Harry IS Snape.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 141343

Carol earlier:
> > Even if killing him was the only way to save Draco and Harry and
get the Death Eaters out of the school? If Snape had died (killed by
the UV or the Death Eaters), quite possibly both boys would have died
as well. And there was no way to save Dumbledore, who would have been
killed by the Death Eaters if he wasn't killed by the potion first.
> > 
> > I'm not saying that's the case, but *if* it's the case, wouldn't
it at least complicate matters and partially excuse Snape? It does for me.
> 
Lupinlore: 
> No, I don't think it would excuse Snape in any way.  The end does
not justify the means, and there are some things you just don't do.
Killing a defenseless man, your mentor no less, in cold blood (or hot
blood or lukewarm blood) is one of them. If Snape did indeed kill
Dumbledore, and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying
he did not, then I say his action is inexcusable.

Carol responds:
Then you're saying that Snape should have let Draco and Harry die,
along with Dumbledore and himself, letting the DEs (among them Fenrir
Grayback) run loose in the school? How is that better than limiting
the deaths to one? Not to mention that if Harry dies, the WW is doomed. 

This is a hypothetical proposition, remember, but perhaps the
distinction between what is right and what is easy isn't quite as
clearcut as you seem to think. And the question *does* assume that
Snape killed Dumbledore, risking his own soul (and job and freedom and
reputation) to save the people he could save as opposed to the one man
he could not.

Carol