Sirius and Prank again? Fools Rush in where Wisemen Fear to Go

[eloise_herisson]

No: HPFGUIDX 129928

<Much snipped>
Steve/bboyminn:
> > So, in all cases, there is blame for both, but the balances of 
that
> > blame shifts depending on the circumstances, and that is the very
> > point I am trying to make. We don't know what happened, though we 
> can
> > fairly conclude that Sirius's actions were wrong, we have only 
> Snape's
> > word that they constituded anything close to intended /murder/. 


Eloise:
We live in a culture which seems to have a strong need to asssign 
*blame* rather than think about responsibility.

Whether Sirius intended *murder*, it is without doubt that whatever 
he did to tempt Snape into the tunnel was at the very least 
foolhardy. In fact Lupin is the one who has the most reason to be 
angry about the situation. What ever Sirius did it was a betrayal of 
a close friend who at the least would have had to leave the school 
had he bitten Snape, probably suffering a penalty far worse. 

I am the mother of a teenage boy. I know that teenage boys make 
stupid decisions and often don't think through the consequences of 
their actions, but that doesn't make them less culpable when they are 
caught. Sirius' desired to get back at Snape led him to do something 
that could have disasterously affected two classmates' lives, 
possibly even robbing both of them of their lives. I'm clear where 
the prime responsibility lies (as you admit below).

Steve/bboyminn:
And
> > once again, in no case is Snape without guilt of his own. 
> > 
> > Snape made a conscious choice to do something that is both wrong 
> and
> > logically dangerous. He chose to put himself in harms way.

Eloise:

I don't think we actually have any evidence that Snape knew that what 
he was doing was going to put his own life in danger. Yes, he was 
breaking rules, just as Draco did to spy on Harry et al at Hagrid's 
hut. Draco was punished; I've no doubt that Snape was also. But the 
guilt is in respect of something relatively minor, namely spying on a 
classmate. Sirius knew exactly what he was doing in tempting him to 
follow a werewolf into an enclosed environment. 

Steve/bboyminn:
 Let me
> > conclude by re-enforcing the point that no matter how much guilt 
> may
> > belong to Snape, it doesn't absolve Sirius's action. 

Eloise:
No, it doesn't. What he did was utterly wrong, yet he shows no 
regret, not even an acknowledgement that it was wrong, just 
childishly tries to justify it like my kids might:

"Don't hit your sister."
"But she was annoying me."

Steve/bboyminn:
> > Also, Sirius's continued bad attitude toward the incident is easy
> > enough to understand since it is long after the fact, and Snape 
was
> > never truly harm; well, his ego might have been harmed, but he 
> wasn't
> > physically hurt.


Eloise:
No thanks to Sirius. And his ego was harmed, I would argue, more by 
James' rescue than by Sirius' trick. Sirius' bad attitude seems to 
stem more from his continued animosity towards someone he had a pre-
existing grudge towards. And as you admit it is *long* after the 
incident. So if Snape was supposed to have got over being fed to a 
werewolf, why shouldn't Sirius get over Snape having spied on MWWP?

Let me draw an analogy. You're in a car, driving someone else and 
decide to show off. You crash. The passenger is nearly killed. It 
leaves him with a grudge. You're entitled to have an attitude towards 
that person for having that grudge simply because they came to no 
serious physical harm? I think not. And in this case, the "Prank" was 
designed with malice aforethought, even if Sirius hadn't thought the 
implications through completely.

Steve/bboyminn:
> > 
> > In simpliest terms, there is a difference between throwing someone
> > into a dean of wolves, and simply telling him where the dean is.
> > 
> > That's all I'm trying to say.

Eloise:
If you *know* that the person will enter the den, then morally, 
there's no difference at all, IMHO.

a_svirn:
> 
> There is a difference between "not without guilt" and "greater 
share 
> of guilt". You say that Snape is to blame because he acted on his 
> own free will, according to his own choices, based on the 
> information he'd got and breaking school rules and security 
measures 
> in the process. But that's exactly what Harry Potter has been doing 
> since his year one. Would you say that he bears "the greater share 
> of guilt" that Voldermort for his near brushes with death? I 
suspect 
> you would not, but where is the difference? 
The way I see it the 
> only difference is that Harry is nice and good, while Snape is a 
> horrid slimeball. 

Eloise:
I wouldn't put it quite like that ;-)
There is a difference in that Harry's life-endangering rule breaking 
has normally been in pursuit of a higher aim (rescuing the 
Philosopher's Stone, rescuing Ginny). But yes, Snape's rule breaking 
is of a different order from deliberately ensnaring a fellow student 
into a life-threatening situation.

~Eloise