his case hard. Unless the cops did something like record his statements presenting his case for self defense, Harry would likely have to testify to get self defense evidence in front of a jury. I'd have to question Butters vigorously to determine if he could do it.

1. Harry caused the death of Cassius.
2. He did so intentionally.
3. Unless Harry admitted this, it would be hard to prove.
4. Harry reasonably believed
5. that his actions were necessary to protect himself against Quintus Cassius’s use of unlawful deadly force,
6. immediately.

I agree with points 1. through 3. and I disagree with points 4. through 6.

"If I see you again-ever-I'll kill you." Death Masks - Ch. 28. That's why Harry killed Cassius. He won. The fight was over. Cassius would have crawled away like he had in the past. Would he have returned before dying of old age? If he could. Harry knew all of this.

If I was in Harry's shoes, would I have done the same thing? Probably, but that doesn't make it not murder. Was it the right thing to do? Again, probably, but that doesn't make it not murder.

(And back to Proven Guilty, under Illinois law, I'm pretty sure Harry would be guilty as an accomplice in murdering that warlock kid, but I do not have experience in Illinois accomplice liability laws).
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 13, 2019, 07:17:27 PM
... because it's a "Forbidden Discussion Item." 

Linky?
I don't think I've seen any explicit list of such, and my casual poking-around didn't find it here...  :-P
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 13, 2019, 07:40:06 PM
Quote
(And back to Proven Guilty, under Illinois law, I'm pretty sure Harry would be guilty as an accomplice in murdering that warlock kid, but I do not have experience in Illinois accomplice liability laws).

    Or would that have been considered an execution lawfully carried out by another government, under the authority of it's governing body? 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 13, 2019, 07:53:05 PM
I tried to just quote in my previous post, but there isn't a quote button there. https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,23096.0.html (https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,23096.0.html). I don't think anyone would be upset by it, but them's the rules.

    Or would that have been considered an execution lawfully carried out by another government, under the authority of it's governing body? 

Considered by who? The White Council? Yes. Even Harry. Murphy, not so much. She said she'd go after them if a body showed up after Harry talked her down. I think this would be somewhere close to the median response of people in the law enforcement/legal community with her level of knowledge. The Feds and the States are not likely to look favorably on foreign nations executing people within their respective territories. Though it wouldn't be unthinkable for them to happily look the other way as long as the Council kept it quiet. The courts would not be happy with it. It's probably a violation of just about all the due process rights associated with the criminal justice process. (There is the whole government action component to due process, so it depends on how much the government is complicit in the process).

Also, this is what I think is the most interesting and probably best argument for why killing Cassius wasn't murder. Harry executed the guy. That's why it wasn't self defense. But was it a just and lawful execution/wartime action?
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 13, 2019, 08:18:05 PM
Quote
The problem is obtaining a conviction. It's exactly like saying Victor Sells didn't murder anyone in Storm Front because a jury would never convict.
If you can't put the case in front of a jury or if the jury refuses to convict, then to all intents and purposes he isn't guilty. Murder is a crime, what a jury decides is who committed the crime.  And your speaking from God mode. They don't sit in  a privileged position.
Linky?
I don't think I've seen any explicit list of such, and my casual poking-around didn't find it here...  :-P

Do not discuss:

- Real world religion (Grey area: real world religion in the Dresden Files might be OK, but anything that comes off as using that to slam members of particular faiths in the real world by proxy is a step over the line)

- Real world politics (this is not confined to political parties, their hi jinxes, and the like, but also beliefs that cause political hot topics, such as a stance on abortion, death penalty, taxes, LGBT rights either pro or con, gun politics, etc.)

- This includes having anything like the above in your sig, or by your Avatar, or in your Avatar.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 13, 2019, 09:02:34 PM
Are you saying Victor Sells isn't a murderer because a jury wouldn't believe he used magic to make people's hearts explode? And since Harry didn't kill any of the "victims" we're talking about with magic, how is magic a problem? Note that motivation isn't necessary to prove any crime. It could be considered necessary to show a defense.

Let's say a prosecutor gets Michael, Sanya, Butters, and Murphy to tell the truth about what they know.

Murphy could put them on the trail to the likeliest suspect. I don't recall whether or not Harry confessed to her.

Butters can testify to the fact that "Mouse landed on his back, and the huge dog's jaws closed on the man's neck. Cassius froze in place (in sudden terror, his eyes very wide. He stared at [Harry]). For a second there was total silence. 'I gave you a chance,' [Harry] told him, [his] voice quiet. (Quintus Cassius's liver-spotted face went pale with horrified comprehension). 'Wait[,' Cassius said]. 'Mouse,' Harry said. "Kill him." Parenthesis for parts that Butters may not have been able to see, and brackets for alterations to the original quote from the book.

Michael and Sanya can testify that Harry savagely beat the man a few years ago and stated that he would kill him if he ever saw him again. Michael can further testify that Harry said he "murdered" Cassius.

Then there is probably a bunch of physical evidence, too. Honestly, between Harry's blood at the museum and at his murder scene, if the police have properly processed it all, it would only be a matter of time before he was questioned about Cassius's death.

I wouldn't say that a lack of a conviction means a crime didn't happen. If Harry's actions and mental state constitute a crime, he committed a crime. Most murders in Chicago go unsolved. Chicago's murder clearance rate, the number of murders in which someone is charged, not convicted, is 15.4%. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/21/chicago-police-homicide-clearance-rate-killing-murder-shooting/1368099002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/21/chicago-police-homicide-clearance-rate-killing-murder-shooting/1368099002/). While I can't say the perpetrators in the 84.6% of cases are all murderers with certainty, I think it is definitely reasonable to say that most of them are murderers, even if they never get charged or convicted.

