Requiescat in Pace, My Dark Phoenix

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 151343


> zgirnius:
> Because if Unbreakable Vows are truly Unbreakable, and act quickly 
once
> broken, Snape (who looks like Dumbledore) is about to die anyway, 
at any
> moment, when Dumbledore (who looks like Snape) shows up. And 
Dumbledore
> knows this. (There's no way they would have cooked up this plan 
between them
> if Dumbledore did not know ALL about Snape's Unbreakable Vow, 
right?) The
> ONLY way Dumbledore could actually save Snape at this moment would 
be to
> have himself killed (by either Snape or Draco). SO I really don't 
see how
> this makes Dumbledore a murderer.
> 
> But there REALLY is no way out of Snape dying by Unbreakable Vow 
alomst
> imeediately, if Snape does not kill Dumbledore.
> 
> 
> Sherry:
> 
> I don't consider that an excuse to commit murder.  Snape knew what 
an
> unbreakable vow was, but he still took it.  When the time came, he 
could
> have died, rather than kill the one person we know who absolutely 
had full
> confidence in him.  Yeah, I know, then the death eaters, and the 
werewolf
> ... but I don't believe Dumbledore couldn't have done something.  
Of course,
> that isn't how it happened, so we will never know what Dumbledore 
could have
> done.  But then, neither do we have proof that Dumbledore, Harry, 
Draco and
> countless others would have died if Snape hadn't killed 
Dumbledore.  
> 
> Sherry

zgirnius:
The stuff you kept from my post, and seem to be arguing against, is a 
defense of *Dumbledore* under the assumptions of Talisman's theory. 
NOT a defense of Snape, assuming HE killed Dumbledore. (Snape needs 
no defense, under Talisman's theory).

I'm saying that (regardless of what you believe about the more usual 
Snape killed Dumbledore theory we've all discussed to death) under 
Talisman's theory, Snape is acting as you would have him act, by 
impersonating Dumbledore and dying in his place. 

But because of this decision of Snape's, Dumbledore is in a different 
position when HE kills Snape than Snape would be, killing Dumbledore. 
Snape's decision to die rather than kill Dumbledore in my view rather 
clears Dumbledore of murder. Because HOW can Dumbledore save Snape 
from the Unbreakable Vow? He knows very well that the only way Snape 
might live is if he (Snape) suddenly kills Dumbledore, or Draco does. 
Neither of which is going to happen, because in Talisman's theory 
Snape has made his choice and he's planning to die. While Draco 
certainly harbors no thoughts of killing (the real) Dumbledore, 
because he thinks it is Snape. The Unbreakable Vow makes it a 
certainty along the lines of a logical or mathematical proof that 
Snape is about to die. (Unlike, as you point out, the arguments I and 
others have made elsewhere defending Snape, which are more 
probabilistic in nature.)

If the Avada Kedavra bothers you, the theory easily modifies 
to "Dumbledore lifts Snape off the Tower with a nonverbal spell and a 
green flash of light, and then Snape dies shortly thereafter for 
breaking his Vow." Though, given Talisman's further elaborations on 
the green potion and the murders of Snape's family, I'd consider the 
straight Avada Kedavra the more merciful act.

Which is not to say you have to believe the theory (goodness knows, 
*I* don't). I just do think Dumbledore's killing of Snape (as 
Talisman suggests happened) is different in an important way from 
Snape's killing Dumbledore, precisely because, as you say, it is 
Snape who took the Unbreakable Vow.