Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat

[festuco]

No: HPFGUIDX 145013

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at y...> wrote:
a_svirn:
> On the contrary, he has a very good reason NOT to kill Dumbledore. A 
> reason Dumbledore had just spelled out for him. By the end of HBP 
> Draco had realised that he and his mother were nothing but pawns for 
> Voldemort. He could not punish Lucius directly so he punished him 
> vicariously (sorry, Alla, couldn't resist). That night on the Tower 
> Dumbledore offered Draco and Narcissa freedom. And Draco was 
> tempted. He started to lower his wand, but then the prospect of 
> Voldemort's  favour started to outweigh the Dumbledore's 
> offer. "I've got that far" he said. So, I'd say, like with Peter it 
> was about "what is their to gain" vs. "what is there to loose" with 
> Draco.
>
I also think the fact that Dubledore was clearly ill made a
difference. Draco knew who were outside of the tower. How much did he
believe in what Dumbledore told him? Might he have given up if he was
not interrupted? And what did that mean for the UV? 

Another bit of musing: fakeMoody tells in GoF that you need to be
powerful to perform the killing curse. That the combined power of the
whole class would not give him as much as a nosebleed. What if Snape
knew neither he nor Draco were powerful enough to perform the
killincurse on Dumbledore, because Dumbledore was more powerful than
either of them? Would performing an AK and failing be enough to
fulfill the UV? Or would it be exit for Snape? 

Gerry