Let's say someone is charged and acquitted of murder, and you call them a murderer. They sue you for defamation. You can go into court and prove they are in fact a murderer. Then they lose the defamation case because the truth is a defense.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 13, 2019, 10:49:20 PM
Harry bears a moral responsibility for killing Cassius.  Harry makes an extrajudicial decision that Cassius is too dangerous to live.  He isn't even a warden at that point.  He's a vigilante.  And Harry's ethical position is established in canon.  Jim has established the mortal authorities lack of ability to contain supernatural threats.  In Fool Moon, and Changes, to name two.    So you can classify the act as murder, but you have to ignore canon.

Victor Sells could never be convicted of murder because you can't connect him to the act. He wasn't there  and to the mortal authorities magic doesn't exist.

Just to be sure, everybody does know that dogs can't be given a kill command?  Right?  Only Foo dogs of exceptional intelligence need apply.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 14, 2019, 01:25:00 PM
Harry bears a moral responsibility for killing Cassius.  Harry makes an extrajudicial decision that Cassius is too dangerous to live.  He isn't even a warden at that point.  He's a vigilante.  And Harry's ethical position is established in canon.  Jim has established the mortal authorities lack of ability to contain supernatural threats.  In Fool Moon, and Changes, to name two.    So you can classify the act as murder, but you have to ignore canon.

Victor Sells could never be convicted of murder because you can't connect him to the act. He wasn't there  and to the mortal authorities magic doesn't exist.

Just to be sure, everybody does know that dogs can't be given a kill command?  Right?  Only Foo dogs of exceptional intelligence need apply.

  Dogs can be given a kill command,  it is an "attack" command...  Mostly they are trained to go after the limbs and subdue until called off, but make no mistake a Mal or a German Shepherd can rip out someone's throat in seconds.

Why do you ignore that fact that with help Cassius had ambushed Harry? Then he tied him up with magical bonds and proceeded to carve him up with a knife desperate to get the coin he thought Harry carried?  And he was also about to kill Harry?  Harry knew it and actually prayed for a Holy Knight to come on scene to save him..  This is when Butters and Mouse showed up and saved him..  It wasn't cold blooded anything...   Except maybe on the part of Cassius, he was cold bloodily carving up Harry, until Butters and Mouse came on the scene and subdued him..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 14, 2019, 06:39:34 PM
... Why do you ignore that fact that with help Cassius had ambushed Harry? Then he tied him up with magical bonds and proceeded to carve him up with a knife desperate to get the coin he thought Harry carried?  And he was also about to kill Harry?  Harry knew it and actually prayed for a Holy Knight to come on scene to save him..

Not ignoring these!

Horrible crimes; torture, attempted murder, etc.  Not even any of the ambiguity we're arguing about in Harry's case -- both the laws of the White Council, and the laws of Illinois, hold Cassius as criminal in these actions.  (although as far as I understand it, not the Unseelie Accords -- Mab doesn't object to personal animosity even leading up to murder).
 
So, yeah -- Cassius was an awful person, and was doing awful things there.  No argument.

   This is when Butters and Mouse showed up and saved him..  It wasn't cold blooded anything...   Except maybe on the part of Cassius, he was cold bloodily carving up Harry, until Butters and Mouse came on the scene and subdued him..
Yeah, this is a key point:  Cassius had been subdued.  He was not in a position to continue his assault on Harry, he was not a threat in that moment when Harry ordered Mouse to kill him.

Killing somebody who is not a threat in the moment?  That looks... an awful lot like murder.  Even if the person "deserved" it.

A couple of key counter-questions:
 - was Harry entitled to kill him anyway?  Under WC law, yes he was:  Luccio had Warden'ed him shortly before, so Harry's Grey Cloak entitled him to execute sorcerors, necromancers, and their allies, particularly with the Darkhallow ritual having begun.
 - would Cassius have renewed murderous violence, and how soon?  Preponderance of the evidence suggests that Cassius would indeed have renewed his violence, and done so as soon as he saw advantage; possibly as soon as Mouse was off him.

I would argue that, Harry being "cold-blooded" or not, Cassius was an immediate threat -- only momentarily neutralized, in a highly-unstable situation -- and the killing was in fact self-defense.
 
Nevertheless, the argument that Harry "committed murder" does have some merit, particularly if you ONLY consider it from the POV of local/mortal law.  "But he started it!" isn't a defense, since Cassius (as noted) had been subdued, and was not a threat in the moment.  AFAIK, mortal law has no coverage for the "cannot safely take the subdued perp to jail, must execute on the spot" situation.
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 14, 2019, 07:07:29 PM
Dogs can be given a kill command,  it is an "attack" command...  Mostly they are trained to go after the limbs and subdue until called off, but make no mistake a Mal or a German Shepherd can rip out someone's throat in seconds.

Oh HELL yeah.  Unless a dog has been specifically trained to ONLY go after the limbs, to subdue... almost any adult dog over 30 lbs or so can (potentially) become a lethal threat.

And the traditional "police" dogs - malinois, alsatian, etc -- aren't even the most dangerous breeds.  Some dogs have been bred for WAR, for actual battlefields, facing armed/armored soldiers; or for gladitorial arenas; or for hunting other large predators.

The Great Dane's ancestors fought the Roman Legions in Germany, and impressed them enough to be imported back to Rome for exhibition fights in the colliseum.

The jaguar was a specific motivator for breeding the Dogo Argentino.  Do YOU wanna go "mano a dogo" vs. a jaguar-killer?  Yeah, me neither!

Rhodeisian Ridgeback was bred for African game... including lions.

Off in Japan, the Akita was the war-dog of choice.

The Caucasian Sheperd / Ovcharka is a massive guard dog.

The Anatolian too, though leaner.

Both are ancestral to various military/security uses.

