Nope, no consensus on Snape / Snape a decent person, a hero, or somebody els

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 142827

Reposted.  I misunderstood what Carol said concerning the time Snape 
joined Voldemort. Mea culpa and my apologies. 

> Carol:
> I assume that you're referring to Snape killing Dumbledore on the
> tower, which is not a straightforward instance of Snape "in
action" as
> a Death eater.<snip>

a_svirn:
Actually his actions on the Tower are as straightforward as it
possibly gets. He came in, assessed the situation, assumed the
control of the DE's operation and killed a man. A very good,
innocent and unarmed man. If that's not straightforward, I really
don't know what is.

> Carol:
>(Clearly, he was *not* at Godric's
> Hollow; he was already at Hogwarts as of the beginning of the
term.)

a_svirn:
So what if it was. When he came to Voldemort "on Dumbledore's
orders" it was also the term-time. I am not saying that he
necessarily *was* at Godric's Hollow, just that he could have been
for all we know.

> Carol:
> It *seems*, judging from the absence of evidence from Karkaroff and
> the ease with which DD persuaded Crouch to drop all charges against
> the young Snape, and from Bellatrix's later assertions that Snape
> "slithered out of action," that he didn't engage in the murder,
> torture, or Imperioing that the other DEs were convicted of and
sent
> to Azkaban for. Nor did he plead, as Malfoy and others did, that he
> had been Imperio'd.

a_svirn:
We don't know how easy it was for Dumbledore actually. He said
only "we've been though this". And why on earth would Snape plead
Imperio-defence if he was already proclaimed a hero?

> Carol:
>He (LV) does seem to have
> assigned duties to his DEs according to their interests and
talents.

a_svirn:
And what do we know about the DE respective talents? Except that
Mulciber was a dab hand at the Imperious?

> Carol:
>JKR intimates as
> much in an interview answer to the question whether Snape can see
> Thestrals: "As a Death Eater, he will have *seen*--" quoted from
> memory, my italics, break-off in the original.)

a_svirn:
Well, we can't expect Rowling to show her hand now, can we?
Personally I can't imagine how one can be a part of a group without
participating in the said group's activities.

> Carol:
>But I don't think we can assume (as a_svirn
> seems to--please correct me if I'm wrong) that just by virtue of
being
> a DE, he would have tortured and killed Muggles or "non-supporters"
> (Karkaroff's word). Snape seems to be in all respects a special
> case--distrusted by fanatically loyal DEs (Bellatrix and
> Crouch!Moody), trusted by Dumbledore.

a_svirn:
I think it's a fairly logical assumption to make at any rate. Take
your own argument upthread: practically every other DE did kill and
torture. That being the case, why Snape should be special? I don't
think Voldemort issued a dispensation for him. Why would he? I
concede that he could have been less enthusiastic then some. But
couldn't have survived without getting his hands dirty. And
Bellatrix and Crouch seemed to despise ALL of the DE who slithered
their way out Azkaban, not just Snape.