Did Snape "murder" Dumbledore?

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 138072

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote:
<snip> description of DD's death
Juli:
 So, we know that Snape pointed his wand at DD, spoke the AK,
> that green light shot out of his wand, that DD was propelled 
> backward, and that he was dead by the time Harry eventually
> reached him. That it is all as it appears--that Snape vilely 
> murdered DD--is certainly one possibility. But there are others...
 
> 1. Simply because Snape spoke the AK does not mean that is
> the spell he actually cast. We know there are nonverbal spells, 
> and we have no definite canon prohibiting speaking one spell 
> while actually casting another. So he may not have cast an
> AK at all. 

Marianne: But, do we have definite canon that permits speaking one 
spell while casting another?  I'm not being argumentative here, I 
don't recall that we do.
 
Julie:
> 2. While an Unforgivable spell is said to leave a stain on the 
soul,
> we don't know for sure whether this is true of Snape, even if he
> did cast (or attempt to cast) an AK. The Aurors were allowed to
> cast Unforgivables in the last war when absolutely necessary,
> and presumably these didn't irrevocably stain their souls if their
> intent in casting the spell was not an evil one but served some
> higher or necessary purpose (like self-defense). If Snape cast 
> the AK at Dumbledore's request and/or as a sort of mercy killing
> that also aided his crucial undercover role as a spy (which 
> necessitated the spell be an Unforgivable rather than a lesser
> spell), then would his soul still be stained?
>  
> And if he cast an AK, but it was an incomplete one because
> he lacked the evil intent to kill Dumbledore, yet it was still 
enough
> to kill Dumbledore in his weakened state (perhaps from the fall
> itself rather than the AK), would his soul still be stained?

Marianne:
I think this point is the best one for looking at the gray areas of 
intent and just what happens to the casters of Unforgivables. In GOF 
we were told that the Aurors were given new powers to use 
Unforgivables. Not when "absolutely necessary", but whenever. Which 
to me says that, if an innocent person was killed in the accidental 
belief that that person was a DE, well, then, too bad. No harm 
done.  And that is a dangerous path to follow.

My reading of the permission to use these curses was that it was an 
indication that the "good" side was now on the slippery slope to 
acting very much like the people they were fighting. And, that once 
being permitted to use them, it could become easier and easier to 
do. Why bother trying to capture anyone? Just kill them and be done 
with it.  After all, they're all horrible people.  Although, with 
that attitude it becomes harder to identify people, like Regulus, 
who may be searching for a way out, who may be able to pass on 
additional information, etc. But, with this "shoot first, ask 
questions later" mentality that might have developed, as least among 
some Aurors, everyone on Voldemort's side is equally evil and 
equally derserving of death.  

As for Snape's possibly weakened AK, yes, if his actions killed 
Dumbledore, then I think his soul pays a price. Is he ESE? I tend to 
think not - I'm one of those who thinks Snape is out for his own 
skin first, and consequently does good things for DD's side, and 
questionable things.

Someone else asked on this or a related thread if people would 
declare Harry ESE if he murdered Voldemort.  If that's how it plays 
out, that Harry *kills* Voldemort, and doesn't *defeat* or 
*vanquish* him in some non-lethal way, then yes, I think Harry's 
soul is tarnished by that.  It doesn't, however, make him ESE!

Julie:
> 3. Murder is killing with malicious intent. If Snape killed  
Dumbledore
> knowing that he was already dying, with the intent being to end 
> DD's suffering and grant Dumbledore's own wish to make his  death
> meaningful in the war against Voldemort (and perhaps to keep 
> Dumbledore from turning into an Inferi if that is a consequence  
of 
> his death by the potion), is that murder? Or is it mercy killing,  
even
> a sort of assisted suicide? (I realized assisted suicide is a 
touchy
> subject, but again I predicate this on DD already being terminally
> ill with little or no time left.)

Marianne:

Well, it's certainly more convenient for explaining away Snape's 
actions if we assume DD was moments from death ;-).  Just shove the 
old man off a tower so he dies from the shattering impact with the 
ground. 

Maybe we're into Wizard world legalities, which have always been 
murky to me.  If Snape's actions are not murder, assuming his intent 
was indeed to end DD's suffering while simultaneously handling the 
explosvie situation with the assembled DEs on the tower, they would 
certainly at least be manslaughter here in the US. The Wizard World 
doesn't seem to allow for degrees of ending a life, so we don't know 
if a mercy killing is acceptable or not, whether it involves 
slipping someone a potion or pushing them off a high elevation.

Julie:  
> 4. If DD asked Snape to deliver the final killing blow, does this
> mean the same thing as asking Snape to commit murder, i.e.,
> to stain or split his soul? I don't think it has to mean that. If
> it isn't murder, i.e., killing with malicious intent, but is some 
> combination of mercy killing/releasing DD's soul before it can
> become an Inferi, then it isn't actually murder, and DD is not
> endangering Snape's soul. (And I agree that DD would not
> ask Snape to do something that would endanger his soul).

Marianne:

If this situation comes to be resolved exactly as you've postulated, 
there will still be debate on whether or not it's murder.  In JKR's 
world it might not be, but I suspect many readers would still find 
Snape's actions to be the equivalent of murder, just as many people 
do not accept the idea of assisted suicide because it involves the 
taking of a life, or it allows people to play God. 

I'd like to add a question of my own here. The question of intent 
has come up periodically. Some of the Snape defenders have argued 
that his intent was not to kill DD, but to end DD's suffering, and 
thus protect Draco and himself from the consequences of the UV.  If 
we non-Snape lovers are asked to, if not forgive Snape's actions, 
then to at least understand them, can we Sirius lovers ask the same 
in return?  If it is revealed that Sirius' intent in sending Snape 
into the tunnel duing the Prank was merely to scare the pants off 
him, then we really can't accuse him of attempted murder, now, can 
we?

Marianne