Also, I think the way Dumbledore went was bad. It's like this.

I LOVE certain parts of this book. Overall, I guess I liked it. But there were a lot of parts I WAS NOT PLEASED ABOUT.

Ok, so I get the whole "Malfoy is 16, and can't kill" but why have Snape just walk on in and finish him off? Couldn't there have been a DUEL of some sort? I would have much rather had Dumbledore duelling one of the strongest death eaters, and Snape coming in yelling "NO! ITS NOT YOUR JOB!" or something, and then Dumbledore get distracted and Snape kill him, or for a few minutes, duel, but Dumbledore was already weakened. Would that not mad more sense? I think so.

Aslo, is Snape REALLY bad? I think so. But I am very DISSATISFIED with the reason Dumbledore trusted him so much. I mean, come on. Wow. He felt remorse. There HAS to be more than that. "I trust Severus very much" . "I trust Professor Snape completely, as I've told you before" Blah blah blah and WHY? BECAUSE OF SOME STUPID REMORESEFUL LIE.

But honestly. Is Snape REALLY bad? Or did he only kill Dumbledore..because he HAD to? Maybe he knew Dumbledore would die eventually, or maybe JKR has some twisted plot that will show Snape actually being on the good side.

Why couldn't they have used the Time Turner to save Dumbledore?