Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Dagenspear]

I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

[Dagenspear]

I've found this picture on some meme website with a caption titled "How The Dark Knight Rises Really Should Have Ended".

But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

No offense, but that's just crap. If Gordon was going to sabotage the rails with the Tumbler, then Ra's has no chance of ever getting to Wayne Tower. So why did Batman even needed to get on board of the train to begin with, other than making sure that Ra's doesn't get out of there alive?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that a) in TDKR, Batman justified to Talia that he had to kill his father when he was going to kill millions of innocent people and b) the Nolans themselves even acknowledged that Batman broke his moral code in the first two films from the official TDK Trilogy Screenplays book.

The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

Sure, it may not have been intentional, but it still doesn't change the fact that people did die. It's ludicrous that people talk about these films have "realistic and sophisticated character development" when that scene didn't even Bruce change as a person. We don't even know that the guy Bruce refused to kill even survived for crying out loud! It's ridiculous.

It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

Well then it makes sparing of the Joker even more pointless, don't you think? Why bother trying to prove to a mass-murdering psychopath that you won't kill under the circumstances even when you're only endangering an entire town...when you end up killing another maniac when one life is in danger? Yet, people complain about Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel. At least that movie didn't make lame cop-outs like these movies did.

And furthermore, wouldn't keeping the Joker alive only risk endangering the entire Dent cover-up? Why the hell would a presumably still alive Joker go through all that effort to corrupt Dent and devastate Gotham about what he had done...only to keep quiet in jail as Batman takes the fall? Makes no sense. No way would the Joker give up that easily, especially after everything he had accomplished up to that point.

The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

It still doesn't change the fact that lethal force is required in desperate situations. It's one thing where Batman adopts a moral code, and stays true to his beliefs even if it endagers the city, but these movies break their rules and have it both ways. It can't.

When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference there. If Superman could be condemned for "murdering" Zod in MOS, then so should Batman in all the live action films.

But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

No? The Joker was ready to trigger the bombs on both the boats and murder millions of people on board, until Batman tossed him over the building. How is does that not qualify as attempted mass murder?

[Dagenspear]

I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

No offense, but that's just crap. If Gordon was going to sabotage the rails with the Tumbler, then Ra's has no chance of ever getting to Wayne Tower. So why did Batman even needed to get on board of the train to begin with, other than making sure that Ra's doesn't get out of there alive?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that a) in TDKR, Batman justified to Talia that he had to kill his father when he was going to kill millions of innocent people and b) the Nolans themselves even acknowledged that Batman broke his moral code in the first two films from the official TDK Trilogy Screenplays book.

The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

Sure, it may not have been intentional, but it still doesn't change the fact that people did die. It's ludicrous that people talk about these films have "realistic and sophisticated character development" when that scene didn't even Bruce change as a person. We don't even know that the guy Bruce refused to kill even survived for crying out loud! It's ridiculous.

It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

Well then it makes sparing of the Joker even more pointless, don't you think? Why bother trying to prove to a mass-murdering psychopath that you won't kill under the circumstances even when you're only endangering an entire town...when you end up killing another maniac when one life is in danger? Yet, people complain about Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel. At least that movie didn't make lame cop-outs like these movies did.

And furthermore, wouldn't keeping the Joker alive only risk endangering the entire Dent cover-up? Why the hell would a presumably still alive Joker go through all that effort to corrupt Dent and devastate Gotham about what he had done...only to keep quiet in jail as Batman takes the fall? Makes no sense. No way would the Joker give up that easily, especially after everything he had accomplished up to that point.

The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

It still doesn't change the fact that lethal force is required in desperate situations. It's one thing where Batman adopts a moral code, and stays true to his beliefs even if it endagers the city, but these movies break their rules and have it both ways. It can't.

When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference there. If Superman could be condemned for "murdering" Zod in MOS, then so should Batman in all the live action films.

But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

No? The Joker was ready to trigger the bombs on both the boats and murder millions of people on board, until Batman tossed him over the building. How is does that not qualify as attempted mass murder?

Ra's stabbed the console. Not Bruce. End of story. Him sending Gordon to blow up the track was pretty clearly a just in case I don't stop it situation. I'm sure that's the way Bruce looks at it. Bruce did break his rule in a way. But it wasn't an active murder. That is why it's called Batman Begins. It's an ongoing development.

Again, that doesn't really change anything that I said. It was Bruce's folly if people did die. It's all about the intention.

I don't complain about the Superman thing.

There's a big difference between getting someone killed to save someone elses life and actively murdering somebody. Batman saves the Joker because he refuses to murder him. He probably would have gotten him killed to save the city if he needed to, but he didn't need to.

Like A.) Anyone would believe the Joker. And B.) The Joker's become obsessed with Batman by that point. I doubt that he really cares about much else at this point.

Like I said, it's all about the intention. There is a reason why people are prosecuted differently based on intentions in their actions.

Well, Superman does choose to kill Zod. But, again, that's not my issue with Superman in that movie. But again, it's all about the intention for Bruce.

Millions of people couldn't have been on those boats.

[The Laughing Fish]

Ra's stabbed the console. Not Bruce. End of story.

So what if he did? That still doesn't change the fact that Batman could've saved him. Him saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" more than implies he could've saved him, but instead he practically sentenced Ra's al Ghul to a fiery grave. Batman just judged someone to die.

