DDM!Snape & the UV

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 149899

SSS wrote:
> As for this "minor" task facing Snape of handling Draco, Fenrir & 
two ostensibly "lesser" DEs... um... let's just think about how long 
it takes to cast a spell.  Snape would have to freeze *two* people, 
which would mean casting *two* separate spells, and even if he 
managed to cast them non-verbally, it'd probably become obvious that 
he'd done something to Draco & Fenrir, which means the DEs might turn
on him.  Even if they did not, he still then would have to turn on &
kill *two* DEs.  How is he supposed to cast the first three spells
without the other DE shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even just
"Expelliarmus" in the meantime?

Marianne responded: 
> Well, why not just cast a non-verbal "Expelliarmus" against everyone
and collect their wands?  Lupin does it in PoA - saying the spell out
loud only one time and neatly collecting 3 wands. The implication in 
how this was done in PoA suggests that the caster does not have to 
point to each wand or wizard individually to disarm them.
> 
> Surely Snape could say it non-verbally and have it work, even if he
had to repeat the command. He would have had an element of surprise as
the DEs wouldn't expect him to disarm them.  I mean, this is Snape,
right? The guy who can cast a nonverbal, non-AK while shouting a fake
AK after having had a quick Legilimanistic(!) conversation with the 
dying Dumbledore ;-)


Carol responds:
Yes, this is Snape, who is certainly multi-talented but is also bound
by the UV to both save Draco and "do the deed" or die. The moment has
come, and if he fails either provision, he will die. That's what an
Unbreakable Vow does. It cannot be broken.

Yes, Snape could theoretically disarm three DEs at once, but Fenrir
Greyback does not need a wand to eat the dying Dumbledore (or Draco)
for "afters," and Snape would have to stun all three (not two) of the
disarmed DEs as well as Greyback, then somehow cure Dumbledore of the
effects of the potion with no antidotes on hand and the new DE Draco
watching--all without being killed by the Unbreakable Vow.

You're asking the impossible. Snape is gifted and highly intelligent,
but he's not Superwizard, and he is subject to death at any moment.
Quite possibly the invisible ropes of fire are burning on his wrist,
reminding him that he must act now or die.

Dumbledore is going to die no matter what, either from the poison or
the DEs, if Snape doesn't "do the deed" himself. Snape's choices are
to break his vow and die with him, accomplishing nothing and gravely
endangering Harry, Draco, and everyone in the school, or to keep his
vow by killing Dumbledore himself, making sure to send his body over
the battlements so Greyback can't eat it. Killing DD himself enables
Snape to save Draco and get the DEs off the tower before Harry rushes
out to fight them, as he would surely have done if another DE had AK'd
DD and left his body lying on the tower floor. (Snape would deduce
Harry's presence from the second broom and his intimate acquaintance
with the Invisibility Cloak. The incident with Crouch!Moody in GoF
comes to mind.)

Snape has only seconds to act before the third provision of the UV
kicks in, as one of the DEs has inadvertently informed him. He can't
save Dumbledore, but he can keep his vow and in so doing save Harry
and Draco and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. Surely that is what
Dumbledore meant by "Severus, please . . . .": "Time is running out;
do what is right, not what is easy; keep your vow and save the boys."

No Legilimency is necessary (though I do think it happened); Snape had
to make a split-second decision, and the choice he made, IMO, was to
help DD sacrifice himself to save Harry. That he made the right choice
is indicated by DD's peacefully sleeping portrait in McGonagall's office.

Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into killing
his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not to
heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory