"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

[Vader182]

Captain Obvious strikes again!!!

I'm simply pointing out that Batman is also directly responsible for someone's death in TDK, and it isn't just something that happens in Batman Begins.
But thanks for that very helpful response.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. About Harvey, I mean. Hmm. I dunno, I don't like this. In The Dark Knight that's slightly different, he's actively saving some people by pushing him off that area with him, but in Batman Begins... it's just too direct without much cause.

That is awful logic. That's like setting a house full of people on fire and saying you don't know they're going to die, so you're not really killing them.

-Vader

No because Ra's was the one who wanted to destroy Wayne's enterprise (and the city if I remember correctly but I have to do a re-watch ) with the train at the beginning, Batman didn't decide to kill Ra's by destroying a train or anything, he just said he didn't have to help him escape. Ra's is not like an innocent person who has no way of getting out of the situation (like the people in the house you're talking about) Ra's is full of ressources and ideas, so he could have had a way out.

That said, I never said that Batman's choice was the right one, I think it showed that he is human and has his dark side too that's why it wasn't a wrong writing decision.

Batman's code is to 'not kill' and this is centered on all the villians obviously, how 'good' or 'bad' they are doesn't factor into this.

-Vader

[Master Virgo]

let's just put it that way. Batman won't kill someone for punishment of what they've done but he would kill them to stop them from killing other persons. it's against his codes? yes it is. but he has to do it when there is no other choices left. he warned Ra's but Ra's just ignored him and then he stopped the train from getting to The Wayne Tower. Ra's died because he was in a train that was supposed to cause a lot of deaths and Batman had to stop it. Batman didn't kill The Joker because he couldn't harm anybody at that moment anymore. If The Joker was trying to kill Rachel in front of Bruce's eyes you think he would just stood by and watched him just because killing a person is against his rule? No. He always tries to avoid that but sometimes he can't. I mean that's the whole thing. Spider Man didn't kill Green Goblin or even Venom and they died because of some stupid accidents . but it's too ridiculous for a Batman movie by Nolan. it makes the movie so much darker and more dramatic when we see Batman kills persons who were friends of him once (Ra's and Dent). surely killing The Joker or Scarecrow wouldn't had that effect.

[Mr. Caine]

let's just put it that way. Batman won't kill someone for punishment of what they've done but he would kill them to stop them from killing other persons. it's against his codes? yes it is. but he has to do it when there is no other choices left. he warned Ra's but Ra's just ignored him and then he stopped the train to get to The Wayne Tower. Ra's died because he was in a train that was supposed to cause for a lot of deaths and Batman has to stop it. Batman didn't kill The Joker because he couldn't harm anybody at that moment anymore. If The Joker was trying to kill Rachel in front of Bruce's eyes you think he would just stood by and watched him just because killing a person is against his rule? No. He always tries to avoid that but sometimes he can't. I mean that's the whole thing. Spider Man didn't kill Green Goblin or even Venom and they died because of some stupid accidents . but it's too ridiculous for a Batman movie by Nolan. it's make the movie so much darker and more dramatic when we see Batman kills person who were friends of him once (Ra's and Dent). surely killing The Joker or Scarecrow wouldn't had that effect.

Great post

[Vader182]

let's just put it that way. Batman won't kill someone for punishment of what they've done but he would kill them to stop them from killing other persons. it's against his codes? yes it is. but he has to do it when there is no other choices left. he warned Ra's but Ra's just ignored him and then he stopped the train to get to The Wayne Tower. Ra's died because he was in a train that was supposed to cause for a lot of deaths and Batman has to stop it. Batman didn't kill The Joker because he couldn't harm anybody at that moment anymore. If The Joker was trying to kill Rachel in front of Bruce's eyes you think he would just stood by and watched him just because killing a person is against his rule? No. He always tries to avoid that but sometimes he can't. I mean that's the whole thing. Spider Man didn't kill Green Goblin or even Venom and they died because of some stupid accidents . but it's too ridiculous for a Batman movie by Nolan. it's make the movie so much darker and more dramatic when we see Batman kills person who were friends of him once (Ra's and Dent). surely killing The Joker or Scarecrow wouldn't had that effect.