And no DF thread that mentions dogs should ignore the Tibetan Mastiff -- the closest RL breed to our own Mouse!
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 14, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
Quote
Oh HELL yeah.  Unless a dog has been specifically trained to ONLY go after the limbs, to subdue... almost any adult dog over 30 lbs or so can (potentially) become a lethal threat.


Oh yeah, even when someone supposedly knows what they are doing.  A dog handler I know, worked two Mals, she had raised them from pups, thought she knew them very well... One day she got between them, whether they were fighting or just playing hard is unclear, but one turned on her and ripped her bicep off before you can say rip your bicep off, she is lucky, if the dog had jumped just a few inches higher and to the right, she wouldn't be alive to tell the tale..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 14, 2019, 10:51:29 PM
For the record Mouse wasn't trained as an attack dog.   Not in the text.  Mouse is smart.  He can read and understand English.
Quote
Significant dog bites affect tens of millions of people globally each year.[3] It is estimated that 2% of the U.S. population, 4.5–4.7 million people, are bitten by dogs each year.[4] Most bites occur in children.[5] In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26.[6] 77% of dog bites are from the pet of family or friends, and 50% of attacks occur on the dog owner's property.[6] Animal bites, most of which are from dogs, are the reason for 1% of visits to an emergency department in the United States.[5]
There would probably be fewer fatalities and bites if people like your dog handler friend remembered that dogs are animals. Your friend would benefit from reading this.
Quote
Human activities may increase the risk of a dog bite as does age, height, and movement. The CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association have published recommendations which encourage those that are around dogs to: not attempt to break up a dog fight[27]
I am sensitive to this subject currently since I have two great grandchildren under 18 months whose parents don't really understand dogs.  My wife was bitten because she ignored the first rule.  Do not approach strange dogs.  Carry on.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 15, 2019, 12:24:23 AM
Quote
For the record Mouse wasn't trained as an attack dog.   Not in the text.  Mouse is smart.  He can read and understand English.

Mouse is an effective guard dog, trust me, he knows how to attack, that is what makes him an effective guard dog...  Yes, he is smart and can read and understand English, he also knows how to
attack when he needs to... Attack to kill if need be.

Quote
There would probably be fewer fatalities and bites if people like your dog handler friend remembered that dogs are animals. Your friend would benefit from reading this.
I didn't say she was my friend, I did say she is a dog handler, which means she knows very well what dogs are, what they capable of and can do..  She works a dog, to find human remains in all kinds of nasty situations.. Also to search for and save live people in all kinds of nasty situations and weathers...  Have you ever tried to train dog to do such work?  Have you actually worked a dog?
Quote
I am sensitive to this subject currently since I have two great grandchildren under 18 months whose parents don't really understand dogs.  My wife was bitten because she ignored the first rule.  Do not approach strange dogs.  Carry on.
Do you really understand dogs?
Then let me educate you so it turns out well for your great grandchildren and their parents....
True, one shouldn't approach a strange dog..  That is good if you see a dog off by itself, if someone is with the strange dog, always ask first if it is okay to pet the dog? If the owner says, "no." Don't try to pet... If the owner says,"Yes."  Here are some good rules... Never look a strange dog directly in the eye, it could see it as a challenge.. Next, let the dog smell your hand coming from underneath the dog's chin... Never pat the top of it's head or reach over the top of it's nose, it could feel threatened by that.. Follow those rules and everyone should be pretty safe...  I could go into paying attention to a dog's body language, but that is a little more complicated you can look it up..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 15, 2019, 02:05:33 AM
Quote
Do you really understand dogs?
Well enough to never get bit. However that was a PSA.  Mouse is a genius among dogs.  Dogs can't process language like a human.  Mouse can read.  The point is that attack dogs don't work the way you apparently believe.  Or perhaps I am mistaken.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: huangjimmy108 on June 15, 2019, 03:22:05 AM
Harry does this over and over.  He's protecting Murphy.  He's protecting Kim.  He's protecting Molly.  Can you see an ongoing pattern in what Harry is doing.

Most of it are unintentional. The harm is done out of ignorance rather than out of malice, but it is harm done by Harry regardless.

1. He practice as a real wizard openly and advertise himself in the yellow pages. This opens the pandora box. It provides a convenient avenue whereby vanilla mortals and unprepared practicianers the chance to access the more dangerous and deadly part of the supernatural world. Though we may argue that people like Susan can and probably will get into the dark and deep end of the supernatural world by themselves, Harry openly practicing as a real wizard makes matter a lot worse. Harry done this despite the disapproval of the senior members of the council and he know it.

FM:
"Oh, come on, Harry," she told me. "You'reChicago 's only practicing professional wizard, and you're the only one who can help me." She leaned across the table toward me, her eyes intent. "I can't find the references for all of these symbols. No one in local circles recognizes them either. You're the only real wizard I've ever even heard of, much less know. I just want to know what these others are."

As we can see, Kim Delaney, a somewhat connected practicianer cannot easily find access to a wizard. Without Harry, gaining access is not so easy, especially during the early parts of the series where the world is still peaceful and stabil and secrecy is held tight.

2. Harry gave partial information to amateurs. Though he warm them about the dangers afterwards, his conduct are likely to encourages the amateurs instead. For example: Harry explain the 3 layered circle to Kim, but he only explain the first and second circle and he lied to Kim about the 3rd circle. Harry told kim that the 3rd circle is gobbledygook. He show kim some of the stuff, hide the most interesting ones and then told her "Don't do this!"

We know how that kind of admonission tends to encourages the curious to do the exact opposite. This is most prominently shown when it comes to Molly. The reason why Molly dabbles with magic and end up doing black magic is because the impression Harry made. I am certain Charity done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of magic, but we know how that turns out. To a certain extent this happened to Susan too.

