What would a successful AK mean?

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142903

I am essentially replying to the title of this thread. Although I have
read several of the arguments/discussion points put forward within it,
I find myself behind the pack on those particular trains of thought. 

So to the essential question of what a successful AK means IMO. The
bare bones consideration of this topic to me is that a successful
Avada Kedavra on the tower implies specific demands of the two
characters involved (namely Snape and Dumbledore), and the lack of
canon exposition on those demands is where I view the most ambiguity
in the scene.

As I see it firstly, a true betrayal of Dumbledore resulting in his
discomposing and inopportune death warrants a greater reaction than
the small limp vocal objection that is all we seem to get from him. 

To argue the above point from the other side, a balanced view
acknowledges Snape's powers extend to Occlumency which can mean that
up until the very moment that the spell discharges from his wand
Dumbledore could *not* know anything but that Snape intends to protect
him. ----- But this perspective places Dumbledores plea firmly within
the scope of Dumbledore asking Snape to take on three (or four) death
eaters *alone* (wouldn't it be better if Harry could help?) *without*
harming or losing accidentally or otherwise the two children in the
room, while healing and fortifying Dumbledore for the battle *at the
same time* (with wand retrieval in there somewhere too). 

Returning to my original side of the argument - Dumbledore, it can be
believed, sure, is soft enough in the middle to have given the wrong
person a second chance. But is he really a man who would survey a
scene of battle and consider the above stratagem? Moreover - with
Harry having told Dumbledore unequivocally that Snape had claimed to
have taken the Unbreakable Vow - would he be so ignorant as to leave
the fate of his beloved school in the hands of a man who might die on
the spot if he tries to help?

Giving as much leeway as humanly possible to the ESE Snape argument of
a successful unambiguous killing curse. The pinpoint moment that
Dumbledore was obliged to act was the instant he was aware that his
castle had been infiltrated by Death Eaters. This is a good TEN
MINUTES before the killing curse. Dumbledore was given 10 minutes of
knowing that his /best/ man and the man *he* had called to his side
might not be able to do ANYTHING, and yet, he didn't act! If Snape
betrayed Dumbledore, then Dumbledore gave it to him on a silver
platter because he had good reason to not rely on even a DDM Snape (if
not the UV then at least the DADA curse or just the impossible ambush
that he was in!). They were, simply, overwhelmed, angle by angle.

Before they go to the cave Dumbledore is very insistent on this point
he says to Harry (paraphrase) - Do you think for one instant that I
have neglected to think of the safety of my students? This is a very
important statement. Dumbledore is adamant *all* his manouvres are in
complete consideration of the safety of his students. Is handing the
bottleneck on the tower to a man who *maybe* can *not* act in
character for that person? If Dumbledore trusted Snape not to kill him
then it follows that Dumbledore himself was obliged to act there and
then on the tower. Or else, it was just impossible and he really *was*
trapped - but he says himself that he isn't!

Hence my first and foremost statement of what a successful AK means -
It means Dumbledore was obliged to act when he did no such thing.

Secondly the action of casting a killing curse involves a specific but
innominate emotional/psychological force behind it. I believe this is
an established fact, but others can argue that it is not factually
spelled out, because it isn't exactly.

Assuming that this is an established fact then it follows that a
succesful Avada Kedavra demands that Snape possess this psyche/emote
in order to cast it. I fail to see this unambiguously established. In
fact I see deliberate overtones of it being weighed *against*
throughout HBP. Specifically they are: Bella's accusation that Snape
slithers out of action, and Dumbledore insisting that Snape left the
Death Eaters because he felt remorse for putting *both* Harry's
parents in the line of fire. There is huge ambiguity in this statement
but it reaches all the way to the edges where Snape can't even stomach
being involved in the death of his *sworn Nemesis*. IOW Snape might
not even have been able to stomach James dying as a result of his
actions. It's a slim chance but it wasn't left out, and that makes it
impossible to say that Snape possesses the psyhce/emote for a
successful AK. 

So my second point is that a successful AK demands that Snape was
disimpassioned? to human life (and possibly even split his soul).
Ultimately impossible to determine.

These are the two things that a successful AK means IMO. 

Valky