Great post

Seconded, I dig this.

-Vader

[Batcat]

let's just put it that way. Batman won't kill someone for punishment of what they've done but he would kill them to stop them from killing other persons. it's against his codes? yes it is. but he has to do it when there is no other choices left. he warned Ra's but Ra's just ignored him and then he stopped the train from getting to The Wayne Tower. Ra's died because he was in a train that was supposed to cause a lot of deaths and Batman had to stop it. Batman didn't kill The Joker because he couldn't harm anybody at that moment anymore. If The Joker was trying to kill Rachel in front of Bruce's eyes you think he would just stood by and watched him just because killing a person is against his rule? No. He always tries to avoid that but sometimes he can't. I mean that's the whole thing. Spider Man didn't kill Green Goblin or even Venom and they died because of some stupid accidents . but it's too ridiculous for a Batman movie by Nolan. it makes the movie so much darker and more dramatic when we see Batman kills persons who were friends of him once (Ra's and Dent). surely killing The Joker or Scarecrow wouldn't had that effect.

That's exactly my thoughts, thank for putting this correctly in words

[mratm23]

Agree He let destiny make its choice, it was almost certain Ra's wouldn't survive but it wasn't 100% sure so it wasn't like killing him.

That is awful logic. That's like setting a house full of people on fire and saying you don't know they're going to die, so you're not really killing them.

-Vader

That's pretty much what Bruce did at the LOS HQ.

[Caekzor]

Ras destroyed the train's controls. He should have learned to mind his surroundings.

And the LOS headquarters? Collateral damage.

[d4mi4n]

let's just put it that way. Batman won't kill someone for punishment of what they've done but he would kill them to stop them from killing other persons. it's against his codes? yes it is. but he has to do it when there is no other choices left. he warned Ra's but Ra's just ignored him and then he stopped the train from getting to The Wayne Tower. Ra's died because he was in a train that was supposed to cause a lot of deaths and Batman had to stop it. Batman didn't kill The Joker because he couldn't harm anybody at that moment anymore. If The Joker was trying to kill Rachel in front of Bruce's eyes you think he would just stood by and watched him just because killing a person is against his rule? No. He always tries to avoid that but sometimes he can't. I mean that's the whole thing. Spider Man didn't kill Green Goblin or even Venom and they died because of some stupid accidents . but it's too ridiculous for a Batman movie by Nolan. it makes the movie so much darker and more dramatic when we see Batman kills persons who were friends of him once (Ra's and Dent). surely killing The Joker or Scarecrow wouldn't had that effect.

100%, yes.

[globalbergonzi]

That was the biggest problem a friend of mine had with this movie. He’s into comics and believes that batman doesn’t kill, and in this case he technically did. Even though in Batman Returns Batman sets a guy on fire.

I suppose it comes down to which philosophy of Batman you’re willing to take. There’s the save one and a whole a majority die instead. And, there’s the save the many while sacrificing one. It could go either way and it really depends on the villain, I think.

For example: If it was between saving the Joker or saving innocent lives, then Batman would save the innocents. That’s why, I think, the ferry scene of TDK is so powerful, because it deals with a similar kind of choice.

[jibbajabba]

As far as the LOS mansion ninjas go- Bruce had no choice. If he didn't execute that guy they would have killed him. He wasn't trying to kill anyone. He was trying to escape. He even risked his life to save Ducard- which bit him in the ass later- which is probably why he wasn't too keen on saving the mass murderer at the end. Ras put himself in that situation. He didn't kill him Ra's killed himself.I don't even see how batman could of saved Ra's other than what he did by giving him a chance to jump out the train and hopefully land safely. Really I think that scene is trying to show that justice is not always black and white but it can have grey areas too. Ra's had to die to save thousands.