Him sending Gordon to blow up the track was pretty clearly a just in case I don't stop it situation.

Why did Batman even need to send Gordon? Why couldn't he go destroy the tracks himself, if Ra's has nowhere else to go?

I'm sure that's the way Bruce looks at it. Bruce did break his rule in a way. But it wasn't an active murder.

If by "active murder" you mean "he didn't kill him without using your bare hands", I disagree. You can still kill someone just by condemning them to die.

And once again, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind-up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book.

That is why it's called Batman Begins. It's an ongoing development.

That's another problem...what ongoing development? The temple fiasco and the death of Ra's al Ghul doesn't change Bruce as a person, nor he Bruce ever progress without reacting to what people tell him what to do. He's never the one calling the shots - he's always depending on what someone else says to him. Furthermore, in the second film he destroys his own symbol that he intended to become an inspiration, to cover up a corrupted maniac's crimes; contradicting everything he stood for in BB. But that belongs in another topic.

Again, that doesn't really change anything that I said. It was Bruce's folly if people did die. It's all about the intention.

Well once again, Batman clearly intends to kill Ra's by refusing to save him. If you refuse to save somebody, that doesn't make you less culpable than physically snuffing them out.

I don't complain about the Superman thing.

Fair enough.

There's a big difference between getting someone killed to save someone elses life and actively murdering somebody. Batman saves the Joker because he refuses to murder him. He probably would have gotten him killed to save the city if he needed to, but he didn't need to.

Really? Batman spent the entire movie refusing to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was murdering people left right and center, and many more died as a result. From a realistic point of view, that's pretty negligent, and from a narrative point of view, it makes even less. If Batman was willing to kill of Ra's to save lives, as it was acknowledged in TDKR and TDK Screenplays book, then he should've killed the Joker when he had the chance. Nothing about his actions in these films fit the supposed psych profile they were going for.

Like A.) Anyone would believe the Joker. And B.) The Joker's become obsessed with Batman by that point. I doubt that he really cares about much else at this point.

A) Why not? Everyone believed Bane when he revealed the truth about Harvey, and the only evidence he had was a piece of paper. For all they know, he could've fabricated it! Besides, if Joker could manipulate Dent into becoming a homicidal psycho, then he's capable of anything.

B) I don't buy that either. Did you forget what the Joker said to Batman?

"Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done."

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."

The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent because he wanted to force everyone in Gotham to lose hope in everything once they learned that their law-abiding DA became a maniac. Him keeping his mouth shut would be too-self defeatist, and go against everything he stood for.

Millions of people couldn't have been on those boats.

Well according to that film, it suggested they were. There were no other escape routes out of Gotham, if I recall. But even if you're right, it still doesn't change the fact that the Joker was attempting to massacre countless numbers of people.

[Dagenspear]

So what if he did? That still doesn't change the fact that Batman could've saved him. Him saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" more than implies he could've saved him, but instead he practically sentenced Ra's al Ghul to a fiery grave. Batman just judged someone to die.

Why did Batman even need to send Gordon? Why couldn't he go destroy the tracks himself, if Ra's has nowhere else to go?

If by "active murder" you mean "he didn't kill him without using your bare hands", I disagree. You can still kill someone just by condemning them to die.

And once again, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind-up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book.

That's another problem...what ongoing development? The temple fiasco and the death of Ra's al Ghul doesn't change Bruce as a person, nor he Bruce ever progress without reacting to what people tell him what to do. He's never the one calling the shots - he's always depending on what someone else says to him. Furthermore, in the second film he destroys his own symbol that he intended to become an inspiration, to cover up a corrupted maniac's crimes; contradicting everything he stood for in BB. But that belongs in another topic.

Well once again, Batman clearly intends to kill Ra's by refusing to save him. If you refuse to save somebody, that doesn't make you less culpable than physically snuffing them out.

Really? Batman spent the entire movie refusing to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was murdering people left right and center, and many more died as a result. From a realistic point of view, that's pretty negligent, and from a narrative point of view, it makes even less. If Batman was willing to kill of Ra's to save lives, as it was acknowledged in TDKR and TDK Screenplays book, then he should've killed the Joker when he had the chance. Nothing about his actions in these films fit the supposed psych profile they were going for.

A) Why not? Everyone believed Bane when he revealed the truth about Harvey, and the only evidence he had was a piece of paper. For all they know, he could've fabricated it! Besides, if Joker could manipulate Dent into becoming a homicidal psycho, then he's capable of anything.

B) I don't buy that either. Did you forget what the Joker said to Batman?

"Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done."

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."

The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent because he wanted to force everyone in Gotham to lose hope in everything once they learned that their law-abiding DA became a maniac. Him keeping his mouth shut would be too-self defeatist, and go against everything he stood for.

Well according to that film, it suggested they were. There were no other escape routes out of Gotham, if I recall. But even if you're right, it still doesn't change the fact that the Joker was attempting to massacre countless numbers of people.

I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

Condemning and allowing are different things. That wasn't the right thing to do certainly, but it's not murder. Having a hand in their death, yes, even killing, but it not active murder.

Yes, I did. I said that that's the way Bruce saw it. I also said he did kinda break the rule.

I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

I disagree. It's certainly wrong, but that doesn't make it the same.

Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

As if the Joker really stood for anything.

