Presumably he didn't make it to his fight with Grindelwald without going through some of the man's followers, and it is improbable that he was able to leave them all alive.

That is pure supposition, though. For all we know Gellert could have come out to meet him.

 

It's one of those things that could go either way really. The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that he doesn't go out of his way to kill people for kicks.

Of course way too many bad writers have used this uncertainty to set Dumbledore up as an easily-bashed straw pacifist for their edgy dark/grey!indy!Harry to rebel against. "Hurrrr durr Dumbledore hurrr 'second chances' graaaahh duuuh 'Greater Good' whaaarrrgarbl"

Finding a Dumbledore that's neither one of those nor a psychopath is always a relief.

As for the topic's question, I'm fine with either the 'too afraid to check' interpretation or some plausible excuse for pensieve unreliability. Both are better than what I'm 99% sure is the real reason: That for all her good qualities, consistency is not one of Rowling's strengths.

 

A person under the imperius is hardly innocent. He still kills, tortures and spreads fear. If you use your reasoning, what is with the DE who were forced to be a part of them? They are all guilty.

 

So in your world someone who kills while under the imperius is a murderer? You'd hold them legally culpable for crimes committed under the influence?

 

Of course, they were too weak to defend themselves. Only because they were forces by someone to do their bidding by taking away their willpower, they are hardly inncent.

 

So by your logic, rape victims are to blame for being raped.

I'm willing to guess you're about twelve years old.

 

Are you taking the piss? If not...


There's a reason the Imperius is an Unforgivable. Harry being able to fight it off was a Big Deal.

 

No, that is totally different.....every wizard has the power to resist the imperius (otherwise Crouch wouldn't train them) but rape victims have no special power to resist.

---------- Post automerged at 07:26 ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 ----------

But other wizards can still resist it, if they train hard and often. Therefore, imperius is no excuse.

 

Uhhhhhhh...

Also, the lesson wasn't specifically training the students how to resist the Imperius. It was about the Unforgivables, and showing the students why there were the bads.

 

If I trained to become Bruce Lee, I could fight off most rapists, no?

Also: why would Crouch be training them to resist unforgivables?

 

It was also about using the imperius on them.

---------- Post automerged at 07:31 ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 ----------

Some woman would not be able to become Bruce Lee....they haven't enough testosterone.

Crouch used the curse on the students and showed that you can resist it with enough willpower.

 

Ok, using a canon example. The Malfoys, amongst others, were pardoned for their actions during the first war as a direct result of being found to have committed their crimes whilst under the Imperius. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, as the rule of the law already existed to find them innocent in such a manner.

Edit:

Yeah, and some (most) witches and wizards would be unable to resist the Imperius. Which side are you arguing here again?

 

Holy fuck this has to be a troll.

 

Better a troll in a strong-willed country with no terrorists than a human in cannon England with terrorists.

 

But a cave troll, or a security troll?

Also, breaking news. England has been turned into a cannon. Voldemort suspected.

 

Wut.


Okay, I'm out.

 

Yes....the law works like that (unfortunately)......they are only unable to resist because they didn't train enough.
To rape victims: They are mostly young and their bodies are not in peak conditions (between 27 and 37 years), while wizards are at full power when they are 17 and most DE's were way older.

 

>they are only unable to resist because they didn't train enough

>they didn't train enough

This argument is literally the same as saying if someone shoots you, it's your fault and your fault alone. Why?

Because you didn't train enough dodging bullets to survive.

In addition to this, it's not quite that simple. The only person we ever seen shrug off the Imperius after it being used on him repeatedly is Harry, who is already noted to be extremely resistant to it. We've no idea how long this resistance lasts, as it likely isn't "trainable" - therefore it would be impossible to "train" to resist it. You'd simply have to have the Imperius cast on you multiple times every single day to prevent yourself from being mind-controlled.

And that's not even getting into the legality and possible abuse of using a forbidden mind-control spell willy-nilly to train people to resist it.

The rest of your stuff is pretty equally stupid. It's victim-blaming in the same vein as the getting shot example from above, and more-so, its not even a very commonly cast spell. Why would they go through the enormous effort of training themselves to resist something they are likely never to have to resist?

I don't know why I'm even arguing this tbh, you're either a troll, vastly lacking in common sense, or have an extremely skewed frame of reference on this. I actually hope its the first.

-----

This.

 

Ultimately, I think the answer is "maybe".

Pensieves allow an individual to view a memory from a third person angle, and notice things they missed in the first place. So if Dumbledore knows at all, even subconsciously, who cast the fatal spell, as in if his senses detected it (not if he perceived it or noticed it) then it's likely he could have seen it in the pensieve, but if he truly did not know, as in he wasn't looking and didn't sense it in any way, then I don't think the pensieve would show it, as there would simply be no frame of reference for it to display, just like how it can't show memories of what happened before/after you left a scene.

But I doubt he would have done so even if he could. Had he seen himself, he would have been destroyed. Had he seen his brother, he would have been homicidal. Had he seen Grindelwald, he would have been angry and guilty. There was no way that knowing for sure would ever give him peace, unless delivered in the ambiguous "it wasn't you" way by Ariana herself.