AK and guns- both unforgivable, and sometimes necessary!

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 167131

Carol earlier:
> <SNIP>
> > Harry didn't know the Killing Curse (and probably couldn't have
conjured it if he did) in the Shrieking Shack, but he intended to 
kill Sirius Black (or thought he did). Exactly how was he supposed to
do it? Would it have been better to choke him to death with his bare
hands, as he tried to do? And Lupin and Black intended to kill
Pettigrew. Do you think they had some other spell in mind besides a
simple, quick, efficient AK? They would have gone to Azkaban (or back
to Azkaban, in Black's case) regardless of the method they used for
the murder. And if a murder of that sort, very much premeditated on
Black's part, would have split their souls (and I suspect it would
have because it was an act of revenge, not self-defense), it would
have done so in any case, regardless of the spell they used, just as
poisoning Hepzibah Smith to steal the cup and the locket split
> > Voldemort's soul.)
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> This paragraph is written as if I wrote anything to the contrary up
thread, while I do not think I did. If Sirius and Remus would have 
killed Peter by **any** means available, AK or not, they would have
landed up in Azkaban and their souls would have been split? Um, yes, 
I am pretty sure that is exactly what would have happened. Would they
choose AK? I do not know, but I am  thinking that had they killed 
Peter that is exactly what they would have chosen, although Remus 
being DADA teacher may have come up with something more creative as 
well for all I know, but that is really besides the point, IMO.
> 
> That is precisely why IMO JKR makes sure Harry stops them from doing 
> that. And what is the justification Harry gives? He does not want his 
> dad's friends to become murderers. I think it is very much in line 
> with murder splits the soul and murder is a bad thing theme. Avada 
> Kedavra is just that – metaphor IMO, but that what makes it so strong 
> in Potterverse. Not the words in itself, but what lies behind those 
> words.

Carol responds:
Sorry to be unclear. I wasn't suggesting that you had made any such
point; I was bringing up a new example of my own. (The Moody question
was addressed to you, though. I'm still curious as to how you think he
might have or should have killed Rosier without resorting to AK.)

My point in providing this example was, first, that any other method
of murder (e.g., strangulation) would have been just as bad and much
less efficient than the spell designed for that purpose, which Harry
didn't know but Black and Lupin probably would have used (I'm glad we
agree on that point), and, second, that their souls would have been
split because of that murder because it was killing for revenge rather
than for some justifiable reason (e.g., self-defense), not because of
the spell they used. 

Harry, of course, didn't know about Unforgiveable Curses or about
soul-splitting at that time. He just wanted to prevent his father's
friends from committing murder. At least we agree that they would have
ended up in Azkaban and with split souls no matter how they chose to
kill Pettigrew. But my point is that Pettigrew's death, as Black
himself acknowledges, would have been murder, not justifiable
homicide, no matter what the curse or weapon or method used, whereas
Dumbledore's death, *if* it turns out to be justifiable homicide
rather than murder, will be justifiable regardless of the curse used
to kill him. If it turns out to be murder, the same logic applies, as
it does with Black and Lupin's thwarted but intended murder.

Again, I think it's the killing itself and the motives of the killer
that matter, not the means or method (except that some methods are
crueller than others). Much as I hated having Cedric murdered before
Harry's eyes, terrible as that scene is, I think the murders committed
by Fenrir Greyback are far more abhorrent (and I'm very glad they're
offpage). And if Dumbledore had died in the cave from the poison or
the Inferi or a combination of the two, that would have been far worse
than dying from an AK because he would have suffered horribly, and it
would have been murder, with Voldemort (not Harry, who was only
following orders) as the murderer.

It's better (IMO) to be decapitated by a guillotine, clean and quick,
than to be hanged. It's better to be hanged, horrible as a death by
strangulation would be, than to be drawn and quartered. Better to die
from an AK than from a slow poison eating at your insides or an
untransformed werewolf tearing at your throat or lying in a pool or
your own blood from Sectumsempra.

I think that Snape chose the best and most humane means available to
him, and I think, based on his closed eyes and composed features (he
looks as if he's asleep) that Dumbledore knew that and forgave him.

Carol, wondering what better way DDM!Snape could have chosen if he
did, indeed, have to kill Dumbledore to save the boys (and whatever
else DD wanted him to accomplish)