And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

[The Laughing Fish]

I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Ra's al Ghul's plot was to destroy Gotham City. He did NOT intend to die along with the destruction. And if it were a suicide mission, then the movie makes even less sense than I thought it did.

When Batman refused to save Ra's, it's like he never spared that prisoner back at the temple. Bruce wouldn't execute that man because he explained he's not an executioner, that the act itself is what separates those who seek justice from deadly criminals. By saying he isn't an executioner, he was implying that he has no right to decide who lives or dies. And yet, that's exactly what happens at the end of the movie. Instead of saving Ra's al Ghul, he gives him a death sentence. That's a mindset of an executioner. By deciding who lives or dies, Batman shows that he actually isn't much better than the villains.

I just don't accept this as "not murder". It's a complete cop-out. If Batman hadn't distracted Ra's, then Ra's wouldn't have sabotaged the controls. He had no idea doing that could lead to his death. Bloody hell, Ra's thought that Bruce was going to stop the train. Saying I won't kill but I still won't save you makes absolutely no sense. You are killing him!

Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. When Gordon got the job done, the train was still a fair bit away from the ruins. It was very possible that
Ra's could have stopped the train if he saw the wreckage from a distance. And it still doesn't explain why Batman needs to send Gordon to take the rails out. Why did Batman needed to wait for the train to get near to Wayne Tower before destroying the rails?

Condemning and allowing are different things.

Once again, I completely disagree.

I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

Except, we are given no inferences that Bruce realized that destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. For that matter, the end of the movie has Blake saying he understood Gordon rationalizing why he thought covering up Dent's murders was a good idea at the time, despite his initial condemnation before. And Batman believing he should retire because it lead to attracting the Joker goes against everything about wanting to understand the criminal mind in BB. It goes to show he learned absolutely nothing while he was away for several years.

Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

We must have been watching two completely different films then.

Remember when Batman refused to chop the Joker down at the end of that chase scene, despite the fact that Joker was shooting at cars which possibly killed the drivers occupying them? Not to mention the fact that he murdered people leading up to that street confrontation. And when Gordon apprehended Joker, not Batman, it turned out that was what Joker wanted all along and he murdered more people along the way. Including Rachel Dawes.

The Joker in this movie was way more sinister and deadlier than Ra's, and way more successful in terrorizing the whole of Gotham than Ra's ever hoped to accomplished.

A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

We may not have seen the reaction from the whole public, but exposing the truth did lead to anarchy on the streets in that montage. Did you miss the point when Bane told everybody "You have been supplied with a false idol"? They didn't know Harvey was a broken man. It only goes to show what a brain-dead idea it was for Batman to take the fall.

And you haven't quite articulated why Joker exposing the truth wouldn't work.

B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

How so? If the Joker was really obsessed with Batman, then there's no way he'd allow Batman to go MIA for the next eight years, while Gotham cleans itself up during that time.

As if the Joker really stood for anything.

Then with all due respect, you have completely missed the point about his character and what he was trying to accomplish.

Did you even read the transcript of his quotes that I posted before? Did you miss the part where he tells Batman "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."? It's in the scene if you don't believe me:

The Joker wanted Gotham to descend to anarchy. He wanted to prove to Batman that people will lose hope and embrace insanity if you threaten them and disrupt everything they believe in. When none of the boats blew each other up, Joker had an ace up his sleeve: manipulating Harvey Dent to become a crazed lunatic. He thought that corrupting the so-called "White Knight" of Gotham City would cause people to lose hope in everything they ever believed in. Which is why Batman took the fall to prevent that from happening...and betrays his confidence in people's ability to persevere any crisis like that boast scene.

Do you seriously think the Joker would go through all that trouble, only to happily give up and let the cover-up enable the Dent Act and restore peace in Gotham for eight years, while Batman goes missing through all that time?

I thought Joker wanted anarchy, not order. It's so counterproductive that it's not funny. The Joker may be deranged, but he's not a self-defeating idiot.

And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

I disagree again. Despite what we're constantly told otherwise, these movies show that Batman will resort to lethal force when the circumstances got dire. He justifies killing Ra's to Talia in TDKR because he argued lives were at stake, and does the same thing to her and Two-Face when the stakes were too high...yet he allowed the Joker situation to get things out of hand? It makes no sense. And on top of that, we don't get any inferences that Batman even regretted killing off Ra's, nor do we see in TDK that his death made him change his approach when dealing with the Joker. If anything, Batman justified killing off Ra's as a necessity!

Look, there are two ways to explore Batman's stance on killing:

A) He adopts a strict moral code. No cop-outs or trying to look for loopholes; he argues there's always a non-lethal way to save lives. Like he says to Talia claimed she had no choice but try to kill Joker in Arkham City : "There's always a choice".

B) He kills when the going gets tough to save lives.

It can't be both. The clash of ideas in these movies don't go together at all, and they only make his actions more confusing. Don't introduce a moral code and acknowledge it got broken, but still try to excuse it by arguing Batman gets away with "technicalities" or such nonsense. I have no tolerance for paying lip service to things. If Batman truly sees himself a soldier who is prepared to kill villains to protect the greater good, then he should've killed the Joker too. Otherwise, it makes that whole moral dilemma throughout TDK and the temple scene completely meaningless and only serves to play unnecessarily contrived drama.

And I'll say it for a third time, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book. I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

[Dagenspear]

I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Ra's al Ghul's plot was to destroy Gotham City. He did NOT intend to die along with the destruction. And if it were a suicide mission, then the movie makes even less sense than I thought it did.

