Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 170711

> Lanval:
> We know Madam Pomfrey likes to exaggerate the state of her patients, 
> so I wouldn't put too much into her "he'll live". 
> 
> Ron is awake and talking coherently when Harry and Hermione return, 
> when very little time has actually elapsed. It's not as if Ron was 
> out for days. He leaves the Hospital Wing the next day, along with 
> the two others. We know stunning spells can have more severe 
> consequences for people who are weak or elderly, and Ron was in a 
> lot of pain already when the spell hit him, which is perhaps why he 
> remained knocked out for a bit longer than expected. 

Pippin:
Why would he be in pain once Madam Pomfrey had fixed his
broken leg, and why wouldn't she bring him around with
(r)ennervate? Ron took stunners one after another in GoF with
no ill effects. 

This is a different spell, one that Know-it-all Hermione
doesn't recognize:
---
"What did he do to him?" Hermione whispered. Ron's eyes
were only half-closed, his mouth hung open; he was
definitely alive, they could hear him breathing, but he
didn't seem to recognize them.
---

OTOH, Krum, whom Dumbledore diagnosed as Stunned, was 
unconscious and his eyes were closed. 


Lanval: 
> Besides, Crookshanks gets hit with what I assume to be the same 
> spell, same strength, and since I don't believe for a minute that 
> the Rat was trying to be gentle with that particular cat, and no 
> harm has come to Crookshanks, I must logically assume that 
the spell  was harmless enough. 

Pippin:
A spell designed for use on humans may or may not have the
same effects on a cat-kneazle mix. As for no ill effects, that's
a guess -- though I guess it proves JKR really isn't much of 
an animal lover. 

Hermione, who is supposed to adore her cat,  never even 
wonders if Crookshanks is okay. Oops.

> Lanval:
> But Sirius neither had a wand, nor could he move, being bound. Do we 
> know of any spells that are nonverbal, wandless AND require no hand 
> movement?

Pippin:
Dumbledore says that Snape's story is plausible, and that means 
Sirius could have put the confundus curse on all three kids 
without a wand. Plus, he'd managed to escape from Azkaban 
and that was supposed to be impossible, so who knew what 
he could do?

However, I thank you for your question, because it made me
realize that Tom Riddle got himself and two children down
a very steep cliff with no wand and no ropes -- and that
has *very* interesting implications for Dumbledore's fall 
from the tower. :)


> 
> Pippin:
> > Snape's behavior in the Hospital Wing is in character for the
> > part he is playing -- insisting that his old rival must pay, 
> wanting
> > glory for himself, and saying  that he thinks Harry is being
> > indulged by the Headmaster into thinking too much of himself.
> > Those are not crimes, either for Snape or for Harry, so it
> > hardly matters whether Fudge agrees or not.
> > 
> > The thing Snape could really use to get Harry expelled, proof
> > that Harry had broken wizarding law, Snape chooses not to use.
> > He doesn't blame Harry, Ron and Hermione for attacking him.

> Lanval:
> 
> Well, Pippin, you lost me here,as surely you knew you would. :) 
> Since I don't believe for a second that Snape is acting, I can't 
> discuss that possibility.

Pippin:
Er,  you did say Snape was lying his butt off or at least spinning
a fine fantastic yarn.  The only question is whether he was acting
to get some glory, or acting the part of a glory seeker. But
acting he surely was. :)

Lanval:
> As to Snape not blaming the kids -- why mention them in the first 
> place? Fudge assumed the "nasty cut" to be caused by Sirius, and 
> Snape corrects him, saying it was the kids. Why? Sounds like a good 
> way and a perfect time to bring up the Confunded theory --which not 
> only glosses over the embarrassing fact that Snape was overcome by 
> three third years, but it would also support that the kids really 
> *were* Confunded. Attacking a teacher!

Pippin:
The Shrieking Shack is not part of Hogwarts.
 A violation of the  Reasonable Restriction for Underage Wizardry
would constitute grounds for expulsion, whether Snape was
attacked or not. As the Ministry might already have evidence that 
three expelliarmus  charms were cast simultaneously, they had better 
be accounted for.

As far as embarrassment goes, according to his story, Snape let
himself be attacked  by three students when he knew were being 
controlled by a dark wizard.  Shouldn't have said he'd 
caught on at once, should he? :)

Pippin