Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 149783

> zgirnius:
> Right. Your judgment of his character is that he would kill 
(probably 
> HAS killed) for petty reasons, fairly casually. 

Alla:

Actually, not quite. I certainly think Snape killed before, because 
yeah, it would seem very strange to me that the member of terrorist 
organization would not have killed before, but I think that the 
reasons were quite important to Snape.


Zgirnius:
Pre HBP, I might have 
> accepted this, and I would probably have pointed to precisely the 
> canon we are discussing here as support: his actions at the end of 
> PoA.
> 
> However, having read HBP and reconsidered all the previous books in 
> light of this new information, I simply do not see the evidence to 
> support this judgment. And I NOW see evidence which suggests to me 
> rather the opposite. I would not now be surprised to learn that 
> Dumbledore is the first man Snape has ever, personally, killed. 
> 
> To be clear, I'm not putting forward fluffy!bunny!Snape. And I'm 
not 
> claiming I can PROVE Snape has never killed before. Just explaining 
> why it now does not strike me as implausible. He joined the Death 
> Eaters, a terrorist organization led by a super-evil Dark Lord. 
This 
> COULD be because it was his ambition to kill, maim, and torture 
> people for fun, but I'm with Julie. I think he did out of anger and 
> frustration with his life. He felt betrayed by the way Dumbledore 
> handled the Prank, angry that James became Head Boy, and jealous 
that 
> Lily choosing James, unloved because of his lousy home life, 
> unpopularity at school, and a Head of House who probably 
undervalued 
> him due to his, shall we say, lack of social graces. He was going 
to 
> show them all. But, as Dumbledore said, killing is not as easy as 
it 
> looks. I'm just not so convinced that being a Death Eater means 
> you've killed someone, in and of itself.

Alla:

Okay, as far as I can remember there is zero known evidence in canon 
as to why Snape joined DE, no? Please refer me to it, if there is any 
factual evidence, which I don't remember as to why Snape joined in 
the first place.

That is why speculation is a very fair game to me, so of course your 
speculation is just as valid as mine. You can say that he was so 
angry at Marauders and Dumbledore and that is why he joined and I am 
saying (speculating of course) that he was so engrossed in Dark Arts 
and in the very early age he joined someone who promised him free 
study of Dark Arts and glory that it could bring.

I will acknowledge that your speculation is as valid as mine, but 
will not go further than that.

Now, I understand that you said you cannot prove that Snape never 
killed before, but even on speculation level, doesn't it strike you 
as more reasonable that a member of terrorist organization, which 
DOES kill and torture Muggles and muggleborns, erm... never actually 
did it. He received such an honor why? Why would Voldemort be ready 
and willing to let one member of his gang NOT torture and kill, while 
everybody else did do so?

It is interesting, because I have read preHBP arguments very similar 
to yours as to Snape never killing someone and just preparing potions 
for Voldie and funnily enough it seemed to me to be more plausible 
prior to HBP ( not very plausible, but I was ready to keep such 
possibility in the back of my mind), but post HBP Snape who never 
killed anybody before? I just don't see him anywhere in canon. Sorry!

Snape, who had no problem inventing Sectusemptra, Snape who joined 
the gang of  murderers, Snape who has enough hate to power Avada in 
HBP ( unless one subscribes to fake Avada, which I of course don't), 
you are telling me that this Snape never killed anyone before?

Snape who claims that he took hand in Vance and Black killings, THAT 
Snape never killed before?

I am sorry, I don't buy it at all. IMO of course.


Zgirnius:
> Reasons to suppose Snape may not have: there are certainly other 
> things he could do for Voldemort-he did, for example, act as a spy. 
> And, by Bella's account, Snape's reputation among other Death 
Eaters 
> was that of someone who is good at `slithering out of action'.  
(This 
> is not to say Snape was never connected to anyone's death. He may 
> have provided potions and information others used.)

Alla:

Yes, of course he may have had, I just don't see why he would have 
been allowed to by Voldemort.

Zgirnius: 
> Then, we learn that when Snape learned Voldemort planned to kill 
the 
> Potters, he was deeply remorseful. It seems a mighty squeamish 
> reaction to me, for a person so untroubled by pangs of conscience. 
(I 
> know, you think Dumbledore could have been wrong about this. I'm 
> giving both Snape and Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt, here.)

Alla:

How does that show that Snape had never killed anybody, even if he 
was remorseful about Potters?

I mean, yes, I won't buy it till I hear it from Snape's mouth, but 
even if he was remorseful, who knows how many times he killed before 
and felt remorse.
 

Zgirnius:
> >He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older 
people 
> at >Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you 
go 
> through life >you do lose people and understand what death is. But 
> you must not forget that >Snape was a Death Eater. He will have 
seen 
> things that
 
> zgirnius: I am intrigued by the use of the word seen.,,,did he not 
DO 
> things? 

Alla:

Could you clarify, please? I read it as he seen Thestrals, because he 
saw death.

> zgirnius:
> I'll try again. `Tried to kill ME'
 as in "He says he didn't kill 
> PETTIGREW, but we both know he tried to kill ME so why should we 
> believe him?" (If Sirius had tried to kill John Doe while in 
school, 
> Snape could have said `Tried to kill JOHN DOE' in an analogous 
> argument, but unfortunately for Snape HE was the target of the 
Prank.)
> 
> Not saying you have to agree with me or anything
just trying to 
> clarify my previous post.


Alla:

Oh, thanks, but that is my point. How do you know that Snape brings 
up this for the reason you are describing and not because he is 
mightily pissed at DD for believing Sirius again? And what is most 
importantly, how do you know that Snape would have brought it if 
Sirius tried to kill somebody else?

I think Snape is very fixed on the harm that was done to him and I 
would be surprised if he did not.


JMO,

Alla, realizing that she drifts away from Zara's explanation for 
Snape's actions more and more. :-)