The Dark Knight The “Dark Knight” Debate – Did Batman Need To Fall?

[wootbaby]

This is not really off here but I need to know what you guys think. In first movie, did Batman really kill Ra's in Begins? In technicality if you look at it, Batman destroyed the controls of the train and it wasn't able to stop. Now he asked Gordon to take down the tracks, thus he set it all up to bring the train down. Afterward he decided to leave Ra's on the moving train that would soon derail, which eventually caused his death. Not saving him when he had the capacity to save him is same as being a murderer or at least aiding in murder. Now isn't Batman guilty here of breaking his own rule? You can't really say he was just defending himself, he could have easily taken advantage of the situation and knocked Ra's out and glided out with him. He spared Joker but didn't spare Ra's, what's wrong here? Joker was the most cruel of them all. I would like to know how others see it.

This is easily answered simply by reading The Dark Knight Returns. A running thread in that graphic novel is the psychiatrist from Arkham who keeps blaming Batman for Joker's murders. If Batman doesn't exist, he argues, Joker would not exist. If Joker didn't exist he couldn't kill. Therefore BATMAN as good as killed those people because if he didn't exist, those people wouldn't have died. In fact, Batman is MORE responsible for those murders than the Joker. The Joker merely being the instrument and Batman being the root of it all.

Which obviously is a bunch of semantic ********. And Frank Miller makes you know in the book what he thinks of *****es like that who try to use twisted half-assed logic like that.

The point is you can always play with semantics and say A led to B led to C led to death so Batman by action or inaction is responsible. But Batman isn't Superman. He cant save everyone and do everything, and that's why writers have distilled Batman's "essence" to one rule and it's "not to kill." It's not "fail to save someone" or "create a series of actions which will ultimately lead to someone's death" The rule literally cannot get any more simple... will... not... kill.

Joker in TDK is different from Ra's in BB because he pushes Joker off the building, if Joker died, Batman would have unequivocably killed him. Batman did not force Ra's on the train, nor did he force him to fight, nor did he do any dozens of things Ra's could have CHOSEN at any point to save himself.

Intent is important. That's why we dont call bomber pilots terrorists and police who arrest someone are not kidnappers.

Batman wrecked the monorail not to kill Ra's but to stop it from reaching Wayne Towers and killing the city. He smashes the controls not to kill Ra's but to prevent Ra's from stopping the train. He leaves Ra's on the train not to kill him but because he is under no obligation to save him.

Even in your own post when you're trying to set Batman up as a murderer your own subconscious logic seeps in and you type "Batman... set it all up to bring the train down." That is exactly correct. Batman set it all up to bring the train down, NOT to kill Ra's. Whatever action Ra's undertook was his own choice.

Not only does Batman not "kill" Ra's in BB. We see in TDK how important a cinematic moment that scene is for the rest of the movies. It sets up firm limits on Batman's actions and without that exact scene going down exactly as it did, Batman's actions/reluctance to kill Joker AND his violence seem arbitrary instead of grounded in principle and consistent.

EVERY important scene and good that you brought it up

 

[wootbaby]

Forget about wether he may or may not be responsible for Ras death....what about all the other members of the League of Shadows that died in that fire Bruce started in "BEGINS".

I remember a few guys lying on the ground when Bruce made his excape so even if they werent already dead from the fight they would have died from ether the smoke or the flames from a fire that Bruce started.

Not to mention any other possible prisoners they may have had in there.

what about the starving kids in Africa Wayne Corp could feed or the old Palestinian ladies without their medicine behind the walls in West Bank who die because their medicine is embargoed? Couldn't billionaire Bruce Wayne have helped them? Why is he just letting them die murderer.

Did Bruce SET the complex on fire in order to kill unconscious ninjas? Or did the fire start as a byproduct of an epic battle that numerous combatants took part in?

If Bruce placed those men there and set it specifically ablaze with the intent of murder then OMG HE BROKE THE RULE. every other situation is called collateral damage in war. and has zip to do with his rule

it's exactly the same scenario as happened in the movie.. he saved Harvey so he let Rachel die. did he KILL Rachel??? in letting Joker live is he KILLING every future victim?

yeah if you want to argue Batman's moral responsibility... go at it have fun. Dent even says in his press conference that Batman will eventually have to answer for his crimes (meaning all his crimes including breaking and entering and **** like that). so Batman obviously has some sins to answer for... including just plain beating the **** out of people.