When Batman refused to save Ra's, it's like he never spared that prisoner back at the temple. Bruce wouldn't execute that man because he explained he's not an executioner, that the act itself is what separates those who seek justice from deadly criminals. By saying he isn't an executioner, he was implying that he has no right to decide who lives or dies. And yet, that's exactly what happens at the end of the movie. Instead of saving Ra's al Ghul, he gives him a death sentence. That's a mindset of an executioner. By deciding who lives or dies, Batman shows that he actually isn't much better than the villains.

I just don't accept this as "not murder". It's a complete cop-out. If Batman hadn't distracted Ra's, then Ra's wouldn't have sabotaged the controls. He had no idea doing that could lead to his death. Bloody hell, Ra's thought that Bruce was going to stop the train. Saying I won't kill but I still won't save you makes absolutely no sense. You are killing him!

Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. When Gordon got the job done, the train was still a fair bit away from the ruins. It was very possible that
Ra's could have stopped the train if he saw the wreckage from a distance. And it still doesn't explain why Batman needs to send Gordon to take the rails out. Why did Batman needed to wait for the train to get near to Wayne Tower before destroying the rails?

Condemning and allowing are different things.

Once again, I completely disagree.

I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

Except, we are given no inferences that Bruce realized that destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. For that matter, the end of the movie has Blake saying he understood Gordon rationalizing why he thought covering up Dent's murders was a good idea at the time, despite his initial condemnation before. And Batman believing he should retire because it lead to attracting the Joker goes against everything about wanting to understand the criminal mind in BB. It goes to show he learned absolutely nothing while he was away for several years.

Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

We must have been watching two completely different films then.

Remember when Batman refused to chop the Joker down at the end of that chase scene, despite the fact that Joker was shooting at cars which possibly killed the drivers occupying them? Not to mention the fact that he murdered people leading up to that street confrontation. And when Gordon apprehended Joker, not Batman, it turned out that was what Joker wanted all along and he murdered more people along the way. Including Rachel Dawes.

The Joker in this movie was way more sinister and deadlier than Ra's, and way more successful in terrorizing the whole of Gotham than Ra's ever hoped to accomplished.

A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

We may not have seen the reaction from the whole public, but exposing the truth did lead to anarchy on the streets in that montage. Did you miss the point when Bane told everybody "You have been supplied with a false idol"? They didn't know Harvey was a broken man. It only goes to show what a brain-dead idea it was for Batman to take the fall.

And you haven't quite articulated why Joker exposing the truth wouldn't work.

B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

How so? If the Joker was really obsessed with Batman, then there's no way he'd allow Batman to go MIA for the next eight years, while Gotham cleans itself up during that time.

As if the Joker really stood for anything.

Then with all due respect, you have completely missed the point about his character and what he was trying to accomplish.

Did you even read the transcript of his quotes that I posted before? Did you miss the part where he tells Batman "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."? It's in the scene if you don't believe me:

The Joker wanted Gotham to descend to anarchy. He wanted to prove to Batman that people will lose hope and embrace insanity if you threaten them and disrupt everything they believe in. When none of the boats blew each other up, Joker had an ace up his sleeve: manipulating Harvey Dent to become a crazed lunatic. He thought that corrupting the so-called "White Knight" of Gotham City would cause people to lose hope in everything they ever believed in. Which is why Batman took the fall to prevent that from happening...and betrays his confidence in people's ability to persevere any crisis like that boast scene.

Do you seriously think the Joker would go through all that trouble, only to happily give up and let the cover-up enable the Dent Act and restore peace in Gotham for eight years, while Batman goes missing through all that time?

I thought Joker wanted anarchy, not order. It's so counterproductive that it's not funny. The Joker may be deranged, but he's not a self-defeating idiot.

And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

I disagree again. Despite what we're constantly told otherwise, these movies show that Batman will resort to lethal force when the circumstances got dire. He justifies killing Ra's to Talia in TDKR because he argued lives were at stake, and does the same thing to her and Two-Face when the stakes were too high...yet he allowed the Joker situation to get things out of hand? It makes no sense. And on top of that, we don't get any inferences that Batman even regretted killing off Ra's, nor do we see in TDK that his death made him change his approach when dealing with the Joker. If anything, Batman justified killing off Ra's as a necessity!

Look, there are two ways to explore Batman's stance on killing:

A) He adopts a strict moral code. No cop-outs or trying to look for loopholes; he argues there's always a non-lethal way to save lives. Like he says to Talia claimed she had no choice but try to kill Joker in Arkham City : "There's always a choice".

B) He kills when the going gets tough to save lives.

It can't be both. The clash of ideas in these movies don't go together at all, and they only make his actions more confusing. Don't introduce a moral code and acknowledge it got broken, but still try to excuse it by arguing Batman gets away with "technicalities" or such nonsense. I have no tolerance for paying lip service to things. If Batman truly sees himself a soldier who is prepared to kill villains to protect the greater good, then he should've killed the Joker too. Otherwise, it makes that whole moral dilemma throughout TDK and the temple scene completely meaningless and only serves to play unnecessarily contrived drama.

