Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?)

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 179236

> zgirnius:
> > To all who have leapt gallantly to the defense of Sirius Black 
> > against my accusations, I have two responses.
> > First, a lukewarm defense of Albus.  Save Harry, ask questions 
> > afterwards is the policy I suggest he pursued. 
> <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> I think your are missing the point of the argument. The argument 
was 
> about if Sirius' reckless decision of going after Peter was the 
> primary cause that he lost his guardianship over Harry and it 
wasn't. 

zgirnius:
You seem to me missing the criteria I have laid out for how I judge 
the characters. You are free to disagree with those criteria, but you 
can hardly expect me to use yours instead. My objection to Sirius's 
action is that not it *did* lose him guardianship (results-based), 
but that the  consequences Sirius should expect it to have it 
included lost guardianship, getting killed needlessly, and leaving 
Peter free and unsuspected. The only (arguably) desirable possible 
outcome was the death of Peter, which would have been a murder. I 
would consider making his betrayal public the more appropriate way to 
try and deal with him, it neutralizes him as a danger and is not a 
murder. Two out of three actually materialized; instead of death 
Sirius ended up serving twelve years in Azkaban. 

I don't even understand your defense. I'm criticizing Sirius based on 
what he should have known and expected; you seem to be saying the man 
is a saint because forces outside his control were conspiring against 
him and  he couldn't win, so there was no point in trying or taking 
any sensible action. It's a good thing most HP characters do not 
follow this reasoning.

> Dana:
> It doesn't matter if DD came to a conclusion that Sirius must have 
> been guilty of killing Peter and the 12 muggles because that hadn't 
> happened yet. 

zgirnius:
It happened the morning after Harry was sent to the Dursleys, right? 
Yiou seem not to understand another part of my argument. That 
Dumbledore's forst priority was to send Harry to known* safety. 
Sirius was not *known* to be safe. Dumbledore could have harbored 
hope that for some inexplicable reason Sirius was not the traitor he 
seemed, but this would have biin, to me, a totally unacceptable 
reason to let Sirius have him until Dumbledore *knew the reason 
Sirius was not a traitor.

Only then Sirius again proved he was.

> Dana:
> The decision to place Harry with the Dursleys had been made right 
at 
> the moment of the Potters death and before anyone could have done 
> anything. Not even Sirius going to DD would have made any 
difference 
> to the decision DD had already made, because Sirius found out about 
> the Potters death only when he arrived at the scene and Hagrid was 
> already there to take Harry. 

zgirnius:
It would have made all the difference on the issue of Peter, though. 
If he was known to be a Death Eater and Rat Animagus, his ability to 
do damage would have been greatly curtailed. And as I keep saying, 
the decision to send Harry to the Dursleys was not irevocable. If it 
was irrevocable, Sirius would not have ofered to take Harry in in 
PoA. Apparently, this was *still* an option for an exonerated Sirius 
to consider 12 years later. a day after Harry was placed, it ought to 
have been even easier for Sirius, assuming he was not suspected of 
betrayal.

Dana:
> The argument, at least not from my point of view, is not about DD 
> saving Sirius from being innocently locked up in Azkaban 

zgirnius:
And mine is that Sirius is reckless, period, as demonstrated by the 
reckless action we are discussing in this post. I'm glad we've 
cleared this up.

> Dana:
> You judge Sirius unfairly for the simple fact that no matter what 
he 
> knew, he could not have done anything about it in relation to what 
> would happen to Harry because the decision was already made before 
he 
> even knew himself that the Potters had died. 

zgirnius:
It would be unfair if I judged him on the actual results of his 
actions, since in your view it was impossible for him to succeed. I 
don't. Had he tried and failed, I would not be criticizing him.