The Dark Knight SPOILERS MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOWING--Did Batman break his one rule?

[DACrowe]

Assuming the fall killed Harvey Dent...

Did Batman kill Two-Face? Well did he? He did hit Dent and they both fell off and Dent (presumably) died. And if so was it intentional? Did he intend to kill the man and knock him off the ledge when he jumped him or was it a rushed lunge to save Gordon's kid? What do you think? And if he did break his rule did Joker completely win in this movie?

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

Assuming the fall killed Harvey Dent...

Did Batman kill Two-Face? Well did he? He did hit Dent and they both fell off and Dent (presumably) died. And if so was it intentional? Did he intend to kill the man and knock him off the ledge when he jumped him or was it a rushed lunge to save Gordon's kid? What do you think? And if he did break his rule did Joker completely win in this movie?

This is actually a really effing great question.
I'm surprised this hasn't been asked earlier.

 

[nickyg641]

Oh my God. That hadn't occured to me. He might have. Unless it was Harvey who backed up to fall off the edge, after Batman jumped on him.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

BUT- in all honesty, Batman DID jump at Harvey only because Harvey was endangering Gordon's son.. so it's not like Batman INTENDED for Harvey to be "killed".. I guess it's all subjective.
I think what the Joker meant by Batman breaking his "one rule" was for Batman to kill someone intentionally, with actual murderous thought put into it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Raptor2k]

Is this really that confusing?

Batman was trying to save Gordon's son, knocked off Harvey in order to do so, without the intention of killing.

Or should he have not done anything and allowed Two-Face to have a 50% chance of shooting?

 

[Agentdemon]

Was he the cause of Two-Face's fall? Yes. Did he murder Dent? No. He was saving the boy's life which unfortunately killed Two-Face as well but there wasn't pre-meditation or malice aforethought.

 

[Leenie]

I was discussing this with one of my friends last night.

My friend and I both agree that Two Face isn't dead. I think that if Batman had actually broken his one rule, then the movie would have made a MUCH bigger deal about it. I mean, this is Nolan we're talking about. You think he would stick with a particular subject only to go back on it at the end like it was nothing?

 

[Raptor2k]

He is dead, so...

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

If Two Face is dead(which he prolly is) then he kinda did....This is a great question though...

 

[DACrowe]

You see this is a question I'm not sure about. Sure I rationalized he did not intend to kill Harvey and was trying to save the boy and wasn't thinking when he took all three of them over the edge. But he still did so and Harvey Dent died because of it (or Two-Face if you think Harvey was already gone).

Even moreso, he had a choice to grab either one over the edge and he chose to grab the boy over Harvey. I think he made the right decision in both ways (saving the boy at any cost in those two split second decisions he made), but if it was intentional he broke his rule. If it wasn't, he still committed man slaughter to save another life.

Is this going into the moral ambiguity further than the comics even? All the characters sacrifice their principles "just a little" or "just this once" in the movie. Jim Gordon pretends he is dead, Lucius Fox uses that sonar radar even though he says he hates it to spy on people and Harvey...well we know what Dent does.

But what about Batman? The Joker calls him incorruptable, but at the end he either intentionally or accidentally killed Dent (as I'm going on the assumption he is dead). In either case, does that qualify for breaking his rule if he didn't actually mean to and he did it as a split second attempt to save a child's life?

There is no clear answer I have seen, yet.

 

[Godman]

BUT- in all honesty, Batman DID jump at Harvey only because Harvey was endangering Gordon's son.. so it's not like Batman INTENDED for Harvey to be "killed".. I guess it's all subjective.
I think what the Joker meant by Batman breaking his "one rule" was for Batman to kill someone intentionally, with actual murderous thought put into it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Your right

 

[Agentdemon]

You see this is a question I'm not sure about. Sure I rationalized he did not intend to kill Harvey and was trying to save the boy and wasn't thinking when he took all three of them over the edge. But he still did so and Harvey Dent died because of it (or Two-Face if you think Harvey was already gone).

Even moreso, he had a choice to grab either one over the edge and he chose to grab the boy over Harvey. I think he made the right decision in both ways (saving the boy at any cost in those two split second decisions he made), but if it was intentional he broke his rule. If it wasn't, he still committed man slaughter to save another life.

Is this going into the moral ambiguity further than the comics even? All the characters sacrifice their principles "just a little" or "just this once" in the movie. Jim Gordon pretends he is dead, Lucius Fox uses that sonar radar even though he says he hates it to spy on people and Harvey...well we know what Dent does.

But what about Batman? The Joker calls him incorruptable, but at the end he either intentionally or accidentally killed Dent (as I'm going on the assumption he is dead). In either case, does that qualify for breaking his rule if he didn't actually mean to and he did it as a split second attempt to save a child's life?