But if you're talking his rule against killing, it's specific and obvious. he is not judge jury and executioner so he doesn't kill his adversaries-- that is not hard to understand that there's nothing there about preventing death or no collateral damage. and honestly that's not something Batman could actually guarantee. there will be casualties because he's not superman.

 

[Darkfly]

I think it was fitting but it wasn't necessary I don't think, just means he has to win back Gotham's trust in the next film...again, plot point device ftw

 

[Viper81]

Not only does Batman not "kill" Ra's in BB. We see in TDK how important a cinematic moment that scene is for the rest of the movies. It sets up firm limits on Batman's actions and without that exact scene going down exactly as it did, Batman's actions/reluctance to kill Joker AND his violence seem arbitrary instead of grounded in principle and consistent.

No, the scene that set this up is the scene where Bruce won't behead that farmer who stole or whatever it was he did. The one right before he torched Ra's house and left him for dead.

 

[AIRWOLF]

This is easily answered simply by reading The Dark Knight Returns. A running thread in that graphic novel is the psychiatrist from Arkham who keeps blaming Batman for Joker's murders. If Batman doesn't exist, he argues, Joker would not exist. If Joker didn't exist he couldn't kill. Therefore BATMAN as good as killed those people because if he didn't exist, those people wouldn't have died. In fact, Batman is MORE responsible for those murders than the Joker. The Joker merely being the instrument and Batman being the root of it all.

Which obviously is a bunch of semantic ********. And Frank Miller makes you know in the book what he thinks of *****es like that who try to use twisted half-assed logic like that.

The point is you can always play with semantics and say A led to B led to C led to death so Batman by action or inaction is responsible. But Batman isn't Superman. He cant save everyone and do everything, and that's why writers have distilled Batman's "essence" to one rule and it's "not to kill." It's not "fail to save someone" or "create a series of actions which will ultimately lead to someone's death" The rule literally cannot get any more simple... will... not... kill.

Joker in TDK is different from Ra's in BB because he pushes Joker off the building, if Joker died, Batman would have unequivocably killed him. Batman did not force Ra's on the train, nor did he force him to fight, nor did he do any dozens of things Ra's could have CHOSEN at any point to save himself.

Intent is important. That's why we dont call bomber pilots terrorists and police who arrest someone are not kidnappers.

Batman wrecked the monorail not to kill Ra's but to stop it from reaching Wayne Towers and killing the city. He smashes the controls not to kill Ra's but to prevent Ra's from stopping the train. He leaves Ra's on the train not to kill him but because he is under no obligation to save him.

Even in your own post when you're trying to set Batman up as a murderer your own subconscious logic seeps in and you type "Batman... set it all up to bring the train down." That is exactly correct. Batman set it all up to bring the train down, NOT to kill Ra's. Whatever action Ra's undertook was his own choice.

Not only does Batman not "kill" Ra's in BB. We see in TDK how important a cinematic moment that scene is for the rest of the movies. It sets up firm limits on Batman's actions and without that exact scene going down exactly as it did, Batman's actions/reluctance to kill Joker AND his violence seem arbitrary instead of grounded in principle and consistent.

EVERY important scene and good that you brought it up

You know I see your point but its hard to grasp it. I know Bats isn't Supes so I'm not talking about saving everyone here, just that last part.

Ok, as you point out, Batman sets-up the monorail to go down to stop it from reaching the central hub, right. Now, he also decides not to save Ra's, thus leaving him on a train that "he" planned to take out. How is that not being responsible for Ra's death? Batman caused the train to derail, thus he was directly involved, regardless of Ra's choice. Batman said its not up to him to decide who lives or dies, and it was during the end that he exercised his option to not save him, thus going back on his own words. He made a decision not to save a life when he could have. The situation that got Ra's killed in first place was Batman's doing as well. If it wasn't, if the train had gone down with Ra's own doing, then I would understand Batman leaving him. But at the present I question Batman's actions.

 

[BlueLightning]

I´ll just put it simple. Batman did not need to take the fall for Dent. He chosed to. That´s what makes the ending so great.

