But the fact that he stuns or disarms somebody told the Deatheaters exactly which Harry Potter was the real one, right? Which must mean that other none-Deatheaters were using other sorts of curses. (Did Molly's curse kill Bellatrix because it hit her in her heart? Or was it a killing curse in and of itself?)

It was specifically the Expelliarmus that gave him away, so the others could've been using stuns and stupefies.

I did get the impression that Molly was shooting to kill.

Stuff I don't remember from the earlier books - are killing curses always wrong? Even if the other guy is trying to kill you and it's in self-defense? Or if there's a war, is it OK to kill even if you're a good guy?

Yeah, I've lost track of what discussion I saw where, but someone was wondering the same thing about the Unforgiveable Curses. They must be allowable in wartime, because Harry Imperiused a couple of people at Gringotts and used Crucio. Or people are happy to look the other way.

On a totally random note, I just have to say that I love the expression "Merlin's pants!" It's just so perfectly exactly what they'd say.

I think during wartime they become the Semi-Forgiveable Curses.

Especially given the British meaning of "pants"!

I just have to say that I love the expression "Merlin's pants!" It's just so perfectly exactly what they'd say.

There was one especially funny variation on this that Hermione used, but I forget what it was....

but I forget what it was....

Something about his scrotal sack, no?

That was Ron. "Why in the name of Merlin's saggy left..." and then he got cut off with "Don't use that kind of language with your mother" before he finished the sentence.

I suppose the next word he was gonna say might have been "tit."

"Butt-cheek"?