The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 169102

> In:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169033

> Mike:

> I was never under the impression that Fluffy was put there 
> to *kill* any intruders.

Goddlefrood:

Nor I, hence his name. Fluffy was a big furball, somewhat like 
his owner Rubeus. That a careless paw may have swiped Severus's 
leg is neither here nor there. Snape did not place himself in 
any physical danger in Philosopher's Stone, IMO. The carefully 
chosen words of Dumbledore at the beginning of term feast, those 
being as quoted by Mike in the above referred post, were little 
more than an exaggeration.

Since when has anyone on this list taken anything at face value? 
Mr. Duplicity is not fond of being called a coward, that we do 
know, but does this go to his own opinion of himself or more to 
an opinion expressed to him by another? Perhaps that is something 
that should be considered. I have expressed an opinion before 
that it may coincide with Lord Voldemort's initial reaction to 
Snape when the latter crawled back to the former dripping with 
sycophancy and muzzled his way back into the Dark Lord's good 
graces.

It also seems to me that there is some contamination creeping 
into this discussion from the medium-that-shall-not-be-named.
Of the opinions expressed more recently on this thread, in fact 
Mike's are the ones with which I agree most closely, not perhaps 
entirely, but near enough.

> In:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169035

> Leslie41:

> Snape believes he's going into a confrontation with Lupin 
> and the man he thinks he's protecting, the outlaw and 
> dangerous Azkaban escapee, Sirius Black.

Goddlefrood:

Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had 
the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* 
Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. The Snape I divine 
from the point reached in canon in PoA is that he considered 
himself, perhaps quite reasonably, powerful enough to be able 
to deal with whatever obstacle he might find in his way at the 
Shack. Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have 
hoped, Sirius too. Also he would have had the singular thought, 
IMO, that the time had come for his revenge for what had 
occurred proximate to the Shack around 20 years earlier and 
have been blinded to any potential dangers to *himself* by 
that thought.

That he was hoist with his own petard in his assumption 
(his, not mine) that he may only have had Lupin to contend 
with is not an unreasonable interpretation of how the 
events in PoA unfolded. It is, however *not* what happened. 
That Severus had to deal with what he found on reaching the 
Shack is also something that may be safely extrapolated, his 
rage extended to both Lupin and Sirus, after all.

Of his grudges against the Marauders in general his grudge 
against Sirius in particular was the strongest by far. It 
is quite clear from even a surface read that this latter 
is correct and sustainable on a second, third or umpteenth 
read through. When he came across Sirius as well in the 
Shack he may well have felt vindicated. He may also have 
felt at the point where he revealed himself in the Shack 
that he had the tools to deal with both Remus *and*
Sirius. But for intervention by HRH this may indeed have 
been a valid feeling on his part.

I am certain he arrived in the Shack, indeed in the bedroom 
itself, some minutes before he revealed himself and I quoted 
the relevant canon on another thread very recently. 

The relevant extract of where I feel he first started listening 
in is in:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169043

> The ghost of Goddlefrood past:

> "Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The
> bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them
> stared at it. Then Lupin strode towards it and looked out into
> the landing.
> 'No one there ...'
> 'This place is haunted!' said Ron
> 'It's not,' said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled
> way. 'The Shrieking Shack was never haunted ... the screams and
> howls the villagers used to hear were made by me.'"

> p. 258 - Bloomsbury Paperback Edition

> My view is that this is Snape entering. It is before Remus
> starts to explain about his school days and how he came to
> Hogwarts, but after the exposition on the night of the 
> Potters' deaths.

> Snape appears within the room from under the IC on p. 262.

Back to the ghost of Goddlefrood present:

Snape was certainly not going to listen to any further 
explanation, as he indeed did not do. He quite possibly felt 
that he had heard more than enough during the time in which 
he was present to confirm his prognosis that Lupin and Sirius 
were acting in tandem and even a likely danger to HRH from 
Severus's perspective, which was, remember, almost certainly 
clouded by his hatred of both the other adults present.

> Leslie41:

> It seems to me that Snape's critics often seem to view his 
> behavior with the knowledge and understanding that *they* 
> have of the other characters (taking Harry's perspective,  
> to [sic.] to speak), not the knowledge that Snape himself 
> has.

Goddlefrood:

It is an impression that could be easily formed. That is 
due to the rather odd notion that these books (each of which 
contain the nominative Harry Potter in their titles) are all 
written *from* Harry's PoV. The chapters that are not, and so 
far there have been few, although I expect at least 3, possibly 
4, chapters not from Harry's PoV to be included in Deathly 
Hallows, are also *not* written from Snape's PoV so how is it 
possible to form an *accurate* picture of how Snape himself 
thinks?

That opinions can be given, as I do above, in respect of his 
possible line of thought should hold no real contention and 
as this list is well aware there are ways of making out an 
argument for many different forms of Mr. Multiplicity.

If there might be any pointers available that contradict the 
above paragraph I would be extremely pleased to read about 
them. The point I want to make is that all versions of Snape 
are subjective to the person writing those views, and to make 
a more objective assessment is the challenge that faces us 
all.

To put it even more simply, each to their own.