 

[Gamingboy]

Why do we fall?
So we can get back up again.

 

[SheldonLevene]

So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Oh and it ended the way it did just to give Gary Oldmans brilliant ass something to say.

 

[Gamingboy]

So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.

That's the more exact line, right.

 

[Viper81]

Why do we fall?
So we can get back up again.

So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.

You guys realize this is like an 8 page thread, right?

did you really think you were the first to come up with that joke?

 

[Canis Sapiens]

Forget about wether he may or may not be responsible for Ras death....what about all the other members of the League of Shadows that died in that fire Bruce started in "BEGINS".

I remember a few guys lying on the ground when Bruce made his excape so even if they werent already dead from the fight they would have died from ether the smoke or the flames from a fire that Bruce started.

Not to mention any other possible prisoners they may have had in there.

Not to mention that, in that temple scene, Bruce must have killed even the farmer he had just refused to execute!!!t:

 

[chintai80]

Batman wrecked the monorail not to kill Ra's but to stop it from reaching Wayne Towers and killing the city. He smashes the controls not to kill Ra's but to prevent Ra's from stopping the train. He leaves Ra's on the train not to kill him but because he is under no obligation to save him.

Even in your own post when you're trying to set Batman up as a murderer your own subconscious logic seeps in and you type "Batman... set it all up to bring the train down." That is exactly correct. Batman set it all up to bring the train down, NOT to kill Ra's. Whatever action Ra's undertook was his own choice.

Correction to your post: Actually it's Ra's who smashed the controls himself. If you watch Begins again, you see Batman kick Ra's and goes to the control room to try to stop the train. But Ra's gets up, hits Batman out of the way, and stabs his sword into the controls. This just goes to show that Batman does all he can WITHOUT taking a life. It is as you said - Ra's own actions is what did him in.

TDK also shows this - Batman trying to fight crime without resorting to becoming an executioner - a cold-blooded murderer.
But nothing is ever that clean or clear-cut - such as when Batman's actions to save Gordon's son, which resulted in Harvey's death. But it was Harvey's own actions which proved his own undoing, not Batman's. Batman had to save an innocent life and there was no time left but to act.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

what about the starving kids in Africa Wayne Corp could feed or the old Palestinian ladies without their medicine behind the walls in West Bank who die because their medicine is embargoed? Couldn't billionaire Bruce Wayne have helped them? Why is he just letting them die murderer.

You know I found your first reply about Ras's death and Bruce's involvment to be in lighting and very well thought out.I felt that you had really reserached the movie and had gone threw some the issues in you mind quite a few times......

But now I'm not so sure.

Did Bruce SET the complex on fire in order to kill unconscious ninjas? Or did the fire start as a byproduct of an epic battle that numerous combatants took part in?

Nether.

Bruce started the fire as a diversionary tactic.He started the fire to save the life of the guy he was ordered to kill.

He used his sword to dilibratly take a peace of hot cole and throw it into a different area to start the fire.

Bruce started that fire on purpose.....what he intended is irrelevant.Anybody that died in that fire died because Bruce started it.

The fire was not a "byproduct" of an epic battle......it was the opening shot of that battle.In a sence it was the first bullet fired and it was fired by Bruce.

And in the letter of the Law indent follows the Bullet.

If Bruce placed those men there and set it specifically ablaze with the intent of murder then OMG HE BROKE THE RULE. every other situation is called collateral damage in war. and has zip to do with his rule

Bruce didnt place those men there but he did "specifically set it ablaze".

But if you're talking his rule against killing, it's specific and obvious. he is not judge jury and executioner so he doesn't kill his adversaries-- that is not hard to understand that there's nothing there about preventing death or no collateral damage. and honestly that's not something Batman could actually guarantee. there will be casualties because he's not superman.

In starting the fire himself on purpose he insured that there would be "collateral damage".

He used the fire to distract his adversaries at the very least and since he started the fire those deaths are on his head.

If it was someone else who started the fire then you would have a point......even if he had knocked it over by mistake then it could be viewed as a mistake or a byproduct of the fight.

But Bruce fliped that hot peace of cole on purpose and he's smart enough to know that is you throw around a hot peace of cole in a house that something's going to catch fire.

