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

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 149784

> Alla:
> 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.

zgirnius:
Absolutely! Speculate away <g>!

Alla:
> 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?

zgirnius:
Everybody else may not have done so either. A reason to excuse 
someone from torturing and killing is if you wish them to have an 
acceptable image. I would guess, for example, that the Unspeakable 
whom Karkaroff fingered in the GoF Pensieve scene may not have killed 
anyone either. He was valuable to the organization for other things.

Alla: 
> 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?

zgirnius:
Snape, whose response to Harry's taunt 'Kill me like you killed him, 
you coward!' is inhuman, unbearable emotional pain...
> 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:
It makes sense to me that the act which finally drove him to switch 
sides should be something, well, worse, than whatever he did before. 
If he was involved in getting people killed before, I could picture 
the Prophecy situation as seeming worse because it is easier to 
ignore the death of nameless, faceless people tat one just hears 
about than of those we know. But people he had killed, himself, would 
not be faceless, at least. 

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

zgirnius:
She could have left it at her comment about her adult characters 
mostly seeing Thestrals because by then they had seen death, and 
Snape being one of them. But she first brought in the fact that he 
was a Death Eater, and then said he had seen things. Meaningful? 
Meaningless? Who knows?


> > 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?

zgirnius: 
I don't. Having noticed that Snape never brings up the prank in the 
Shack, however, I have decided this is possibly what Snape meant.

Also, the moment at which I think Snape decides that Dumbledore 
believes Sirius and not Snape is considerably later in the book, when 
Dumbledore tells Snape to be reasonable, because Harry could not 
possibly be in two places at the same time. 

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

zgirnius:
And that's fine with me. This is not an issue on which I expect to be 
proved right by Book 7. (Though I could certainly be proved wrong, if 
Snape gives that whole 'why I hated and resented Dumbledore who was 
SOOO unfair to me' speech which was so obviously missing in HBP.)