Except all the muggles on the news. And the fact these are the same guys that canonically caused a noticeable dip in the population 10 years before.
Population dip is fanon. Although a reasonable assumption we never really learn by how much or even if it occurred. Rowling is so bad at math in the books that we can't even say whether Harry's class of like forty is normal or not.
We
do hear about a couple of attacks in the news but nothing particularly widespread and nothing past the takeover. It's portrayed as a cold war slowly turning hot with a lot of posturing in book six. Death Eaters are being treated as minor terrorists who are doing stuff but things aren't out of control.
Later on it's a reasonable assumption that the fact that they're gathering up muggleborn, taking their wands, and escalating to death camps but we're never actually
shown or directly told about it. It's why I err on the side of the Order not necessarily pulling punches and the Death Eaters being just as bad as the Nazis they're meant to mirror.
This is a reasonable consideration, but is no reason not to try. If nothing else complete immolation is an option and frankly removing all his limbs and taking him hostage might actually have been better than killing him.
Yep! Dumbledore outright implies this in said fight. Something along the lines of "there are far worse things than death that can be done to you Tom". Dumbledore also had the power to maybe capture him which could kill the Death Eater cause in its crib.
If he somehow immolated the dude? I bet we see a new Tom within a couple months and Fudge still in charge saying "problem solved".
Dumbledore talks a lot about forgiveness being admirable. He's a mostly kind dude with a lot of titles that I'm not sure have actual power behind them (he sure gets bullied out of several of them more easily than he should if he is as absolutely powerful as claimed). But do remember how savage he was to Severus when he came begging for Dumbledore to save Lily.
It isn't that Dumbledore refuses to allow others to kill in self defense. It's just that he himself is so powerful that he need not do so to achieve his goals.
He still nearly got Katie Bell killed and used the imperious curse to do it. If nothing else that should have been the breaking point for that idiocy. But Snape was sworn to help Draco and Dumbledore wanted to keep Snape. Draco could have done a lot of damage if his attempts were more reckless and Dumbledore didn't even keep him under observation.
The Katie thing wasn't easy to tie to Draco unless you knew exactly what Harry did though and he wasn't very good at explaining why it wasn't just another Death Eater random attack instead. But even if they'd known? Dumbledore was dying and it's pretty clear that Wizarding Britain was willing to kowtow to the Wizarding Nazi regime the second he did.
Him ensuring Snape was in charge of Hogwarts by risking some lives was probably a good thing. Imagine if someone else had been allowed to be in charge. Snape never
once so much as hinted that he was sexually inappropriate with students nor did he seem like he'd allow that sort of thing occur under his watch. The kids were mistreated but mostly safe.
But yeah, HBP had everyone wearing the dunce cap. Remember Hermione and Ron insisting that Draco "you'll be next mudbloods" Malfoy couldn't possibly be a marked Death Eater with nefarious plans? Jdub farms remembers.
Really just makes your argument better, and lends credence to the fanbase 'never killing anyone, not even magic Hitler' sentiment. Which does ignore how much he'd really rather not given their very personal history, but if there's one person you kill, it's your version of Hitler.
Meh, school teacher helps defeat and permanently imprison his ex lover due to complicated feelings. Presumably the duel wasn't Dumbledore just throwing non lethal stuff at the guy. I'm not sure I would be able to kill him in cold blood either if I had beaten him to the point where he couldn't fight back.
