Snape didn't murder the Potters, LV did (was What would Snape have to do....)

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 138581

 
> Del:
 
> 
> By the way, Snape is not the only accomplice in the Potters' murder.
> Without Peter, for example, LV would never have found them. And
> without Sirius, the Potters would most probably never have chosen
> Peter as their SK in the first place. Even DD could probably be
> dragged in this mess, as the Head of the Order of the Phoenix (one
> could wonder how Peter managed to hide his treason from one of the 
two
> greatest Legilimenses in the world for so long). And of course, 
let's
> not forget Trelawney: if she hadn't made that Prophecy, there would 
be
> no Boy Who Lived.

Hickengruendler:

That's true, but I, too, think, that Snape is more responsible for 
the Potter's murder than the other characters mentioned in your 
example, except Wormtail. Trelawney, for example, had no control over 
what she said once she fell into the trance. She was simply used as a 
messenger by whatever posessed her and can not be held responsible 
for it. Snape, on the other hand, willingly chose to give the 
information to Voldemort. I have no problems to believe, that at this 
time he didn't knew that Harry or Neville was the boy from the 
prophecy (how could he, both of them could have easily been born in 
August), but when delivering the information to Voldemort, he knew, 
that his deed would bring some family in mortal danger. Sirius and 
Dumbledore are, IMO, more to blame than Trelawney, since both of them 
made mistakes that played a part in the Potters' death. But at least 
they genuinely wanted to save them and their mistakes were some 
errors of judgement. This can't be said about Snape, who knew that 
giving Voldemort the information must have destavating consequences.

But by the way: I do believe that he regretted his decision later and 
tried to help James and Lily. And I can't wait to learn the true 
reason.
 
> 
> Del replies:
> I'm a bit surprised at this one, because I find Snape's reason for
> leaving the DEs more "noble" than Regulus's. Regulus apparently 
backed
> out because he got scared, because he didn't have the stomach of
> walking on the path he had chosen. Snape, OTOH, apparently left it
> when the path took a turn he morally disagreed with.

Hickengruendler:

I don't think we know enough about either of them to say this. We 
don't have any information at all about Snape's reason to change 
sides (assuming he did), and the information about Regulus came from 
a highly biased source.
 
Del:
 
> There's also the matter that Regulus apparently only tried to save 
his
> own hide, while Snape went to the enemy and tried to save an 
innocent.
> 
> Of course, this is all based on what we know for now, and I believe
> that Book 7 will change A LOT of what we know :-)

Hickengruendler:

I agree. And to be fair to Regulus, if he really is R.A.B., than he 
risked his life and health to destroy one Horcrux. I would hardly 
call this "saving his own hide".

> 
> doddiemoemoe wrote: 
> "With this much blood, heartache and sorrow....how can he possibly
> redeem himself?!?!?"
 
> "Realization of one's mistake doesn't mean redemption...attempting 
to
> right a wrong may lead to redemption...but in my opinion Snape 
simply
> has too many wrongs to right in one book."

Hickengruendler:

That's not true. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was redeemed because he 
regretted what he did and started a new life. His previous sins were 
not hold against him and he did not have to do one good deed for 
every sin.