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

[KneelBeforeZod]

Intent is not a requirement in killing a person.

Intent is a requirement for murder.

KBZ

 

[Temple Fugate]

Intent is a requirement for murder.

KBZ

thus rule is not broken. /thread

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Intent is a requirement for murder.

KBZ

Not for every degree of murder.

In most states only murder 1 requires an intent to kill.

Murder 2 only requires that the killing be the result of the intent to do serious bodily injury.

Murder 3 only requires that the killing be the result of depraved indifference or extreme recklessness

Murder 4 only requires that the killing is committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

And besides "Murder" was never the question on this thread.

thus rule is not broken. /thread

As stated "murder" was not the original question of the original poster.

Here's the original post again.....

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 question was did Batman kill, and if so did he break his one rule????

Batman most definitely killed.

 

[Temple Fugate]

then you might as well argue "what is batman's one rule". he never explicitly says what the rule is. It could he can only eat kosher foods.

 

[bane]

Batman did kill Dent, he also killed the guy driving the garbage truck.

 

[Godman]

then you might as well argue "what is batman's one rule". he never explicitly says what the rule is. It could he can only eat kosher foods.

His one rule is he is not an executioner... Dent died while Batman acted very quickly to save Gordan's son. The truck driver may or may not have died, but if so it was with the intent to stop the truck from commencing further and not with intent to EXECUTE him out of personal gratification.

Batman is at WAR and there will be casualties, but he does not execute anyone and did not in the entire two movies.

Hitting Joker head on when he could have prevented it or gone around the fact would have been vengeful and out of no reason to just hit him did on. The truck flip could have Broke Joker's neck, but the intent was to stop the truck.

If you come home, run upstairs, and someone is about to club ur mom in the head and u dive at him, hurling him off the balcony u put in motion the actions that caused his plummet but u did not execute him out of cold blood and dove to save ur moms skull.


The ONE rule he mentioned in batman begins is that he is Not an Executioner. Hell punching someone in the head could kill them, but he does not intend for death to be the case.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well yea, if you wanna get technical I don't think he broke his one rule.

His one rule is basically there so he doesn't become like the guys he is fighting against. That is why he implements it, that is the whole motive for having that "one rule". By saving the child but accidentally killing Dent I don't think that constitutes him becoming what he is fighting against.

He had to make a choice. Let Dent flip the coin, risking a child getting his head blown off. Or trying to do something about it.

So as I said, technically, he hasn't become what he is fighting against. He hasn't set out to kill some one. That is his one rule IMO.

 

[Sonic1002]

Batman did kill Dent, he also killed the guy driving the garbage truck.

I'm also sure he either killed or horribly maimed anyone he backhanded with his 2 rows of gauntlet spikes, which you can see are out.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

His one rule is he is not an executioner... Dent died while Batman acted very quickly to save Gordan's son. The truck driver may or may not have died, but if so it was with the intent to stop the truck from commencing further and not with intent to EXECUTE him out of personal gratification.

Batman is at WAR and there will be casualties, but he does not execute anyone and did not in the entire two movies.

Hitting Joker head on when he could have prevented it or gone around the fact would have been vengeful and out of no reason to just hit him did on. The truck flip could have Broke Joker's neck, but the intent was to stop the truck.

If you come home, run upstairs, and someone is about to club ur mom in the head and u dive at him, hurling him off the balcony u put in motion the actions that caused his plummet but u did not execute him out of cold blood and dove to save ur moms skull.


The ONE rule he mentioned in batman begins is that he is Not an Executioner. Hell punching someone in the head could kill them, but he does not intend for death to be the case.

So now your argument breaks down to saying that Batman did not execute them because he did not get any personal gratification out of the killings.

Boy your all over the place with your logic.

Ok fine I can see the point that Batman is in a war and that in war there are casualties, or as others call it "Collateral Damage" or deaths.