There is no clear answer I have seen, yet.

He didn't break his rule.

 

[CrypticOne]

Assuming the fall killed Harvey Dent...

Did Batman kill Two-Face? Well did he? He did hit Dent and they both fell off and Dent (presumably) died. And if so was it intentional? Did he intend to kill the man and knock him off the ledge when he jumped him or was it a rushed lunge to save Gordon's kid? What do you think? And if he did break his rule did Joker completely win in this movie?

I say yes, if Harvey is dead, Batman broke his rule. Batman had to know what he was doing, but he made up for it by saving Gordon's son.

 

[Godman]

You see this is a question I'm not sure about. Sure I rationalized he did not intend to kill Harvey and was trying to save the boy and wasn't thinking when he took all three of them over the edge. But he still did so and Harvey Dent died because of it (or Two-Face if you think Harvey was already gone).

Even moreso, he had a choice to grab either one over the edge and he chose to grab the boy over Harvey. I think he made the right decision in both ways (saving the boy at any cost in those two split second decisions he made), but if it was intentional he broke his rule. If it wasn't, he still committed man slaughter to save another life.

Is this going into the moral ambiguity further than the comics even? All the characters sacrifice their principles "just a little" or "just this once" in the movie. Jim Gordon pretends he is dead, Lucius Fox uses that sonar radar even though he says he hates it to spy on people and Harvey...well we know what Dent does.

But what about Batman? The Joker calls him incorruptable, but at the end he either intentionally or accidentally killed Dent (as I'm going on the assumption he is dead). In either case, does that qualify for breaking his rule if he didn't actually mean to and he did it as a split second attempt to save a child's life?

There is no clear answer I have seen, yet.

He chose the lesser evil

 

[kevin2323]

no because two-face is not dead .


IMO

 

[gooner_88]

Is this really that confusing?

Batman was trying to save Gordon's son, knocked off Harvey in order to do so, without the intention of killing.

Or should he have not done anything and allowed Two-Face to have a 50% chance of shooting?

If he had done nothing, the chances of someone dying were 50%. Obviously the chances of him falling to his doom were less than that, justifying Batman's actions as in the end he lowered the probability of someone dying.



I really don't think Two-Face is dead though, the eulogy at the end doesn't necessarily imply that he's dead? What if they were celebrating the life he had before he was driven mad by his injuries and sent to Arkham?

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah aned then Batman just took the fall for ****s and giggles.

 

[DorkyFresh]

the way i see it...he 'killed' Two Face in the same vain that he 'killed' Ra's. he took actions to ensure that neither of them hurt anyone anymore and those actions got them killed, but he didn't murder them.

 

[gooner_88]

They were trying to cover up the killings? Harvey doesn't have to be dead for Batman to take the blame for what he did.

 

[DACrowe]

I just think the tone of the end of the movie dictated that Harvey was dead.

Anyway, if he is for discussion's sake, did Batman break his rule, then?

 

[paec_djinn]

Batman broke his rule a long time ago when he killed those League of Shadows ninja's when he blew up their base.

But I guess there's case of desperation. He doesn't intend to kill them, but he had to do whatever was necessary to get out of the situation.

 

[Raptor2k]

For those saying that Two-Face is alive...how? Gordon was there, cops were there to spectate . There's no way he just gets up and leaves. Nor is he jailed and implied dead, word would get out to the public too easily.

 

[Raptor2k]

If he had done nothing, the chances of someone dying were 50%. Obviously the chances of him falling to his doom were less than that, justifying Batman's actions as in the end he lowered the probability of someone dying.



I really don't think Two-Face is dead though, the eulogy at the end doesn't necessarily imply that he's dead? What if they were celebrating the life he had before he was driven mad by his injuries and sent to Arkham?

True, but saving the innocent child over over the soon-to-be murderer came into play as well.

 

[Conebone69]

the way i see it...he 'killed' Two Face in the same vain that he 'killed' Ra's. he took actions to ensure that neither of them hurt anyone anymore and those actions got them killed, but he didn't murder them.

Totally agree

 

[the_scream]

I don't know, this is kinda like saying did Batman break his one rule for choosing Rachel at the expense of rescuing Dent. In that case, he was willing to put Dent in harms way to save Rachel. Later, he had a choice to save either Gordon's son or Dent.

Did he break his one rule by not coming forward to reveal his identity because indirectly his choice led to people's deaths?

In no situation did he intentionally try to kill but was indirectly link to another's death. This was obviously a continuous issue in this film where Batman was given a choice to decide who would live and die.

I don't think he broke his one rule because I think he didn't want anyone to die. But it does raise some really interesting ideas...