And I'll say it for a third time, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book. I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

What? I didn't say that at all. I was talking about how he let Ra's decision to stab the console and stop him from stopping the train. Not that he was going to die regardless. Even if, it would be the same

That's false. An executioner doesn't decide who lives or dies. They're told to murder someone by a system of sorts. Bruce allows Ra's to die. Bruce is better because he doesn't murder them. So, he's not as bad.

No, he isn't. He didn't sabotage the train. He tried to stop it. Ra's stabbed the console to stop him. That's what happens. It's not murder.

That has no connection to what I said. But Gordon needed time to take them out. Hence why he drove ahead.

And I disagree with you.

The entire film was literally about how that was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't go against anything he said in Batman Begins. How is it? I don't know how that proves he learned nothing. But the movie never said he learned anything about being locked in prison for years. I said "partially" it was the reason he destroyed the symbol. I didn't say anything about him retiring. But another reason he did that, besides his guilt, was that he was being hunted by hunted by the police as well. I also didn't say that Bruce realized it. I said that that was the point of TDKR. We're not given the indication that Blake thinks that covering up of Dent crimes was right. He says that Gordon was right about the structures being shackles.

But he didn't kill more people than Ra's. Ra's set off a fear toxin that caused people to tear eachother apart.

That was the criminals and Bane's militia.

I never said that the Joker necessarily didn't tell anybody. But I just don't see why people would believe him.

I never said he allowed. But the Joker was locked up.

I'm sorry, but I think the Joker just spouts a bunch of nonsense to cause chaos. He often lies. But he was locked up.

Again, he didn't try to kill Two-Face. Two-Face just ended up dying as a result of Bruce actions.

I literally said that Bruce saw it that way. So, yes, I did address it. I even said that Bruce did kinda break his rule in that situation.

At no point does he kill when the going gets tough. People have died as a result of his actions, but that's not the same. He didn't try to kill Harvey when he tackled him. Just like how he didn't try to kill the driver of the truck in TDKR. It just happened as a result of the situation.

[The Laughing Fish]

He didn't sabotage the train. He tried to stop it. Ra's stabbed the console to stop him. That's what happens. It's not murder.

Really? Despite the fact that it was Batman's plans to sabotage the rails? Mate, Batman knew at that point once the rails were destroyed that Ra's had no hope of getting out of there alive. And he still condemned him to die. It doesn't matter if Ra's wrecked the controls himself. He wanted to destroy Gotham; it never specified that he wanted to die in it. The message in that movie for 95% of the time tells us killing is wrong. But, as you now even acknowledge, Batman "kinda" killed Ra's anyway. The line was crossed. Full stop. If people do admit he killed, then don't go on say it isn't murder, or try to make an excuse that he had a loophole. The filmmakers and fans need to be consistent: either Batman believes killing is completely wrong, or he doesn't. Period. You can't have it both ways. Trying to justify that he avoided taking responsibility in the heat of the moment is a cop-out.

And what's worse is we don't know anything how Bruce felt about ending Ra's because it's never shown - nor Ra's was never mentioned again until TDKR. He doesn't feel guilty. We can infer and assume his character development all we want, but there's nothing in these films that shows Bruce learning from his mistakes. In contrast, something like the Raimi Spider-Man films had Peter Parker learn from the error of his ways e.g. coming back from retirement, getting rid of his rage from the Symbiote and learn to forgive the Sandman. Those films have a far better grasp on character development.

That's false. An executioner doesn't decide who lives or dies. They're told to murder someone by a system of sorts. Bruce allows Ra's to die. Bruce is better because he doesn't murder them. So, he's not as bad.

Okay then, wrong label - he's a judge AND jury. Who decided to sentenced his mentor to die. And if Ra's did deserve to die without any reservations after the fact, then it makes no logical sense for Batman to resist killing the Joker when he's a deranged madman intent on killing and terrifying as many people possible. To quote this film, Joker's "an unstoppable force of nature". Well in that case, Batman putting an entire city in danger for a meaningless principle that he didn't really believe in is reprehensible and only allows more harm and tragedy.

That has no connection to what I said. But Gordon needed time to take them out. Hence why he drove ahead.

But that's the problem, Batman could've sabotaged the rails himself, and it would've given Ra's a chance to escape in the process. I don't believe he needed Gordon at all. And if Batman thought he had to go on board of the train to ensure Ra's didn't' die, then he shouldn't have changed in his mind in the heat of the moment.

All in all, the so-called "morals" in these movies are shoddy and badly thought out.

The entire film was literally about how that was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't go against anything he said in Batman Begins. How is it? I don't know how that proves he learned nothing. But the movie never said he learned anything about being locked in prison for years. I said "partially" it was the reason he destroyed the symbol. I didn't say anything about him retiring. But another reason he did that, besides his guilt, was that he was being hunted by hunted by the police as well. I also didn't say that Bruce realized it. I said that that was the point of TDKR. We're not given the indication that Blake thinks that covering up of Dent crimes was right. He says that Gordon was right about the structures being shackles.

What about the fact that this arc undermined by Batman constantly changing his intentions to become a symbol all the time? I.E.:

• He says he wants to inspire people and become an incorruptible symbol for people to look up to in BB.
• But in TDK, he tells off the copycats not to interfere, despite the fact they were inspired by him.
• In TDK, he taints his own symbol, misleading everybody into believing he became a cold-blooded murderer. I would've thought that would've been
  just as devastating, if not, more - than telling the truth about Harvey since Batman was recognized as a crime-fighter...but whatever.
• And then he tells Blake that anybody could be Batman."That's the whole point." No it wasn't.

And by the way, if you're talking being hunted by cops by referring the hostage scene, that too was contrived nonsense. He just went in there without trying to get in contact with Gordon or anybody to warn there were hostages, if I recall. Batman stopping the SWAT team from inadvertently would've quickly got the word out from the survivors and some of the SWAT themselves.

And don't you think Blake is empathizing  that Gordon had to cover up for Dent because of the system in the end? This is a bit of contrast from his earlier condemnation.

That was the criminals and Bane's militia.

I find it hard to believe that it was only them. I'm sure some citizens participated, i.e. the wild party where a worried Selina Kyle was attending.

I never said that the Joker necessarily didn't tell anybody. But I just don't see why people would believe him.

And I find that extremely hard to believe. Joker is a mastermind in manipulating people i.e. provoking Gordon's partner and turning Dent evil. He knows how to get into people's heads. He even has henchmen working for him despite the fact that he has them killed. If they could believe Bane so easily and Batman actually responsible for Dent's crimes, then they're inclined to believe in anything.

But he didn't kill more people than Ra's. Ra's set off a fear toxin that caused people to tear eachother apart.

And how many of them actually die? I don't remember it ever being specified.

In contrast the Joker not only killed mobsters, he murdered the Judge, Comissioner Loeb, dozens of cops, and Rachel Dawes (though whether her death was of his own planning, or if it was Maroni's is unclear to me. Either way, he was still culpable for her murder). Joker didn't just lived for "chaos", he wanted to make a statement that the "best" of people - Harvey Dent - could be corrupted and he wanted to destroy the morale in the entire city for it.

I'm sorry, but I think the Joker just spouts a bunch of nonsense to cause chaos. He often lies. But he was locked up.

You must be joking. A guy who goes through that much trouble to tear the city apart just to cause anarchy and devastation DOES NOT suddenly keep quiet and lets the city repair itself thanks to Batman taking the fall.

Otherwise, he goes from saying "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you?" to suddenly thinking "Oh well, nobody knew what Dent did and Batman covered up for him and is now missing. I'll just happily sit here in my jail cell for the rest of my life and bother people about my stupid scar stories". If that's true then what kind of villain is that?! That's nonsense. A guy who gives people that level of grief does not surrender so easily.

Like I said, the Joker may be deranged, but he's not an self-defeating idiot. It's laughably lazy, idiotic writing if that's the message that the filmmakers were trying to convey. It only diminishes him as a character. I don't buy the "chaos" excuse at all.

Again, he didn't try to kill Two-Face. Two-Face just ended up dying as a result of Bruce actions.

And again, why did Batman take such a course of action in the first place? To save Gordon's son. An action that he could've - and should've - have taken to prevent more deaths being caused by the Joker, and stop the threat from worsening. Otherwise, what's the point of fighting crime in the first place? Especially since Batman believes people are inherently good, despite the fact that he betrays his confidence in them by taking the fall for Harvey?

I literally said that Bruce saw it that way. So, yes, I did address it. I even said that Bruce did kinda break his rule in that situation.

Well, it's quite a turnaround compared to when you first claimed he wasn't at all culpable for his death.

At no point does he kill when the going gets tough. People have died as a result of his actions, but that's not the same.

Hold on, didn't you say Batman did "kinda" killed Ra's? Which one is it then? Since we don't see Bruce actually think about his actions, his justifications to Talia is quite hypocritical. It only goes to show that lethal force is unavoidable, and yet, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways by claiming Batman's actions were responsible, not himself personally. That's a complete and utter fallacy.

He didn't try to kill Harvey when he tackled him. Just like how he didn't try to kill the driver of the truck in TDKR. It just happened as a result of the situation.

Are you serious? That's like saying Superman didn't murder Zod, his actions to snap his neck killed him. That's illogical. Superman did it to save the world, but he still killed Zod. Regardless whether he wanted to or not. Same thing with Batman.

What the hell did Batman think was going to happen when you clash onto somebody head on for both occasions. Dent was standing near a ledge for God's sake with a kid, and using bullets to stop a truck was a very lethal thing to do. He's not THAT stupid, he knows the likely consequences of his actions, and he did it to save lives. Which, for the final time, makes the entire Joker dilemma a bloody load of meaningless rubbish.

And the thing that frustrates me is that unlike other superhero movies like Burton's Batman and Avengers, everybody (myself included) knows that the heroes kill. That's not up for debate. But when it comes to Nolan's Batman, I often see so many polarizing opinions. There are several sides of the spectrum I see are:

• People who won't acknowledge at all that Batman kills.
• People who argue that Batman "kinda" killed Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman did kill Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman is loose on his moral code, except for somebody like "Harvey Dent".
• People who argue that Batman kills, but each film should be treated as self-contained, and it's not fair to judge them as a whole(WTF?).
• People who argue that Batman kills after all.

The fact that people are so divided when it comes to this stance really makes one question how could anyone see Nolan's films as quality storytelling.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this. None of us are convincing each other, so we might as well stop right now. We're just going around in circles here.

