The Avada Kedrava's Possible Origins and Intent to Kill

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 167185

> >>Goddlefrood:
> <snip>
> Legal systems throughout the world differ, but perhaps the 
> simplest to understand for all is the English & Welsh system, 
> specifically in relation to offences of homicide (meaning 
> those where one person kills another). There is murder - this 
> is where intent and act are clear, or clear enough. Then there 
> is  manslaughter - this is where either the guilty act or the 
> guilty mind is missing from the elements of the offence or 
> where some other mitigating factor is present. The elements 
> are (in simplified form, no summing ups here ;)):
> 
> (i) There is someone dead
> 
> (ii) Someone else did the act that led to the death or 
> omitted to do something that led to the death.
> 
> (iii) The mental element of the offence.
> 
> Look for these in Severus Snape's case and you should be able 
> to determine which offence he is guilty of or otherwise. It 
> is unnecessary to consider what state Dumbledore himself was 
> in at the point where Severus did whatever he did. The 
> condition of the victim and the possible proximity to death 
> from another cause is never *usually* considered. For those 
> interested in such things this is called "the egg shell skull 
> principle".
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that (i) Dumbledore is dead.  JKR has been very clear about 
that.  And it certainly *appears* that Snape either took an action or 
failed to take an action that led to Dumbledore's death (ii).  But 
what if the action was to remove a spell that had been holding off a 
deadly curse (the destruction of the ring horcrux)?  Or, what if the 
action was to remove the dying Dumbledore (dying from the poison he 
drank earlier that night) from the scene?  I suppose that goes a bit 
towards point (iii), Snape's state of mind.  But really, don't we 
need to establish first that Dumbledore was murdered? If a physician 
removes life support at the request of the patient, is that murder?

Honestly, at this point I think it's too early in the game to go to 
trial.  We need to hear back from the coroner first. <g>

> >>Goddlefrood:
> Snape's intent, IOW part (iii) of the above elements, is far from   
> clear, I think we can agree on that. One reason he is a gift to 
> analysts and theorists :). Also as suggested by Ryan, there 
> must be something behind it, rather more than just righteous 
> anger, witness Barty Jnr.'s class on the Unforgiveable curses 
> in GoF and not improbable extrapolations from what Bella 
> said in the DoM. That it may have developed from a more 
> benign use is a possibility that should not be excluded, 
> and this would apply equally to the other Unforgiveables, 
> at least the ones the MoM knows about ;).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But one of the questions still unanswered is whether it was an actual 
AK Snape threw.  So examining Snape's intent is made even more 
difficult.  Understanding an AK doesn't necessarily lead to 
understanding Snape's state of mind.  I'd also add that Dumbledore's 
intent, the meaning behind his cryptic request of Snape, needs to be 
understood before we have a hope of fully understand what exactly 
happened on the Tower that night.

Betsy Hp