3. Harry involve amateurs in high level game. This equivalent to involving civilians in military matters. It is tabu. In Harry's defense, he is kind of desperate and outmatch, but it is still wrong. It is the bad out of the worse but it is still bad.

This is what Morgan say about it:
He shook his head wearily. “There’s a reason we don’t encourage amateurs to try to act like Wardens,Dresden .”

 I scowled at him, got a bowl of warm water and some antibacterial soap, and started cleaning up his left arm. “Yeah, well. I didn’t see any Wardens doing anything about it.”

 “Chicago is your area of responsibility, Warden Dresden.”

 “And there I was,” I said. “And if they hadn’t been there to help, I’d be dead right now.”

 “Then you call for backup. You don’t behave like a bloody superhero and throw lambs to the wolves to help you do it. Those are the people you’re supposed to be protecting.”

 “Good thinking,” I said, getting out the bag of saline, and suspending it from the hook I’d set in the wall over the bed. I made sure the tube was primed. Air bubbles, bad. “That’s exactly what we need: more Wardens inChicago .”

Harry is a wizard and in the later parts of the series, a warden of the council. He is not suppose to involve the alpha's at all. If he intended to involve the alpha's he need to provide information, trainning and equipment, the way the council train and equip wardens. He is ill prepared and for a wizard that is a fatal mistake.

In the later parts of the series, especially after book 12, most people involve with Harry already well informed and quite expirienced. Most of them already survive and sometimes even triumph against supernatural powers at least once. The problem of involving amateurs in the game of heavy weights becomes less prominent as a result.
 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 15, 2019, 04:02:43 AM
Quote
He practice as a real wizard openly and advertise himself in the yellow pages. This opens the pandora box. It provides a convenient avenue whereby vanilla mortals and unprepared practicianers the chance to access the more dangerous and deadly part of the supernatural world. Though we may argue that people like Susan can and probably will get into the dark and deep end of the supernatural world by themselves, Harry openly practicing as a real wizard makes matter a lot worse.

Objection: I see no evidence that Harry openly practicing as a wizard makes matters any worse at all, much less a lot worse.

I do see evidence that Harry openly practicing as a wizard makes matters involving people getting involved in the supernatural better.

Exhibit A: The Sells family. Victor Sells gets involved in a much nastier part of the supernatural world than anyone Harry has gotten involved. The fact that Harry is an openly practicing wizard allows Monica to come to him, making things better.

Exhibit B: Any time Marcone has contact with the supernatural world in Storm Front and Fool Moon. He does this without Harry's help, and Harry mitigates the damage.

Quote
Harry gave partial information to amateurs. Though he warm them about the dangers afterwards, his conduct are likely to encourages the amateurs instead. For example: Harry explain the 3 layered circle to Kim, but he only explain the first and second circle and he lied to Kim about the 3rd circle. Harry told kim that the 3rd circle is gobbledygook. He show kim some of the stuff, hide the most interesting ones and then told her "Don't do this!"

We know how that kind of admonission tends to encourages the curious to do the exact opposite.

Anyone whose response to a supposedly-trusted expert saying "don't do this," is to decide that that is a reason to do whatever "this" is, is going to get in trouble no matter what anyone does.

Quote
This is most prominently shown when it comes to Molly. The reason why Molly dabbles with magic and end up doing black magic is because the impression Harry made.

The reason Molly started experimenting with magic is because she accidentally turned herself invisible. The only thing Harry's impression on her caused was encouraging her to hide it from Harry. If Harry hadn't been involved, it would hardly have improved the situation.

Quote
I am certain Charity done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of magic, but we know how that turns out.

Objection: Statement contrary to the evidence.

Fact 1: We know Charity knew about the Laws of Magic--it says so in Proven Guilty.
Fact 2: We know that Molly did not know about the Laws of Magic--it says so in Proven Guilty.
Conclusion: Charity has not done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of Magic, because she did not warn Molly about the Laws of Magic.

Quote
Harry involve amateurs in high level game.

I would dispute this. Harry frequently tries to avoid involving amateurs in high level games, and when he does involve them, he usually does so by giving them all the facts first.

-He tries to keep Susan uninvolved.
-He tries to keep Kim uninvolved.
-He tries to keep Murphy uninvolved, until he fills her in on everything.
-He tries to keep the Alphas uninvolved, until he fills them in on everything (I don't count him going to Will's house when he saw the Skinwalker, because he was clearly in no state to think clearly or make rational decisions).
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 15, 2019, 06:06:50 AM
Well enough to never get bit. However that was a PSA.  Mouse is a genius among dogs.  Dogs can't process language like a human.  Mouse can read.  The point is that attack dogs don't work the way you apparently believe.  Or perhaps I am mistaken.

Fantasy, Mouse, he can read, verses reality....  Dogs understand quite a bit, while they cannot read books, they can read body language, they also have a large vocabulary...  They have remarkable noses, they can find lost people, they can distinguish between dead human remains and other animal remains, they can sniff out cancer, they can tell when a human is about to have a seizure, they can sniff out drugs, they can sniff out explosives, I could go on...

Guard dogs..
Quote

The dog does not attack out of fear or anger, the dog attacks because he has been commanded to. Attack dog training, if carried out properly is very useful in personal protection. However the dog should still use his own initiative, if situations arise where the handler has been injured and cannot give a command.

In other words.... That guard dog will attack on it's own to protect it's handler, the object of that attack will not be wearing a nice protective bite suit.  If the handler is incapacitated, he or she may not be able to give the "stop" command .. Most likely the dog will go after the arm or leg because it is easiest to get to, but that doesn't rule out the throat.. Oh, both the arm and the leg contain arteries, bleeding out is a possibility..  So can a guard dog kill?  Yup...



Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 15, 2019, 12:14:10 PM
My apologies for having dragged us down this path.  It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 15, 2019, 01:34:53 PM
My apologies for having dragged us down this path.  It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.

  Accepted,  for the record I am a dog handler and have worked a SAR dog for twenty years. I also have handled therapy dogs for nearly that long and have witnessed the difference they make for the sick and the emotionally vulnerable.  I also have worked with handlers of police dogs and former military handlers, so I was never speaking on what I believe to be true, but what my experience tells me is true...  That and current knowledge in the field of working dogs..  Now we can get back to regular programing.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 15, 2019, 08:51:18 PM
Harry bears a moral responsibility for killing Cassius.  Harry makes an extrajudicial decision that Cassius is too dangerous to live.  He isn't even a warden at that point.  He's a vigilante.  And Harry's ethical position is established in canon.  Jim has established the mortal authorities lack of ability to contain supernatural threats.  In Fool Moon, and Changes, to name two.    So you can classify the act as murder, but you have to ignore canon.

Victor Sells could never be convicted of murder because you can't connect him to the act. He wasn't there  and to the mortal authorities magic doesn't exist.

Just to be sure, everybody does know that dogs can't be given a kill command?  Right?  Only Foo dogs of exceptional intelligence need apply.

I'm not ignoring the fact that police can't do anything about Cassius. I mentioned it. It doesn't make it not murder. What do you mean he isn't a warden? Do you mean he is killing Cassius because he said he would back in Death Masks, or that he isn't a warden yet? I'm not saying an act outside the law is necessarily immoral. Morality and legality intersect, but don't completely cover one another.

Is Victor Sells a murderer?

I stated that Mouse is either a tool or an accomplice/co-conspirator/etc., so that doesn't really matter in my opinion.

It wasn't cold blooded anything...

Harry literally described his killing of Cassius and Corpsetaker as cold. Harry basically says that he is going to kill Cassius because he promised to kill him if he ever saw him again. Cassius knew that's what Harry meant. Harry didn't have to kill Cassius to stop him (in the short term, which is all that matters legally). Should Harry have killed Cassius even if it was murder? Yes. It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Mostly he had to stop someone from becoming a dark god.

Not ignoring these!

Horrible crimes; torture, attempted murder, etc.  Not even any of the ambiguity we're arguing about in Harry's case -- both the laws of the White Council, and the laws of Illinois, hold Cassius as criminal in these actions.  (although as far as I understand it, not the Unseelie Accords -- Mab doesn't object to personal animosity even leading up to murder).
 
So, yeah -- Cassius was an awful person, and was doing awful things there.  No argument.
Yeah, this is a key point:  Cassius had been subdued.  He was not in a position to continue his assault on Harry, he was not a threat in that moment when Harry ordered Mouse to kill him.

Killing somebody who is not a threat in the moment?  That looks... an awful lot like murder.  Even if the person "deserved" it.

A couple of key counter-questions:
 - was Harry entitled to kill him anyway?  Under WC law, yes he was:  Luccio had Warden'ed him shortly before, so Harry's Grey Cloak entitled him to execute sorcerors, necromancers, and their allies, particularly with the Darkhallow ritual having begun.
 - would Cassius have renewed murderous violence, and how soon?  Preponderance of the evidence suggests that Cassius would indeed have renewed his violence, and done so as soon as he saw advantage; possibly as soon as Mouse was off him.

I would argue that, Harry being "cold-blooded" or not, Cassius was an immediate threat -- only momentarily neutralized, in a highly-unstable situation -- and the killing was in fact self-defense.
 
Nevertheless, the argument that Harry "committed murder" does have some merit, particularly if you ONLY consider it from the POV of local/mortal law.  "But he started it!" isn't a defense, since Cassius (as noted) had been subdued, and was not a threat in the moment.  AFAIK, mortal law has no coverage for the "cannot safely take the subdued perp to jail, must execute on the spot" situation.

All of this. American criminal law does not have an exception for this situation, so Harry is, by definition (or law, whichever term you prefer), a murderer; therefore, it is arguable that he is a murderer. The law of war and laws of some foreign countries might. There might also be some historical exceptions that are no longer applicable.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 15, 2019, 09:13:03 PM
Quote
Harry literally described his killing of Cassius and Corpsetaker as cold. Harry basically says that he is going to kill Cassius because he promised to kill him if he ever saw him again. Cassius knew that's what Harry meant. Harry didn't have to kill Cassius to stop him (in the short term, which is all that matters legally). Should Harry have killed Cassius even if it was murder? Yes. It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Mostly he had to stop someone from becoming a dark god.

In my opinion perhaps the forethought was cold on Harry's part, but when it actually happened it wasn't.  Why?  Because Cassius had tortured him for several hours and his emotional state at that moment was questionable.. Murphy was still a police officer at that time, how come she never arrested him?

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 15, 2019, 09:47:30 PM
I'm not ignoring the fact that police can't do anything about Cassius. I mentioned it. It doesn't make it not murder. What do you mean he isn't a warden? Do you mean he is killing Cassius because he said he would back in Death Masks, or that he isn't a warden yet? I'm not saying an act outside the law is necessarily immoral. Morality and legality intersect, but don't completely cover one another.

Is Victor Sells a murderer?

I stated that Mouse is either a tool or an accomplice/co-conspirator/etc., so that doesn't really matter in my opinion.
My version of the timeline was incorrect, he was a warden by that point.  The question your asking has a couple of answers.  If you were a character inside the story who didn't sit in a position of privilege your answer should be no.  As a reader you have access to God mode and as such, yes he is. However without the use of magic, there is no theory of the crime that fits.  In a world where magic is not part of the common human experience, Victor Sells could not only never be convicted, he could never be charged.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.  There is a legal definition of murder as defined by the appropriate jurisdiction.  A jury is presented arguments with the Judge making sure that what the jury sees and hears is what the law allows.  The jury looks at the arguments and makes a determination of the guilt of the accused.  At that moment, when the jury says guilty as charged, or whatever, you go from the accused to the convicted.  The whole point of the jury is to make that determination, is someone a murderer.



Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 15, 2019, 10:27:10 PM
Is there a difference between "murderer" and "convicted murderer?" If you say no, then we just have a fundamental disagreement as to what words mean. Also, the legal definition is just more specific than the dictionary definition.

My point is that a conviction is irrelevant as to whether or not a thing happened. A finding of "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." The law itself recognizes that someone who isn't convicted may very well still be a murderer (or whatever else the particular case is about).

Murder is an act. A murderer is one who has committed that act. Harry (and Victor) committed the act. It doesn't matter if a jury never convicts. A convicted murderer is one who is convicted of the act of murder. An innocent man convicted of murder is no more a murderer than a guilty man acquitted of murder is innocent.

Murder isn't a legal fiction. It is a real act like all other real acts that we have words for. The most precise definition, and the only one I have memorized, is the legal one, so I used that one. I don't understand your "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" stance with murder as a sound and juries as the proposed someone.

A point of juries is to decide whether or not a thing happened. There are other points as well.

The Dresden Files are not written in a third person omniscient point of view. I have demonstrated how their exists sufficient traditional evidence in the case of Harry and Cassius for a prosecutor to make a solid case that Harry murdered Cassius using typical, mundane, mortal evidence. Butters' testimony alone would be sufficient evidence for a conviction. (It also might be sufficient for jury nullification).
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 16, 2019, 12:10:05 AM
You say the the reader isn't in a privileged position?  That's an interesting statement.

As a child I was taught a maxim, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Now as a grown adult I know that is a fantasy.  However it is the correct answer to your questions about murder and murderers.  When you get to pick and choose, people get hung in trees and burned at the stake.
Quote
The Dresden Files are not written in a third person omniscient point of view. I have demonstrated how their exists sufficient traditional evidence in the case of Harry and Cassius for a prosecutor to make a solid case that Harry murdered Cassius using typical, mundane, mortal evidence. Butters' testimony alone would be sufficient evidence for a conviction. (It also might be sufficient for jury nullification).
I would love to hear a theory of the crime not using magic. Assuming that the police weren't too busy dealing with a Dark God wreaking havoc around the University.  Why Harry, Butters, Cassius and a 200 pound killing machine broke and entered the Field Museum.  How Cassius tortured Harry trying to steal a coin containing a fallen angel.  Why Cassius doesn't exist record wise.    What that funny book is all about. How Murphy is going to explain those pictures when the book ends up in the evidence locker and not in Marva's hand.  And so on and so on.

PS This has nothing to do with the DF.
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: nadia.skylark on June 16, 2019, 01:52:36 AM
Quote
Murphy was still a police officer at that time, how come she never arrested him?

For the same reason she agreed to go vampire hunting a book before this: because she's had it beaten into her by this point that, when it comes to the supernatural, sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 16, 2019, 04:08:27 AM
For the same reason she agreed to go vampire hunting a book before this: because she's had it beaten into her by this point that, when it comes to the supernatural, sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.

Or not so much break the law as some things exist outside of vanilla law, and they have to be dealt with.  That is why the Seven Laws exist, that is why there are Wardens to enforce those laws, harsh penalties for those who break those laws.. 
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: KurtinStGeorge on June 16, 2019, 07:33:38 AM
I would love to hear a theory of the crime not using magic. Assuming that the police weren't too busy dealing with a Dark God wreaking havoc around the University.  Why Harry, Butters, Cassius and a 200 pound killing machine broke and entered the Field Museum.  How Cassius tortured Harry trying to steal a coin containing a fallen angel.  Why Cassius doesn't exist record wise.   

A prosecutor would ignore the magical elements and concentrate on the physical violence and corresponding evidence.  Also, neither Harry nor Butters could reasonably talk about magical side of the story unless Harry's public defender was going for an insanity defense.  Cassius not having a traceable record isn't a big deal either.  People can and have been prosecuted for killing a John or Jane Doe.

I suppose Harry's attorney could go for a diminished capacity defence (or maybe not), but that would be very iffy even if it was possible.  Essentially, the defense would be that Harry had been knocked unconscious and then physically tortured and both the concussion and other physical trauma rendered Harry incapable of having the intent to commit murder.  In other words Harry was acting irrationally not intentionally.  Obviously, Harry did intend to kill Cassius, I'm talking about what could be proven, not the actual events. 

The reason this is a very iffy defense is because the defendant is openly admitting they did the deed and it's not the same thing or as potentially solid as an insanity defense.  Plus, in many jurisdictions it's been abolished as a defense so if that is the case in Illinois Harry's lawyer couldn't even try to use it.  I know of a case maybe ten to fifteen years ago where an individual was assaulted in their own home; beaten and knocked unconscious by robbers, but came to while his home was still being ransacked.  He retrieved a gun and confronted both men and shot one man dead when the robber came right at him.  He was not prosecuted for that killing.  It was decided that killing was (probably) in self defence.  He was tried and convicted for shooting and killing the second man.  That man ran the other way and out the front door into the street.  The home owner chased him down the sidewalk and shot him multiple times in the back.  Saying the homeowner suffered a concussion wasn't good enough to demonstrate he didn't have the intent to commit murder.  If I recall the jury had several options for conviction, so the defendant wasn't convicted of first degree murder.  I think they settled on first degree manslaughter, which still carries a very stiff penalty.       
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: g33k on June 16, 2019, 09:42:59 AM
If you're going for an actual conviction of Harry for Cassius' murder... That's a separate matter.  Not gonna happen; or at least, it's the kind of prosecutorial long-shot that DA's don't usually take to court.