[Dagenspear]

Really? Despite the fact that it was Batman's plans to sabotage the rails? Mate, Batman knew at that point once the rails were destroyed that Ra's had no hope of getting out of there alive. And he still condemned him to die. It doesn't matter if Ra's wrecked the controls himself. He wanted to destroy Gotham; it never specified that he wanted to die in it. The message in that movie for 95% of the time tells us killing is wrong. But, as you now even acknowledge, Batman "kinda" killed Ra's anyway. The line was crossed. Full stop. If people do admit he killed, then don't go on say it isn't murder, or try to make an excuse that he had a loophole. The filmmakers and fans need to be consistent: either Batman believes killing is completely wrong, or he doesn't. Period. You can't have it both ways. Trying to justify that he avoided taking responsibility in the heat of the moment is a cop-out.

And what's worse is we don't know anything how Bruce felt about ending Ra's because it's never shown - nor Ra's was never mentioned again until TDKR. He doesn't feel guilty. We can infer and assume his character development all we want, but there's nothing in these films that shows Bruce learning from his mistakes. In contrast, something like the Raimi Spider-Man films had Peter Parker learn from the error of his ways e.g. coming back from retirement, getting rid of his rage from the Symbiote and learn to forgive the Sandman. Those films have a far better grasp on character development.

Okay then, wrong label - he's a judge AND jury. Who decided to sentenced his mentor to die. And if Ra's did deserve to die without any reservations after the fact, then it makes no logical sense for Batman to resist killing the Joker when he's a deranged madman intent on killing and terrifying as many people possible. To quote this film, Joker's "an unstoppable force of nature". Well in that case, Batman putting an entire city in danger for a meaningless principle that he didn't really believe in is reprehensible and only allows more harm and tragedy.

But that's the problem, Batman could've sabotaged the rails himself, and it would've given Ra's a chance to escape in the process. I don't believe he needed Gordon at all. And if Batman thought he had to go on board of the train to ensure Ra's didn't' die, then he shouldn't have changed in his mind in the heat of the moment.

All in all, the so-called "morals" in these movies are shoddy and badly thought out.

What about the fact that this arc undermined by Batman constantly changing his intentions to become a symbol all the time? I.E.:

• He says he wants to inspire people and become an incorruptible symbol for people to look up to in BB.
• But in TDK, he tells off the copycats not to interfere, despite the fact they were inspired by him.
• In TDK, he taints his own symbol, misleading everybody into believing he became a cold-blooded murderer. I would've thought that would've been
  just as devastating, if not, more - than telling the truth about Harvey since Batman was recognized as a crime-fighter...but whatever.
• And then he tells Blake that anybody could be Batman."That's the whole point." No it wasn't.

And by the way, if you're talking being hunted by cops by referring the hostage scene, that too was contrived nonsense. He just went in there without trying to get in contact with Gordon or anybody to warn there were hostages, if I recall. Batman stopping the SWAT team from inadvertently would've quickly got the word out from the survivors and some of the SWAT themselves.

And don't you think Blake is empathizing  that Gordon had to cover up for Dent because of the system in the end? This is a bit of contrast from his earlier condemnation.

I find it hard to believe that it was only them. I'm sure some citizens participated, i.e. the wild party where a worried Selina Kyle was attending.

And I find that extremely hard to believe. Joker is a mastermind in manipulating people i.e. provoking Gordon's partner and turning Dent evil. He knows how to get into people's heads. He even has henchmen working for him despite the fact that he has them killed. If they could believe Bane so easily and Batman actually responsible for Dent's crimes, then they're inclined to believe in anything.

And how many of them actually die? I don't remember it ever being specified.

In contrast the Joker not only killed mobsters, he murdered the Judge, Comissioner Loeb, dozens of cops, and Rachel Dawes (though whether her death was of his own planning, or if it was Maroni's is unclear to me. Either way, he was still culpable for her murder). Joker didn't just lived for "chaos", he wanted to make a statement that the "best" of people - Harvey Dent - could be corrupted and he wanted to destroy the morale in the entire city for it.

You must be joking. A guy who goes through that much trouble to tear the city apart just to cause anarchy and devastation DOES NOT suddenly keep quiet and lets the city repair itself thanks to Batman taking the fall.

Otherwise, he goes from saying "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you?" to suddenly thinking "Oh well, nobody knew what Dent did and Batman covered up for him and is now missing. I'll just happily sit here in my jail cell for the rest of my life and bother people about my stupid scar stories". If that's true then what kind of villain is that?! That's nonsense. A guy who gives people that level of grief does not surrender so easily.

Like I said, the Joker may be deranged, but he's not an self-defeating idiot. It's laughably lazy, idiotic writing if that's the message that the filmmakers were trying to convey. It only diminishes him as a character. I don't buy the "chaos" excuse at all.

And again, why did Batman take such a course of action in the first place? To save Gordon's son. An action that he could've - and should've - have taken to prevent more deaths being caused by the Joker, and stop the threat from worsening. Otherwise, what's the point of fighting crime in the first place? Especially since Batman believes people are inherently good, despite the fact that he betrays his confidence in them by taking the fall for Harvey?

Well, it's quite a turnaround compared to when you first claimed he wasn't at all culpable for his death.

Hold on, didn't you say Batman did "kinda" killed Ra's? Which one is it then? Since we don't see Bruce actually think about his actions, his justifications to Talia is quite hypocritical. It only goes to show that lethal force is unavoidable, and yet, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways by claiming Batman's actions were responsible, not himself personally. That's a complete and utter fallacy.