But for me Collateral damage/deaths is only a viable excuse for Batman when the death was not foreseeable.Lets say he's trying to stop a murder and he knocks out the perp and the perp falls into someone else causeing that person to fall to their death.

That is an example of a unforeseeable death.On the other hand Bruce [in Begins] makes a point to state he wont execute the prisoner the Ninjas have in custody, but he then proceeds to start a fire in a house full of explosives, knowing full well that the explosives were there and the most likely outcome of his actions were the deaths of many.

He may nit have felt any personal gratification from those deaths but he still caused the deaths of those that died.

 

[Godman]

So now your argument breaks down to saying that Batman did not execute them because he did not get any personal gratification out of the killings.

Boy your all over the place with your logic.

Ok fine I can see the point that Batman is in a war and that in war there are casualties, or as others call it "Collateral Damage" or deaths.

But for me Collateral damage/deaths is only a viable excuse for Batman when the death was not foreseeable.Lets say he's trying to stop a murder and he knocks out the perp and the perp falls into someone else causeing that person to fall to their death.

That is an example of a unforeseeable death.On the other hand Bruce [in Begins] makes a point to state he wont execute the prisoner the Ninjas have in custody, but he then proceeds to start a fire in a house full of explosives, knowing full well that the explosives were there and the most likely outcome of his actions were the deaths of many.

He may nit have felt any personal gratification from those deaths but he still caused the deaths of those that died.

He actually did that to stop the explosives which he thought were to be used against Gotham. That was his priority.

Look he didn't break his rule...done deal. If he has the upper hand on a situation he does not kill. Execution is when u have the upper hand and still chose DEATH for an enemy or a "criminal" as u see fit.

Tell me once when he had the upper hand and comensed with murder or execution. All those mentioned situations he did what he HAD to do, not what he felt he had an option to do. He had an option to run joker over but chose otherwise. Dent was a forced situation, as was the ninjas since he knew he had NO escape and he had felt he was going to stop this regime some how and the only possible way he felt was using the explosives against them. The truck had to be stopped and was. Too bad for the driver for not stopping or slowing down when he saw Batman coming head on. The truck was endangering too many lives and and Dent's significance to Gotham was a steak. Batman did what he had to.

Never did he just execute. He never killed out of self gratification, but rather deaths happened unfortunately during a NEED to act.

 

[Bathead]

And I still maintain that the only one who died in the monastery was Fake Ra's. Nolan made a point of showing the ninjas still alive in the Wayne Manor party scene.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

He actually did that to stop the explosives which he thought were to be used against Gotham. That was his priority.

None of which alters the fact that the actions Bruce took, actions that he knew full well could and would lead to the deaths of a few, did in fact lead the death..

Look he didn't break his rule...done deal. If he has the upper hand on a situation he does not kill. Execution is when u have the upper hand and still chose DEATH for an enemy or a "criminal" as u see fit.

Again your trying to alter the definition of the word "Execution" to fit you argument.

Execution or Killing has nothing to do with having the upper hand, it has to do with making a choice to kill or in the choosing of undertaking a course of action that has a foreseeable outcome or causing the deaths of others.

Bruce did that in "Begins".

Tell me once when he had the upper hand and comensed with murder or execution.

I dont have to because its irrelevant.

And I still maintain that the only one who died in the monastery was Fake Ra's. Nolan made a point of showing the ninjas still alive in the Wayne Manor party scene.

And I maintain that is a fantasy.Nolan showed Ninjas at the party but there's no way of telling if any of them were at the fire.

If he had shown so fire burn scars on some of them I might be inclined to agree with you but showing the Ninjas at the party did not seem to have any more significance other then to show that Bruce was out numbered.

And I have watched the fire scene over and over again.Some of those guys fell close to 3 stories into walls of flame and fire and in to exploding rooms.So even if some of the ninjas at wayns party were survivors its highly unlikely that all of the guys at the fire survived.