Okay, In universe you're right. She isn't a murderer, at least not legally. In real world law? I can't think of a juristiction she wouldn't be charged with murder. Ethically, I also think she commited murder. Was that murder justified? I think yes. Pavel Young is the sort of person that I don't want existing. He was a coward, a traitor, a sexual predator, abusive, and a murderer himself.

However, Honor forced the confrontation. No one doubted she was going to kill Pavel if she had the chance. Unless you can find me a sentence where she specifically says she isn't going to kill him, I'm going to say she was going to kill him. He abused her, physically, emotionally and sexually. He killed her fiance, and he evaded justice. She was going to kill him. She intended to kill him. She forced him socially into a position where she could kill him. He wasn't actively trying to kill her at that point. She went after him. Again, I think she was justified somewhat, but she meant to kill him.

The fact he cheated in the duel doesn't make it self defence. If I lure you into an ambush intending to shoot you but you pull the trigger first, I don't get to claim self defence. It doesn't matter how terrible a person you are, I was planning on killing you.

Now, Honor can claim Justice all she wants. To some extent I even believe her. I think she would let the courts have handled it if she had been given the opportunity. But they didn't. She didn't kill Pavel reluctantly. She wanted it. You cannot tell me that vengeance didn't play a role. What do we call a killing that isn't self defence, an accident, or an act of war? Murder.

If I'm on that jury, I'm going for nullification. I'm saying she didn't do it, even though she clearly did. I want her to get away with it. But, I also recognize Honor murdered that dude.

I'm glad to see this comment, as it's the kind of discussion I wanted to see. I agree with a lot of your points, but I think I may not have done a good enough job explaining myself. Books 4 and 5 of HH are my favorite in the series, precisely because they have more of a internal struggle than any of the other books. When Weber's writing works, it WORKS. But he spends more time in the logistic rooms where characters are no longer characters, but instead vehicles for military policy.

Books 4 and five showed Honor as a Character. She had doubts and asperations. Her morals might have been a bit off base in my opinion, (I still maintain that she murdered Pavel Young, even if he cheated. She intended to leave him dead for what he did to her.) But she was understandable. Her reasoning was sound, and her cause was one I could get behind. Book five really played with her doubts, her fears, and brought all of that into sharper focus, but it never went past that. None of the other books ever delved that deeply into Honor's Psychology. Into her character, and the only ones who stand up to her are the bad guys.

HH as a series leaves Honor missing something. Honor has a mindset similar to Captain America, or Iron man, without anyone who will challenge her ideas. Honor is Polarizing, every one is for or against her, but there's never anyone in the middle. She has a self-assuredness that while deserved, never get's questioned.

Even when murdering Pavel she KNOWS she's doing the right thing.

PS 100% agree with you on safehold. I enjoyed the first book, but man sometimes it feels like being dropped into game of thrones book 4 with all of these characters I need to keep track of.

See paragraph 3. Yeah Haven has some good guys, Manticore has some bad guys, but when the chips are down these characters are either textually "good" or textually "bad" regardless of what side they are on. At least if they are alive. There are no (for example) Tyrion Lannisters, no Mabs. There are np guys that are on their own side. They all fit neatly into one of four boxes Manticore Good, Manticore Bad, Haven Good, Haven Bad. They aren't allowed their own motivations, or if they are they fit in the bad category because they aren't patriots. That's what leads to them feeling flat. Manticore good is ride or die Manticore. Manticore Bad is "this is what will best fit my personal political ambitions and screw Manticore for the long term." There isn't any nuance between them.