Snape's Culpability in the Prank (WAS: James and Sirius as Bullies)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 181245

> Carol responds:
> I'm not saying that Sirius forced Severus to go down there. I'm 
> saying that he offered him the means of endangering himself, which
> he could not have done otherwise because he didn't know how to get
> in, knowing that he would take the bait.
> <snip>
> I'm not saying that Severus was innocent. Of course, he broke
> curfew, and of course proving his theory and perhaps wanting to
> get MWPP into trouble was insufficient reason for going in there.

Mike:
Carol, you assigned Snape approx. 20% responsibility for the Potters 
death, based on him bringing the prophesy to Voldemort. Snape did 
that knowingly, most likely suspecting his master would somehow act 
on it. How Voldemort would use it, Snape had no real way of knowing. 
But a logical man like Snape would think that Voldemort would most 
likely do *something* to eliminate the prophetic challenger, however 
likely that the prophesy was true. Else why did he bother to bring 
it to him?

Sirius told Severus how to get past the Whomping Willow, to access 
the tunnel that would take him to werewolf!Lupin's location. Sirius 
had no real way of knowing how Severus would use that information, 
though he *probably* thought that Severus would use it in some way 
to try to get the Marauders in trouble. He *may* have taunted 
Severus, we don't know, that's pure speculation.

So tell me, based one your assessment for the Snape-LV-prophesy guilt 
owning equation, why would Sirius be any more than 20% at fault for 
the Prank? Both of them gave information that lead to incidents, 
information without which the incidents wouldn't happen (allegedly 
in the case of Sirius' info). If anything, I would say giving 
information to a psychopathic killer about a potential rival is more 
damning than giving information on how to get past a mean tree to a 
schoolboy rival that wants to break the same rules that you are 
breaking.


> Carol responds:
> He suspected that he'd see a werewolf and come out unscathed,
> just as the Marauders did.

Mike:
Why should he think that? And where is the canon that he did? It's 
speculation, yours and mine, but it shows a certain level of 
stupidity that you are not willing to asign to Severus on *any* 
other point of discussion.


> Carol responds:
> Do you really think that if Severus had known that WPP were
> Animagi and in no danger from the werewolf that he would 
> have gone down there, having no such protection himself?

Mike:
I honestly have no idea what was in Severus' head to make him do 
this. What did he hope to accomplish? See a werewolf? So what, 
obviously the Hogwarts staff already knew what Remus was, Mdm. 
Pomfrey was escorting Remus to the damn tree, for crissakes. To 
satisfy his own curiousity? To catch WPP doing something illegal? 
If he saw them enter the Willow while Remus was down there, he 
already knew they were breaking the rules. The memories hint that 
he had already known this. Besides, if he was going to catch WPP, 
shouldn't he have waited for them to enter first? And what's his 
plan if he does catch them down there? Stun them all and run get 
the authorities to prove they were together (and, oh by the way, 
implicating himself as well)?

I can keep going, but I think you get my point. That there was no 
point in Severus going down that tunnel for anything other than 
egocentric reasons. How is THAT Sirius' fault?


>>> Mike:
I'll give you my analogy. It's like one thief (Sirius) robbed a
house and gave the house key he had to a second thief (Severus). The
first thief knows the owner is in there with a shotgun. The second
thief doesn't know that for sure, but suspects it. But the second
thief figures if the first thief got away with it, he can too. The
first thief failed to mention that he had previously ascertained that
the owner was out of ammunition when he robbed the place. So, is it
the first thief's fault if the second thief gets shot trying to rob
the house? I doubt the authorities will look at it that way. <<<


> Carol responds:
> Your thief analogy fails to take into account that the first thief 
> is safe from the shotgun <snip>

Mike:
Read it again, it did.


> Carol:
> He tricks the second thief into endangering his life through
> pretending that they're on equal terms. <snip>

Mike:
Nope, he gives the other thief only partial information. No honor 
among thieves or schoolboy rivals, it seems. He doesn't trick him
in any way. The Willow opened exactly as Sirius said it would.

The reason for my using thieves in the analogy was to point out that 
both of them were doing something illegal. The key ingredient you 
keep wanting to leave out is that Severus was just as wrong to go 
down there as WPP were. That Severus intended to break the rules to 
prove that the Marauders were breaking the rules (IF that's what his 
intentions were), means he has no legitimate grounds whatsoever for 
using the information. Period. Full stop. It's his fault, he has no 
valid reason for his rule breaking. Anything you say to justify his 
rule breaking is an excuse.

Let me throw out a what if: What if Severus had hid out and watched 
how the other Marauders or Madam Pomfrey got past the Willow? Is 
there any reason to believe he would have used the same information 
in any other way than how he used it when he got it from Sirius? 
Then who would we blame for Severus going down there?


> Carol:
> Of the two, the one who provided information that would tempt the
> other was more at fault, <snip>

Mike:
Then Snape is more at fault for the Potters death than Voldemort is. 
Fair is fair, Snape tempted LV with the prophesy information.


> Carol:
> just as Mephistopheles, the tempter, is more at fault than Faust,
> who submits to the temptation. Faust would not have fallen, and
> Severus would not have entered the Shrieking Shack and been
> endangered, if their tempters had not known their weaknesses
> and made offers that they couldn't refuse.

Mike:
Really, what did Sirius offer Severus that was on the scale of 
Mephistopheles' offer to Faust? And what did Snape offer to Sirius
in return? This analogy holds no water, imo.


> Carol:
> Who is more at fault, the kid who offers another kid an illegal 
> drug, tempting him by saying that he'll love the high it gives
> him, or the kid who stupidly accepts the offer? 

Mike:
So Severus paid Sirius what for the high? Sirius little offer got 
Severus to become a regular customer of his, did it?



> Carol:
> Just a harmless Prank, and it's all Severus's fault for falling
> for it. Sorry, Mike. I can't agree with you on this one.

Mike:
Well, I never said harmless. But yep, all Severus' fault. Before DH, 
I was sure there were some mitigating circumstances that would 
explain why Severus took the bait. Now I see there are none.



> Carol, noting that reckless endangerment is a crime and the
> gullibility of the victim is no excuse

Mike, noting that you can't blame your crime on another person 
pulling the same criminal act and getting away with it

PS - Point of Order to Montavilla: The Marauders only started their 
marauding in their fifth year. I don't think they had already made 
the Marauder's Map by then. I rather thought they wouldn't have made 
it until their seventh year. Both because they needed more time to 
gather the information and they would need more magical knowledge to 
make the map. 

When Lupin says "that's how we *came* to write the MM" <my emphasis>, 
it sounds like that was after a good bit of exploring and that the 
idea to make it wasn't foremost in their minds. IMO, they "came" to 
make it later, after they had a lot of marauding under their belt.

My point? I don't think it was as much of an advantage as you may 
think. I don't think they had it for that much of their school days, 
and I really do think they made it to pass on to the next generation. 
Besides, Filch confiscated somewhere in there, though he could have 
got it away from whomever the Marauders passed it on to.