Are you serious? That's like saying Superman didn't murder Zod, his actions to snap his neck killed him. That's illogical. Superman did it to save the world, but he still killed Zod. Regardless whether he wanted to or not. Same thing with Batman.

What the hell did Batman think was going to happen when you clash onto somebody head on for both occasions. Dent was standing near a ledge for God's sake with a kid, and using bullets to stop a truck was a very lethal thing to do. He's not THAT stupid, he knows the likely consequences of his actions, and he did it to save lives. Which, for the final time, makes the entire Joker dilemma a bloody load of meaningless rubbish.

And the thing that frustrates me is that unlike other superhero movies like Burton's Batman and Avengers, everybody (myself included) knows that the heroes kill. That's not up for debate. But when it comes to Nolan's Batman, I often see so many polarizing opinions. There are several sides of the spectrum I see are:

• People who won't acknowledge at all that Batman kills.
• People who argue that Batman "kinda" killed Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman did kill Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman is loose on his moral code, except for somebody like "Harvey Dent".
• People who argue that Batman kills, but each film should be treated as self-contained, and it's not fair to judge them as a whole(WTF?).
• People who argue that Batman kills after all.

The fact that people are so divided when it comes to this stance really makes one question how could anyone see Nolan's films as quality storytelling.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this. None of us are convincing each other, so we might as well stop right now. We're just going around in circles here.

I never said Batman kinda killed Ra's. I said he kinda broke his rule. There's a difference. He didn't cross the line full stop. It was half stop. Bruce does believe that killing his wrong. The fact that people have died because of his decisions doesn't change that. Again, I stated that if Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's.

Probably because he isn't concerned with it because he didn't actually kill Ra's. I'm not gonna say that the end of Batman Begins was handled very well, Goyer wrote too much of the script for that, but it wasn't a huge issue. Bruce does quote Ra's though.

Deciding that someone doesn't deserve to live isn't the same as killing someone. Bruce does believe that killing is wrong and he holds true to that in this case.

As I said above: "if Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's."

I don't see how.

Yeah. That's what he says.
They were also running around with guns shooting at people without any protective equipment. He tells the guy that. But it obviously wasn't his intention from the beginning that a bunch of people put on copycat Batman costumes and fight crime at the time. He says something to that effect to Alfred. I think it's standard Batman attitude. He's always had concerns about people running out as vigilantes, especially if they're reckless.
Bruce believed Batman had done more harm than good at that time. He consistently praises Harvey Dent for the fact he's a hero who doesn't wear a mask and still managed to accomplish what he accomplished. Some people had even turned against him.
I think you misinterpret the meaning of that line. He's saying anybody could be a hero like Batman, though not exactly like him. It goes back to him being an inspiration. The idea of a mask makes it so you can implant the idea that anybody could be as heroic as Batman. It could be anybody who was doing that.

I was talking about him being hunted by the cops after he took the fall for Dent's murder. I meant, and I apologize if it came off different than that way, that Bruce's guilt over the situation and being hunted by the cops is what caused him to retire. But I do think that was an unnecessary scene.

I don't believe so.

What makes you think that that was regular citizens? Selina, who was actually broken out of Blackgate as well, is dressed normally. It only stands to reason that the other criminals would be too. But that doesn't mean that regular people weren't there, you're right. But they probably had few qualms before that with this kind of behavior.

He is not. He manipulated an angry man into trying to beat him up and an already psychologically unsound man into becoming even more psychologically unsound. There's nothing masterful about it. They pretty much say or show that the Joker's goons are afraid of him or crazy.

We actually don't get an idea about what the general people in Gotham believe regarding Batman. It seems there are some people that don't believe he did it. With Bane, we also don't get an idea about what the regular people believe. We just see the prisoners and his men going along with it.

I don't see how the fear toxin didn't cause more deaths than the Joker.

I said that he may have told people. But I don't see why anybody would believe him. But regardless I don't think he has any real beliefs.

Intentions do matter in actions. He didn't tackle Harvey with the intention of killing him. He tackled a guy who was going to shoot a child. To stop him from shooting a child. It wasn't like he was trying to kill him. He was just trying to stop him. But that ended up killing him. Yes, I do think Bruce broke his rule here. But he didn't do it intentionally and it doesn't contradict his beliefs. Because he had no intention of killing Harvey when he tackled him.

I didn't mean he wasn't at all culpable when I said that, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. He had a hand in Ra's death. There's no denying that. And I believe Bruce believes that he did as well.

I didn't say that. I said he kinda broke his rule. Which isn't the same as killing when the going gets tough. Lethal force isn't and never will be unavoidable. But it can be a thing that happens. That doesn't mean you can't avoid it most of the time. But avoidable all the time? I highly doubt it. But Bruce does pretty well in his intentions. Which is the point. It happening accidentally doesn't negate the fact that he has a rule about it. The fact is someone getting killed because of actions is different than killing. If they're accidental. Bruce has never used lethal force with the intention of it being lethal to someone. And intentions do matter with actions.

Clark didn't murder Zod. He killed him to save a family.

No, it doesn't. He wasn't thinking about what would happen other stopping him.

Spider-Man doesn't kill in the Raimi trilogy. But Webb Spider-Man does, with no qualms. Another reason I dislike it. If the hero is a sociopath how am I supposed to like him/her? I like to pretend Burton's Batman doesn't kill. It's really the only way I can not want him locked in a mental ward. And I like those films.

That's not how that works.