I'm pretty sure the "murder weapon" is Mouse.  The law will never admit Mouse as his own independent agent, so "co-conspirator" or the like is off the table.

I doubt VERY strongly that they'd ever even link Mouse to the killing.
 John Doe was killed by a very-large dog, maybe even a wolf.  That freak storm could have terrified any number of dogs to break free from owners, from homes... even driven a lone wolf into town!  Looks more like a tragedy than a crime.

I doubt the cops would spend the time, unless Mouse's M.O. showed up at further kills.

Of course, Butters bit Cassius too, so there are signs of a human attacking; but that places BUTTERS at the scene, not Dresden.  And Butters has no dog.

Then there are the torture implements.  Harry's blood is on them.  Was Cassius wearing gloves when he tortured Harry?  I don't have the book to hand, so I can't remind myself; but weapons with Harry's blood makes him a victim there (maybe a motive?).  But would the police seek out Harry to check for a blood-match?  Why???

I just don't see how/why the cops would connect the evidence to Harry.

And even if they DID connect the evidence to Harry -- that evidence points to HARRY being attacked, and Harry's dog defending him... "We the jury find that Mouse is a Good Boy.  Oh, and Dresdem is a snarky asshole, but probably Not Guilty."  That whole thing about "beyond a reasonable doubt" is gonna be a tough row for any prosecutor to hoe.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 16, 2019, 10:29:54 AM
This qualifies as the weirdest conversation I've ever been involved in.

Edit

During the course of this book Harry commits enough crimes to do time counted in tens of years.  He shoots Luccio's body in the back of the head without any certain knowledge that Corpstaker was really in there.  He breaks in and steals a valuable artifact from the museum.  He breaks in to an electronics store. He destroys some poor persons car in the process of dropping it on Cowl.  And he kills Cassius.  I think that covers most of the major crimes and misdemeanors.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 16, 2019, 06:49:28 PM
[1.] You say the the reader isn't in a privileged position?  That's an interesting statement.

[2.] As a child I was taught a maxim, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Now as a grown adult I know that is a fantasy.  However it is the correct answer to your questions about murder and murderers.  When you get to pick and choose, people get hung in trees and burned at the stake. [3.] I would love to hear a theory of the crime not using magic. Assuming that the police weren't too busy dealing with a Dark God wreaking havoc around the University.  Why Harry, Butters, Cassius and a 200 pound killing machine broke and entered the Field Museum.  How Cassius tortured Harry trying to steal a coin containing a fallen angel.  Why Cassius doesn't exist record wise.    What that funny book is all about. How Murphy is going to explain those pictures when the book ends up in the evidence locker and not in Marva's hand.  And so on and so on.

PS This has nothing to do with the DF.
(click to show/hide)

1. I wouldn't say not privileged because we know Harry's thoughts, have no need to investigate, and get honest statements from witnesses. But we definitely don't have a "God mode" perspective.

2. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. (One I believe strongly in). It has everything to do with the legal consequences of facts and nothing to do with the existence of the facts. Mr. Ignatow was just as guilty before the evidence was found as he was after. The only difference is that he was presumed innocent, tried with insufficient evidence, acquitted, and jeopardy had therefore attached. The our justice system has more to do with preserving rights than determining the truth. We keep true information from jurors all the time. Not because it's unfairly prejudicial, but because it wasn't properly obtained. My point is that a fact remains true regardless of the outcome of a trial. Harry's actions and intents are facts. We have a word for that constellation of facts. That word is murder.

3. What Kurstin said. But to go point by point, they broke in to steal an artifact the Nazis had looted in WWII, Cassius tortured Harry because Harry crippled him, specifically what Kurstin said about this point, valuable thing (who cares it's clearly "not real"), what photos and why do they need any explanation. A prosecutor doesn't really need to explain any of this. But all of that is besides the point because I think our main point of contention is that I think murder is a fact, and you think it is a legal conclusion or legal fiction, so it doesn't matter to me that a prosecution isn't going to occur or that it wouldn't be successful.

Plus, in many jurisdictions it's been abolished as a defense so if that is the case in Illinois Harry's lawyer couldn't even try to use it.

Self defense would be easier to prove.

But would the police seek out Harry to check for a blood-match?  Why???

I just don't see how/why the cops would connect the evidence to Harry.

And even if they DID connect the evidence to Harry -- that evidence points to HARRY being attacked, and Harry's dog defending him... "We the jury find that Mouse is a Good Boy.  Oh, and Dresdem is a snarky asshole, but probably Not Guilty."  That whole thing about "beyond a reasonable doubt" is gonna be a tough row for any prosecutor to hoe.

Harry's blood has shown up at multiple crime scenes, including the scene of his attempted suicide by murder. If police took samples, submitted them to a state lab for testing and cataloging, and kept proper chain of custody, they would likely question Dresden about Cassius' murder. But as long as no one talks, getting a conviction would be near impossible. If Dresden, Butters, Michael, or maybe Murphy talked (I still don't recall if he confessed to her), a prosecutor would have a case that would likely end up in front of a jury. I find prosecutors to be overzealous.

This qualifies as the weirdest conversation I've ever been involved in.

Edit

During the course of this book Harry commits enough crimes to do time counted in tens of years. He shoots Luccio's body in the back of the head without any certain knowledge that Corpstaker was really in there.  He breaks in and steals a valuable artifact from the museum.  He breaks in to an electronics store. He destroys some poor persons car in the process of dropping it on Cowl.  And he kills Cassius.  I think that covers most of the major crimes and misdemeanors.

