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

[Dana]

No: HPFGUIDX 179243

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. 
<snip>

Dana:
The problem as I see it is that you judge situations according to 
character instead of to what actually transpired. 
Sirius' character had nothing to do with what transpired as I'm 
trying to explain endlessly. 

Sirius's confrontation with Peter had nothing to do with Harry and 
Sirius loss of guardianship over him. It only had to do with Sirius' 
unjustly imprisonment. These are two separate events. 
Sirius proving his innocence in the betrayal of the Potters would not 
have reversed the guardianship to him because DD had already made a 
decision to intervene on that part. 

zgirnius:
> 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.
<snip>

Dana:
I can't help but to wonder if you actually are trying to be an 
impartial observer here or someone who wants to prove what a 
disagreeable character Sirius must be because you personally dislike 
him. 

You say that you judge Sirius on basis that he should have known that 
his actions would lose him the guardianship over Harry but the fact 
is and remains that his actions to take the law into his own hands 
concerning Peter transpired AFTER Sirius had already LOST his 
guardianship over Harry and that Sirius never was given the time or 
the opportunity to put up any kind of defense in favor of his 
guardianship over Harry *before* DD decided to place Harry with the 
Dursleys. 

His guardianship over Harry came into effect the moment the Potters 
died and Sirius only came to know that they indeed had died when he 
arrived in GH. At that moment Hagrid was already there to take Harry 
away. In other words Sirius already knew that DD had made judgment on 
his alleged contribution to the Potters death and that DD didn't deem 
it necessary to actually confirm his guilt.  That going to DD would 
probably only result in him (DD) delivering Sirius at Azkaban's 
doorstep himself.  
DD's actions were already premeditated on the basis of Sirius being 
guilty and in my opinion that is wrong if you actually never talked 
to the guy before you make such a judgment.  

Personally I do not understand the idea that it is okay to condemn 
someone on the basis of an assumption and then later sit back when 
the person does something at a later date which seemed to confirm the 
initial assumption. As we see the later events did not proof the 
initial assumptions to be correct and so to say that it was okay for 
DD to act as he did because Sirius did something reckless later sound 
ridiculous to me. DD still should have confirmed the facts about 
Sirius presumed guilt *before* he made any decision about Harry's 
life.  It was not up to DD to judge if Sirius would have made a good 
Godfather because he did not condone of Sirius character personally 
and neither should you. The only issue that counted was Sirius either 
being guilty or innocent and not if he would make good enough father 
material to take care of Harry.

If I read your arguments correctly then you say that Sirius had lost 
all rights to Harry because he did not act in the way you deemed to 
be appropriate actions. The problem is that you take his actions 
afterwards to judge the fact if he should have had the right to begin 
with and you never consider the idea that he probably would never 
have behaved the way he did if he had been given Harry to take care 
off. His later actions are irrelevant to make judgment about his 
rights as a guardian. The only point that counted was if Sirius was 
or wasn't guilty of betraying the Potters and seeing that DD took the 
law into his own hands and placed judgment before all the facts were 
in, I actually do see this as an unjust action on part of DD without 
the need for me to elevate Sirius to any kind of sainthood. 

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.
<snip>

Dana:
Tell me would Harry have been less safe if DD had brought him to 
Hogwarts and had sorted out things with Sirius before shipping off 
Harry to his aunt's house? 
LV was gone and there was surely no risk for him to turn up any time 
soon, so why the rush? 

I never said that DD should just hand over Harry and do nothing; what 
I have been saying over and over again is that DD should have talked 
to Sirius before placing a final judgment about his supposed guilt. 
If DD had been so eager to know the specifics on who was giving LV 
inside information on the Potters movement, he should have put more 
effort into finding out who actually was the traitor before the 
Potters actually got killed and if he did not trust James's judgment 
in making Sirius his SK then he should have done something about it 
without the Potters consent just as he took Harry to the Dursley's 
without their consent.

It is easy to place judgment after the fact and then do nothing to 
actually see if the facts you think you have are actually correct at 
all. Wash yourself from all the blame because those that died did not 
accept you proposal. So why should that have changed after they 
actually died?  Because Harry was not just a kid but the one that was 
going to cause LV's downfall. If Harry had been just a kid DD would 
not have thought about his safety twice. DD wasn't concerned with 
Harry's safety as in personally being concerned with the kid's 
welfare. He just wanted the kid to be put on ice in a hostile 
environment so that Harry was more prone to accept DD's suggestions. 
A Harry brought up in a loving environment which I have no doubt 
Sirius could have provided him, would not have made Harry as willing 
to follow DD every step of the way. Therefore it wasn't in DD's best 
interest to seek the truth about what really had transpired between 
Sirius and the Potters and he acted accordingly. 

I can only say that I am glad I do not live in a world were the 
innocent need to proof their innocence instead of those on the 
accusing side proving their actual guilt. DD deemed Sirius not to be 
safe enough to take Harry. That was his decision not Sirius' and thus 
it was up to DD to actually proof Sirius not to be a safe option for 
Harry and he could only have done that if he first had investigated 
the matter before and not after he had already made his decision. 
Sirius should not have needed to proof he was a good guardian to 
Harry because he was given that right by Harry's parents if someone 
objects to those rights they should bring evidence why Sirius should 
not have been granted that right and not the otherway around. 

JHMO

Dana