On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158344

> > Alla:
> > If something happens with the parents, is it automatically assumed
> > that child goes to godparents?

Random832: 
> As I said before, regardless of whether 'godparent' is synonymous 
with
> 'guardian-designee' in the WW, Sirius was both.

Alla:

That is entirely possible, I am just not completely sure yet, that's 
all.


Random832:
> I believe what happened was that Dumbledore had already convicted
> Sirius in his mind, and chose what was (in his estimation) right 
over
> what was legal. It is a choice we have seen him make numerous times 
in
> the books. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, yeah, but is it **right** over legal then? Innocent till proven 
guilty is to me ( who is a lawyer :)) is not only legal but also a 
moral thing too? And conviction in Dumbledore's mind if that is what 
happened does not look to me as **proven guilty**. IMHO of course. 
That is why I hope that this is not what happened. Although it is a 
very plausible scenario.




random832:
> Dumbledore has a history of doing what is "right" over what is 
legal.
> The fact that he runs a vigilante organization is one example. Also,
> giving Harry and Hermione the time turners is a part of this. Having
> Aurors on the OOP payroll (assuming there's actual money involved - 
if
> not it wouldn't be bribery) could be considered bribery or 
corruption.

Alla:

Absolutely, I agree, it is just we disagree on whether example of 
disqualifying Sirius as a guardian because he **felt** like it 
qualifies as the same type of the examples as you gave. Those 
examples to me are undoubtedly qualify as right over legal,because if 
fight against evil cannot be accomplished through ministry, it should 
be IMO accomplished by vigilante organisation.

Convicting an innocent man in his mind, just because he felt that 
this is what happened without looking for additional proof, dooming 
Harry to the life of misery because of that.

( To be clear, as I said, if Dumbledore somehow someway knew that 
Sirius would be arrested and if **godfather** does not equal guardian 
in a full sense, that means a different story to me)


random832: 
> The idea that he can do no wrong, and the idea that he does 
everything
> as part of some evil plot, seem equally wrongheaded to me. I think
> that it's clear that he's very human. <SNIP>

Alla:

Erm... Yes, of course.

random832:
He "knows" that Sirius was
> secret-keeper, therefore Sirius  _must_ be guilty of betraying the
> Potters and CANNOT be allowed to take baby Harry. He "knows" that if
> he lets Sirius take Harry, he'll either take him on the run or give
> him to his fellow death eaters. Then he comes up with the blood ward
> idea and since Harry _must_ be protected at all costs, clearly he 
has
> to go to Petunia, even though the will didn't mention her at all. Or
> even if it said he was not to go to her, clearly the will was 
written
> without the knowledge that it would be _necessary_ for his 
protection
> and _obviously_ they would have made her guardian if only they'd
> known.

Alla:

Yes, see above - convicting Sirius because it looks that he must be 
guilty does not qualify to me as something **human**. It is just 
wrong IMO. Does not make him evil of course, but certainly to me 
makes it another huge mistake he committed. Sorry!



Random832:
> It seems apparent throughout the books that, first, Dumbledore 
doesn't
> have a lot of respect for the law. This may even be justified, from
> what we've seen of how the ministry operates.  <SNIP>

Alla:

Absolutely and it **is** justified in many instances, I agree.

JMO,

Alla