Snape, A Murderer? (Was: Re: Is Wormtail an Occlumens or an open book?)

[severelysigune]

No: HPFGUIDX 95306

Carol wrote:
<< First, my apologies for snipping some ideas that I may get back to 
later (I agree that PP is not an Occlumens but disagree that Snape  
is possible  murderer. LV, as I've argued elsewhere, seems to find  
uses for his DEs that suit their abilities, and he had murderers and 
Muggle-baiters aplenty without using Snape for that sort of dirty 
work.)>>


Nora replied:
<<Why isn't Snape a possible murderer?  It seems like all of the DEs 
in the Department of Mysteries were certainly potential murderers-- 
anyone who engages in dueling/fighting the enemy is.  LV didn't see  
fit to spare someone like Lucius Malfoy from doing the dirty work 
there.  Regulus Black tried to back out when he learned some of what  
he'd have to do...in other words, there's no reason to assume that  
killing was not something expected of *all* DEs.  But until we know 
more, we really can't say.  Given LV's attitudes towards people, I  
seriously doubt he doesn't expect all of them to do 'dirty work'.   
Same thing for use of the Unforgiveables--it makes far more sense for 
all of the DEs to have used them at one time than for some of them to 
have gotten off clean.>>

Sigune now:
This is a very interesting discussion. My first thought would be to 
agree with Carol's view, as she expressed it in other threads, that 
Snape cannot be a murderer - this is not because I reason 
sentimentally and would hate the thought of my favourite character 
engaging in anything so terrible as murder, especially of innocent 
Muggles. It is mainly because I cannot believe Dumbledore to 
consciously hire a murderer as a teacher. That would be morally 
totally unacceptable; and I don't believe in ESE!Dumbledore. He has 
hired a phoney; he has hired a werewolf; he has hired an impostor. In 
the case of the fake Moody he was tricked. Lupin he thought he could 
control with the Wolfsbane Potion; and Lupin is not an eveil person 
(well, I don't believe in ESE!Lupin either, you see). Lockhart was a 
failure but not strictly speaking dangerous to the students. Umbridge 
was forced on him, and Quirrell's changing sides was unforeseen. You 
can question some of these appointments, of course; but I can't see 
any evil intentions or immorality behind them. However, for a 
Headmaster to entrust the students in his charge to a murderer - that 
would be downright irresponsible.

BUT. Snape is of course an Occlumens. Would he have told Dumbledore 
if he had killed people? If not, how could Dumbledore find out if he 
did?

And there is Nora's point. Could anyone in Voldy's service *refuse* 
to kill and live to tell it? 
I should think, with Carol, that if Voldy were clever he'd use his 
Death Eaters to do what they are best at. And maybe he does - 
Mulciber, for one, appears to be known among his fellow DE's as an 
Imperius specialist. In Snape's case, Voldy'd naturally have 
exploited his remarkable talent for making potions. If you have a 
person under your command who is really good at doing something 
others have less skill in, would you risk getting them killed in a 
raid? I wouldn't. (But I can't tell for LV.)
As to Lucius Malfoy in the Department of Mysteries, I wouldn't call 
his job there 'dirty work'. He was in charge of an important 
operation, which singles him out as Voldy's right hand man, not his 
lackey (although, in a way, *every single* DE is Voldy's lackey - I 
don't understand how they can bear it). Also, the whole thing was 
supposed to be a walkover: ten DE's against a few kids, so Voldy 
wouldn't have thought he was risking losses.

However - there remains the fact of Regulus Black being killed 
because he was not prepared to go far enough to Voldy's tastes. Mr 
SnakeEyes certainly doesn't seem to care for other people's lives 
very much and is ready to torture and kill his own followers. But do 
we know exactly what Regulus was asked to do, or do we just assume it 
was about killing? I guess the only thing we know for sure is that it 
is dangerous to try and disobey an order.

Now, here is a hypothetical question that puzzles me:
How about if a Death Eater isn't *capable* of performing an 
Unforgivable Curse?

We know that magic is not just a question of mumbling a word or two 
and waving a wand. Casting a spell correctly involves serious 
training, combined with an inborn ability. Some wizards are simply 
more talented than others; some have more potential than others. So I 
wonder if there are spells some wizards simply never get done 
*because they just can't*. It must be - see above: many of them have 
their particular field of expertise.
Now I wonder, even if Voldy trains his followers, isn't it possible 
that some of them never master the Unforgivables, even if they try 
really hard? I mean, even if you are really, really wicked it might 
still be possible that your power simply doesn't suffice. I am just 
thinking that, when I am really angry I occasionally feel like 
hitting someone, but even if I *want* to hurt them I wouldn't succeed 
very well simply because I am not strong (and the odds are 
my 'victim' would strike back a lot more powerfully...).

So I was thinking: if a DE really didn't want to kill, could s/he by 
any chance pretend not to be able to cast Avada Kedavra?
Or would an inability to cast Unforgivables automatically disqualify 
a wizard or witch from becoming a DE? (That would seem silly to me, 
because there are plenty of other ways to make oneself useful.)

I am not entirely sure if I am suggesting Snape would have pretended 
an inability at Unforgivables... I am wondering if he *could* have 
done so if he wanted... Or if there was any wriggling room at all if 
he objected to killing...
I don't think I can justify this with canon, but somehow I don't 
think Snape is a wizard of the Mugglebaiting/Mugglemurdering type. On 
the other hand, I *can* see him use an Unforgivable on a fellow 
wizard, just to test his strength against his adversary's. I do 
recall, though, that the one time we have seen him threaten to use 
the Killing Curse, against Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, despite his 
obvious hatred he needed a reason to cast it ("Give me a reason and 
I'll do it" - quoting from memory). Hm. That may be Dumbledore's 
influence, of course. And I wonder if he had done it could he claim 
it was self-defence against the mass-murderer Black?

Sorry for the rambling - there is just so much to think about :).

Yours severely,

Sigune

NB: It has occurred to me that IF Snape's function among the DE's was 
to make potions and/or poisons, they would no doubt be put to evil 
uses, which means that even if Snape did not administer them himself, 
he at least shares a responsibility in the harm that is done. Matters 
here become tricky when you begin to wonder if a worker assembling a 
gun is responsible for the killing that can potentially be done with 
it.
This comes from someone resident in a country part of which thrives 
on weapon production :(.