 

[magus]

This is easily answered simply by reading The Dark Knight Returns. A running thread in that graphic novel is the psychiatrist from Arkham who keeps blaming Batman for Joker's murders. If Batman doesn't exist, he argues, Joker would not exist. If Joker didn't exist he couldn't kill. Therefore BATMAN as good as killed those people because if he didn't exist, those people wouldn't have died. In fact, Batman is MORE responsible for those murders than the Joker. The Joker merely being the instrument and Batman being the root of it all.

Which obviously is a bunch of semantic ********. And Frank Miller makes you know in the book what he thinks of *****es like that who try to use twisted half-assed logic like that.

The point is you can always play with semantics and say A led to B led to C led to death so Batman by action or inaction is responsible. But Batman isn't Superman. He cant save everyone and do everything, and that's why writers have distilled Batman's "essence" to one rule and it's "not to kill." It's not "fail to save someone" or "create a series of actions which will ultimately lead to someone's death" The rule literally cannot get any more simple... will... not... kill.

Joker in TDK is different from Ra's in BB because he pushes Joker off the building, if Joker died, Batman would have unequivocably killed him. Batman did not force Ra's on the train, nor did he force him to fight, nor did he do any dozens of things Ra's could have CHOSEN at any point to save himself.

Intent is important. That's why we dont call bomber pilots terrorists and police who arrest someone are not kidnappers.

Batman wrecked the monorail not to kill Ra's but to stop it from reaching Wayne Towers and killing the city. He smashes the controls not to kill Ra's but to prevent Ra's from stopping the train. He leaves Ra's on the train not to kill him but because he is under no obligation to save him.

Even in your own post when you're trying to set Batman up as a murderer your own subconscious logic seeps in and you type "Batman... set it all up to bring the train down." That is exactly correct. Batman set it all up to bring the train down, NOT to kill Ra's. Whatever action Ra's undertook was his own choice.

Not only does Batman not "kill" Ra's in BB. We see in TDK how important a cinematic moment that scene is for the rest of the movies. It sets up firm limits on Batman's actions and without that exact scene going down exactly as it did, Batman's actions/reluctance to kill Joker AND his violence seem arbitrary instead of grounded in principle and consistent.

EVERY important scene and good that you brought it up

You simultaneously bash philosophy and use it to make your point in the same post; I like that. I absolutely agree with you and I have been trying to make this point about Batman and Harvey Dent. Batman did not break his one rule by killing Two-Face for several reasons:

1. Killing in self-defense or during a moment of immediate danger is almost always excused by deontologists (philosophers that judge the morality of an act based on the act itself, not the ends).

2. There is no evidence that Batman intended to kill Harvey.

3. Batman's "one rule" doesn't mean that no one will ever die because of his actions; it means that he will never intentionally kill someone as retribution or punishment. If the Joker is holding a gun to a little kid's head, then Batman will kill him if it is the only means to disable him (though in comics it never is), but he will NOT kill the Joker to prevent future deaths if there is no immediate threat. The utilitarian in most people wants Batman to just kill him and spare the thousands of lives that will be lost because of him but most systems of morality and ethics (including Batman's) do not allow this. Batman didn't deliberately seek to kill Two-Face as a form of justice. He tackled him to save a little kid's life and he ended up falling down four stories. That does not break his "one rule".

 

[magus]

You know I found your first reply about Ras's death and Bruce's involvment to be in lighting and very well thought out.I felt that you had really reserached the movie and had gone threw some the issues in you mind quite a few times......

But now I'm not so sure.



Nether.

Bruce started the fire as a diversionary tactic.He started the fire to save the life of the guy he was ordered to kill.

He used his sword to dilibratly take a peace of hot cole and throw it into a different area to start the fire.

Bruce started that fire on purpose.....what he intended is irrelevant.Anybody that died in that fire died because Bruce started it.

The fire was not a "byproduct" of an epic battle......it was the opening shot of that battle.In a sence it was the first bullet fired and it was fired by Bruce.

And in the letter of the Law indent follows the Bullet.



Bruce didnt place those men there but he did "specifically set it ablaze".



In starting the fire himself on purpose he insured that there would be "collateral damage".

He used the fire to distract his adversaries at the very least and since he started the fire those deaths are on his head.