It could be argued that all of these (except Cassius) were either done out of self defense, defense of others, or necessity (private and/or public). https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/necessity/ The gps would have to have been returned, though. I'd be happy to detail why if anyone cares.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: morriswalters on June 16, 2019, 09:03:41 PM
Quote
2. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. (One I believe strongly in). It has everything to do with the legal consequences of facts and nothing to do with the existence of the facts. Mr. Ignatow was just as guilty before the evidence was found as he was after. The only difference is that he was presumed innocent, tried with insufficient evidence, acquitted, and jeopardy had therefore attached. The our justice system has more to do with preserving rights than determining the truth. We keep true information from jurors all the time. Not because it's unfairly prejudicial, but because it wasn't properly obtained. My point is that a fact remains true regardless of the outcome of a trial. Harry's actions and intents are facts. We have a word for that constellation of facts. That word is murder.
The idea of murder is a social construction.  Killing is killing.  Ignatow's case demonstrates a hindsight fallacy.  Nobody knew for certain what had happened, prior to the photographs being found. The defense and the prosecution told the jury the story of the crime as seen from two different viewpoints, and the jury ended up believing the defense.  The photograph told the true story, but that was after the fact.

In the case of the events of the book, the physical evidence would be what it is, the jury would have to determine if the competing stories of the crime fit the physical evidence. You've looked at the story and made a determination, that the facts as you interpret them, indicate that to you it's murder. You're the prosecution.  But you don't get to make that call about guilt.  A jury does.  And the defense gets to tell a story as well.

Things that the jury will never hear.  That Harry had Mouse kill Cassius after he had him subdued.  That is a reader POV.  That Harry acted because Cassius couldn't be contained, Harry didn't have the time and the mortal authorities didn't have the capacity.  These are mitigating circumstances.  This would be a judgement call for the jury.  But magic isn't real.  And finally four different people, minimum, have looked at precisely the same facts and have drawn, slightly different conclusions about what those facts represent.  This demonstrates the difference between facts and what you make of them.

And Peace Talks still isn't done.

Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 17, 2019, 01:57:33 PM
Quote
Harry's blood has shown up at multiple crime scenes, including the scene of his attempted suicide by murder. If police took samples, submitted them to a state lab for testing and cataloging, and kept proper chain of custody, they would likely question Dresden about Cassius' murder. But as long as no one talks, getting a conviction would be near impossible. If Dresden, Butters, Michael, or maybe Murphy talked (I still don't recall if he confessed to her), a prosecutor would have a case that would likely end up in front of a jury. I find prosecutors to be overzealous.

However unless Butters was willing to testify that wounded and incapacitated Harry gave Mouse the command to break Cassius's neck or if Harry confessed to ordering it... What do they have?  They have Harry's blood at the scene, lots of it,  Mouse may not have even broken the skin.. So we have large dog defending his master...  Mouse isn't certified as a guard dog or an attack dog, so chances are he would be the one to be euthanized for killing Cassius..   Now this wouldn't come into a trial obviously, but as a Foo dog, Mouse can reason...  As in Turn Coat when Mouse had Luccio's throat in his mouth to keep Morgan from killing Molly because she tried to get into his mind if I remember correctly..  Point being, if Mouse felt that Harry was wrong in telling him to kill Cassius, he wouldn't have done it...  Clearly Mouse felt as long as Cassius lived he remained a threat to his master and killed him to defend him..
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 17, 2019, 08:48:17 PM
@Morris: Ok. I'd say we have fundamentally different views of what murder is, and that's okay. I view it as a word describing a set of facts. You look at it as the conclusion of a legal process (or some such thing that I could probably have worded better).

And Peace Talks still isn't done.

That, or more particularly, what I read between the lines, made me smile.

[1.] However unless Butters was willing to testify that wounded and incapacitated Harry gave Mouse the command to break Cassius's neck or if Harry confessed to ordering it... [2.] What do they have? [3.] Point being, if Mouse felt that Harry was wrong in telling him to kill Cassius, he wouldn't have done it...  Clearly Mouse felt as long as Cassius lived he remained a threat to his master and killed him to defend him..

1. I was responding to the question of why the authorities would connect Dresden to the scene.
2. As I said, not a whole lot, but enough that a responsible investigator would attempt to question Dresden.
3. I'm not sure Mouse's thought process was clear. What is Mouse's developmental stage at this point? He is clearly smart and has some sort of agency (which gets super complicated in the DF). But Mouse also takes his lead from Harry throughout the novels. Mouse might not know what the right move is and is waiting for Harry to tell him what to do. (Not that it really matters, but as Morris said, Peace Talks still isn't done).
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 17, 2019, 09:30:50 PM
Quote
1. I was responding to the question of why the authorities would connect Dresden to the scene.

Yes, but then one must look at that picture... Who's blood was all over the place?  Harry... If the bonds were left behind, who's DNA was on the inside bit that was next to the skin?  Harry.. If the knife remained, who's fingerprints were on it?  Cassius... Even if he wore gloves during the act, did he think to wipe it down well enough to remove his DNA and all traces of finger prints?  Who bares the scars that match the knife?  Harry...  Mouse cannot talk, most likely Butters would say he and Mouse stopped the torture when they both tackled Cassius and Mouse killed him to protect his master..  So it comes down to what Harry and Butters are willing to say...  The evidence doesn't point to Harry as the killer, on the contrary it says that Cassius was trying to kill Harry.. Which as we know, he was.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Bad Alias on June 18, 2019, 04:12:01 PM
You're arguing with a point I didn't make, with a point I did make. My point is that the police have sufficient evidence to connect Dresden to the scene, and, without more, that's it.
Title: Re: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Post by: Mira on June 18, 2019, 05:22:39 PM
You're arguing with a point I didn't make, with a point I did make. My point is that the police have sufficient evidence to connect Dresden to the scene, and, without more, that's it.

I think I expanded your point..