Current Events > "I won't kill you..." Batman Begin Spoilies"

(+) Yeah! (+)

How do you feel?

---

He has time to save himself if he doesnt oh well Batman Gave him time to decide

---

He didn't kill his parents either, he just didn't act to save him

I think it's kinda cheesy and that they just wanted to have a villain be definitively defeated. I think it would be a better Batman moment if he saved him.

---

Manslaughter is still homicide
---

Every time I've looked at the poll it's been dead even on the first two answers, and the second two answers are dead even with each other

---

Bullshit loophole that isn't even a loophole. Villain is clearly going to die, you just didn't negotiate the arbitrary physical trigger which lead to that situation.

---

I picked the first option, but I have no problem with the scene.

---

Bryfang posted...

It's the perfect compromise to his code, I love it.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

Bullshit loophole that isn't even a loophole. Villain is clearly going to die, you just didn't negotiate the arbitrary physical trigger which lead to that situation.

Agreed, besides, Batman has killed & used guns plenty of times in the past. Hell, the very first issue of Batman involves him killing.

His 'code' is some lame shit people made up in later years, mostly just so they would have a reason to keep the villains around forever, even if they are mass murdering psychopaths like the Joker.

I see no issue.
---

Tote_All_y posted...

Other (IDGAF)

---

It makes Batman seem really stupid in The Dark Knight

Otherwise IDGAF

---

It was dumb. I don't particularly care if Batman kills people in adaptations (though I prefer the no-killing rule), but it contradicted the character that was established in that movie. It'd be fine if the intent was for Bruce to be a hypocrite for that, but it wasn't. In fact, one of the big motivations for the Joker in TDK is to make Batman break his no-killing rule.

---

I don't see why people disagree with batman here. Have you forgotten that he literally saved the dude's life once before, and the dude repays him by burning his house down and trapping him under a log to die? Seriously, that's literally what he did.

It worked for me. Besides, Nolan had to do something to set himself apart from the previous live action guano man movies.
---

if the joker just said 'batman let me commit crimes or i'll kill myself' doesn't he win though?
---

I adore Batman Begins, but in hindsight I don't like the 'I don't have to save you' play. I think one of Batman's best lines in this regard is *major Arkham City spoilers* to the Joker at the end of Arkham City: 'Even after everything you've done, I still would have saved you.' I've always admired that more idealized side of Batman stemming from TAS, where he's ultimately compassionate and even on rare occasions sympathetic to the criminals he puts away.

---

That was awesome, and Ra's put himself on that train. Batman didn't kill that bloke. Plus, there's no legal duty to rescue.
---

What would make Batman any different from Frank Castle if he decided to start killing people?

---

It's a little sketchy and not very Batman, but it's fine. He's not very Batman in any of the live action movies especially at the end of TDKR so I can't really complain about it. I'm fine with Burton's Batman killing folks and I kind of dislike the no kill rule anyway.

---

Reminds of that case a while back when those teenagers watched a man drown and laughed at him.
---

Not something Batman would do. If he can save someone, he will do it.

---

He literally kills at least 3-5 people in the trilogy.

---

Why did if he save Joker in TDK if that was his logic?

---

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Why did if he save Joker in TDK if that was his logic?

I actually double checked that scene. He threw Joker off the building, so it was a little more than just not saving him.

---

pegusus123456 posted...

I actually double checked that scene. He threw Joker off the building, so it was a little more than just not saving him.

And he caused the train carrying Ra's to crash, no?

---

au_gold posted...

I picked the first option, but I have no problem with the scene.

---

Scotty_Rogers posted...

And he caused the train carrying Ra's to crash, no?

No, that was completely Ra's doing, but the Joker he kinda had to save since he threw him off.

---

masterpug53 posted...

I adore Batman Begins, but in hindsight I don't like the 'I don't have to save you' play. I think one of Batman's best lines in this regard is *major Arkham City spoilers* to the Joker at the end of Arkham City: 'Even after everything you've done, I still would have saved you.' I've always admired that more idealized side of Batman stemming from TAS, where he's ultimately compassionate and even on rare occasions sympathetic to the criminals he puts away.

yeah it's a little bit of a fumble in what is overall a great movie. Ah well, the line doesn't bug me TOO much, but it is a bit of a fumble.

Considering he left him in a situation that Ra's himself created, felt fair.

---

EnterTheTekken posted...

What would make Batman any different from Frank Castle if he decided to start killing people?

Hes rich, so... better arsenal and lawyers?

I wonder how Batman v Punisher would play out?

---

I mean, if you want to get down to it, attempting to save someone who had been actively trying to kill you and doing acts of terrorism isn't exactly the type of thing you have to debate about in a split second decision to attempt to save (not even guaranteeing you save the person or yourself, either). If someone refuses your help until the last second, it's a technicality that you are now stopping your attempt when it gets so close to death.

Also, if he had tried to save him and Ra's fought him, they'd both have died. Ra's knew his actions prior to that moment and for all Batman knew he could have had his own escape plan (as he did other times) in place so Ra's could put Batman in a position to die while he takes his escape. Sure, we know the end-result, but if you were Batman in that situation, you don't know 100% that Ra's is going to die if you don't save him (it may look obvious but did he not make it out of tricky situations before where normal people would die?). So not saving him isn't negligent in the case of someone who was actively putting them-self in that position while trying to hurt you and others.

---

I don't remember what show it was but I remember a scene of Batman basically being ordered to kill some little girl villain who was dying and instead of doing that he just sat there and hung out with her til she passed away without him following the order he was given.

---

who the heck orders batman around

---

AlCalavicci posted...

who the heck orders batman around

Amanda "The Wall" Waller.

It wasn't ordering though. The little girl was an extremely powerful psychic who was telekinetically altering reality around her. She was already going to die from an aneurysm, but the psychic backlash would have killed everyone within range of her powers, an area that was at least a city big. Waller had a device that would kill her prematurely and disable her powers. Batman volunteered to do it because he and Ace had a bit of a previous relationship. She only let him in because she read his mind and knew he had no intention of killing her. He instead talked her down and sat with her until she died peacefully.

---

pegusus123456 posted...

Amanda "The Wall" Waller.

It wasn't ordering though. The little girl was an extremely powerful psychic who was telekinetically altering reality around her. She was already going to die from an aneurysm, but the psychic backlash would have killed everyone within range of her powers, an area that was at least a city big. Waller had a device that would kill her prematurely and disable her powers. Batman volunteered to do it because he and Ace had a bit of a previous relationship. She only let him in because she read his mind and knew he had no intention of killing her. He instead talked her down and sat with her until she died peacefully.

That's a much more eloquent summation of the episode than I was going to smash out!

I was deliberating between option one and three.. I always liked his control/dedication to "not taking a life", but could see that philosophy evolving as he started out