> In:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169038

> > Mike:
> > Why do we think that Snape "save Harry's life" by performing 
> > the countercurse?

> zgirnius:
> Because Quirrell describes his actions as an attempt on 
> Harry's life, not an attempt to make himself a nuisance, 
> perhaps?

Goddlefrood (part of the generic we of Mike's):

This *we* does not think Snape saved Harry's life during the 
game in question. It is so unlikely that that particular attempt 
of the sadly deluded Professor Quirrell's would have succeeded 
that very little can be drawn from it, in my interpretation. 
Alla in a post earlier in the thread set this out rather well 
and her position in this regard is to be commended.

I would personally compare it to Draco's attempts to kill DD in 
HBP (the cursed necklace and the poisoned mead). In other words 
the attempt to unseat Harry from his broom was perhaps one of 
the least successful attempts in history and may even merit a 
place in "The Book of Heroic Failures".

He's not referred to as the sadly deluded Professor Quirrell 
by myself for no reason, you (generic) know. He quite clearly 
had a far higher opinion of himself than he merited and his 
mission, even if it could be described as such, ultimately 
failed.

> In:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169060

> Leslie (less the 41):

> The "logical approach" when discovering a murderer is to run 
> away and inform the authorities. If you're especially brave 
> and skilled, you subdue them and turn them over to the 
> authorities. Which is exactly what Snape tried to do.

Goddlefrood:

Not that I would wish to make any great claim for my experience 
in this area, but my working life suggests that in fact, when a 
situation is faced in which a murderer or any other type of 
viloent criminal is caught up with, logic rarely has a place 
in such states of affairs. 

It is mostly adrenaline that drives the reaction to such 
confrontations as dozens of anecdotes I could go into, but 
won't, would attest. I will, however give you my personal 
experience of such a situation.

One evening, not so many years ago, I was confronted at a 
service station check out window (the kind where one stands 
outside while the server is safely ensconsed in a locked shop) 
by a man of lesser build than I who was wielding a kinfe and 
wanted to take some of my hard earned income. My first 
inclination was not to run away but to challenge this man, 
even though I rarely indulge in knife fights. 

Once he was on the ground my sense (call it logic) kicked in 
and asked my what I was doing. I froze giving my intended 
violent assailant the opportunity to escape. He is, as far 
as I know, still at large, having never seen him at the Court 
precincts, which I frequent.

Logic was nowhere initially is the point, so why should Snape 
be given any credit for his actions? Adrenaline would fit the 
case in point just as well and many another wizard or witch 
finding themselves faced with a perceived to be notorious 
murderer would, IMNSVHO, have acted similarly to how Snape 
acted. 

What might be called bravery by some I consider, on reflection, 
to have been foolishness because the incident described above 
could easily have ended in my demise.

It was not something I thought of at first instance, though, as 
I say.

> In:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169065

> Anonymous (herinafter anon):

> As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate 
> in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of 
> rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a 
> known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I 
> have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop, 
> most likely.

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to 
say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that 
he would like a reason to be given to use violent force.

All the above quote, and the material that follows it in anon's 
post, shows is that Severus has a *normal* reaction and not the 
overreaction which anon seems to have little problem with.

If either a citizen or any member of the disciplined forces is 
leaning towards agreement with anon and ever finds themselves 
in the hypothetical situation which anon describes then be 
prepared to spend a good portion of your natural life in 
prison. 

Also be aware if you are an inhabitant of a country where the 
death penalty is still available that you would most probably 
face that penalty, that is if the knowledge that the person 
approaching you, no matter how notorious, were not similarly 
armed to yourself were not provable. I suppose perjury might 
be in order, but I could never advise such a course of action.

IMNSVHO it is far from a normal reaction to use deadly force 
unless the situation merits its use, and remember that the 
legal test for such things is an objective more than a 
subjective one, although subjectivity can be taken into 
account.

We do not know if the same standards would apply in the WW, 
but having said that, we can not know because the legal 
workings of the WW are far from clear. There is too little 
given in canon to form an adequate conclusion of what may 
have happened to Snape had he actually killed Sirius in the 
Shack, which he did not do anyway.

I offer the opinion that it is far from certain that Snape 
would *not* have ended up in Azkaban had he killed Sirius. 
The standards of the WW should not be so far removed from 
those of the real world of the benighted isles. As I've stated 
before, while the US justice system may be an adequate one 
from which to form an opinion of how the legal system works 
in canon, it is a child of the parent and JKR is of the 
parent, as 'twere, while also being the parent of the HP 
books. 

She is unlikely to be too worried about the workings of legal 
systems outside of the original common law system, so why 
should we be concerned with what happens elsewhere than 
in limey land? For that particular aspect of the WW, anyway.

It may come as a surprise to some, but let me tell you, that 
members of the Police force, other than at airports and for 
specially designated events for doing so, do *not* routinely
carry firearms in Great Britain (which does not include 
Northern Ireland, which is a far different kettle of fish.

Goddlefrood, having acted on instructions received ;-), and 
hoping the opinions expressed herein are taken as such. Also
trying to keep morals and ethics rather separate, as the sub 
title I chose for this post may suggest.