OoP: I'll do it: In defense of James

[bibphile]

No: HPFGUIDX 62699

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mochajava13" 
<mochajava13 at y...> wrote:
> OK, I'm going to have to defend James here.
> 
> First off, Snape WAS a death eater.  We know this through 
> Dumbledore's penseive.  At some point before Harry's death, he 
> turned traitor.  Now, Harry was born when his parents were around 
> 21/22.  They were only out of Hogwarts for, what, 5 years.  When 
did 
> Snape become a death eater?  After Lily defended Snape, he didn't 
> even acknowledge her help.  He addressed James, and said "I don't 
> need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" (pg. 648, US 
ed.)  


None of this changes one simple fact:  James attack was completely 
unprovoked.  It was also something that happened often.  As soon as 
he heard James ans Sirius call him, he expected to be attacked.

If Snape was a death eater at this point then James didn't know it.  
If he didn't know, then it can't be used to justify his actions.

As far as Snape's comment, James attacked before Snape heard it.  It 
was not the reason for the attack.

I'm not saying Snape wasn't (or isn't) a total jerk.  But in this 
case, James was WRONG.