Hermione/Snape (OoP and a bit from PS/SS) also broom-bucking

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 70134

Hung jury I'm afraid:
> 
> One cruel comment with no educative merit whatsoever, aimed at a
student 
> in distress, with a right to expect him to do the right thing 
> immediately and without delay.
> 
> He abrogated his responsibility. Nothing changes that - not even the 
> possibility he may have resumed it later.

I just can't get worked up over the difference between "three seconds"
and "immediately".  If he had said, "my goodness!  This is terrible! 
What shall we do.... I know, let's go to the hospital wing!", that's
already twice as long as it actually took Hermionie to get going.  I
think he was going to resume his responsibility within another
half-second, which is 'later' I suppose.

Perhaps we may be going a bit off-track as well by analogizing too
completely to a physical injury.  These sorts of curses seem to fly
around Hogwarts an awful lot (leeks in ears, antlers, boils, giant
tongues...) and when adults deal with them they seem more exasperated
than alarmed.  The twins are turning people into canaries for heavens'
sake, and everone just rolls their eyes.  I think that type of thing
is considered more of an inconvenience than a physical danger. 

When Ron was hit with the slug-barfing backfire (I'd take the tooth
thing over that any day of the week, but anyhow), the Slytherins
laughed, the Gryffindors shouted, the gang wanders off idly to
Hagrid's, where they sit and have tea.  Meetings were not held,
counselors were not summoned, lawsuits were not filed, hysteria did
not abound, and in general the kids take away the very healthy lesson
that life will knock you around and you have to learn not to panic
about it.


> I should clarify - it's unlikely (though not impossible) that this 
> incident alone would cause harm. However it is perfectly possible that 
> it could harm a student who appears normal and non-neurotic in every 
> way, and even if tested by a psychologist would not appear to have 
> problems at all. It's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation. 

Well, if it's unlikely this incident would cause harm, why are still
here trying this case?  Must be the doughnuts...
 
 
>The solution is not to wrap kids in cotton 
> wool and shield them from everyone - but when specific problems can be 
> identified and ways of dealing with them can be found, it would be 
> pretty ridiculous not to address those problems. Snape is a specific 
> problem (-8.
> 
> Most kids (not all) gain more benefit from schooling than they suffer 
> harm. That's the reason for sending them to school. But if you can get 
> the benefits, while reducing the harm, that's worthwhile.

To a large extent I agree with you, as we have seen, over whether
Snape should be teaching.  I certainly don't go all the way over to
the Dumbledore school of child care, which seems to be:  "hey, lets
throw the eleven year olds into the shark-infested pool and see if
they make it!"  
 
> 
> Yes, if the lawsuit is frivolous. And often times it would be. But not 
> always. If the child was killed as a result of the experience 
> (hypothetical - say, Hermione had tripped over her teeth and broken her 
> neck), the duty of care issue would become very important.

If Snape had said, "My god!  Hospital wing as fast as your legs can
carry you!", that scenario would be equally likely.  It would be a
tragic accident, not something for which Snape would be liable.


> In Snape's case, as we see it, I would agree that if it did get to
court 
> and he suffered because of it, that would be friviolous. But not always.

Yay!  Can we close the case then?  Snape gets his one-hundred and
thirty-sixth little chat over being nicer to the kids, Hermionie
strides into a bright small-toothed future, and we all move one day
closer the the time that V-mort is defeated and Snape can get another
job, for the love of god.

Sydney, stuffing the rest of the doughnuts into her purse