If it was someone else who started the fire then you would have a point......even if he had knocked it over by mistake then it could be viewed as a mistake or a byproduct of the fight.

But Bruce fliped that hot peace of cole on purpose and he's smart enough to know that is you throw around a hot peace of cole in a house that something's going to catch fire.

Batman's one rule isn't dictated by the law. The "intent follows the bullet" comment is completely irrelevant. Batman has is own moral code that dictates that he will not purposely take a life. In the dojo scene he really only had three choices:
1. Kill the man and go against what he believes.
2. Don't kill the man and be killed by the ninjas.
3. Create a distraction effective enough to occupy a hundred or so ninjas and make an escape.

He chose 3. You can say that his actions led to the deaths of people, but that doesn't constitute breaking his rule for a couple of reasons:

1. Intent - this has already been explained by others and not adequately refuted.

2. Self-defense. Bruce would have been killed if he didn't do it, which makes it a situation of self-defense. Killing in self-defense (when you WILL be killed otherwise) is almost always a valid exception to any moral code.

 

[chintai80]

magus speaks the truth.

 

[GhostPoet]

Batman needed to fall because......


Batman on the run is COOL! :P

 

[magus]

Batman needed to fall because......


Batman on the run is COOL! :P

That's a good enough reason for me.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Batman's one rule isn't dictated by the law. The "intent follows the bullet" comment is completely irrelevant. Batman has is own moral code that dictates that he will not purposely take a life. In the dojo scene he really only had three choices:
1. Kill the man and go against what he believes.
2. Don't kill the man and be killed by the ninjas.
3. Create a distraction effective enough to occupy a hundred or so ninjas and make an escape.

Your right for the most part....he may not have had any other choice but the choice he did make still breaks his moral code.

The only choice he could have made that didnt break his "MORAL CODE" would have been to do nothing at all.

Yes he would most likely be dead but then he rule wouldnt have been broken.

Do I think Bruce made the right choice....Yes.

But that doent change the fact that the choice he made broke his moral code.

His deliberate actions lead to the deaths of some of those Ninjas.

And unlike the death of Rachel and any of the future victims of the Joker [or other phycos Bat's hasnt killed] the deaths of those Ninjas by the fire was completely foreseeable.

1. Intent - this has already been explained by others and not adequately refuted.

Intent is not really the issue.

If someone had fired a bullet into a crowed room and killed someone Batman would have no problem bringing that guy to justice.

And thats pretty much what Bruce did in "Begins."

Altho he did do it to save a life.He may not be quilty by the letter of the law but it is a strech for his moral code.

2. Self-defense. Bruce would have been killed if he didn't do it, which makes it a situation of self-defense. Killing in self-defense (when you WILL be killed otherwise) is almost always a valid exception to any moral code.

Self-defense is almost always a valid exception to any moral code but not Batmans.

At least not for the most part.

Batman has time and again not considered self-defense as a reason for killing.

Just look at how he felt about Wonder Woman killing Max Lord for an example of this.

Wonder Woman was acting in Self-defense and in defense of others when she killed Max to stop him from controlling Superman.

Now granted we are talking about two different genres but since the "Moral Code" that Movie Batman had was inspired by his comic book counterparts moral code a comparison can be made.

 

[magus]

Your right for the most part....he may not have had any other choice but the choice he did make still breaks his moral code.

The only choice he could have made that didnt break his "MORAL CODE" would have been to do nothing at all.

Yes he would most likely be dead but then he rule wouldnt have been broken.

Do I think Bruce made the right choice....Yes.

But that doent change the fact that the choice he made broke his moral code.

His deliberate actions lead to the deaths of some of those Ninjas.

And unlike the death of Rachel and any of the future victims of the Joker [or other phycos Bat's hasnt killed] the deaths of those Ninjas by the fire was completely foreseeable.



Intent is not really the issue.

If someone had fired a bullet into a crowed room and killed someone Batman would have no problem bringing that guy to justice.

And thats pretty much what Bruce did in "Begins."

Altho he did do it to save a life.He may not be quilty by the letter of the law but it is a strech for his moral code.



Self-defense is almost always a valid exception to any moral code but not Batmans.

At least not for the most part.

Batman has time and again not considered self-defense as a reason for killing.

Just look at how he felt about Wonder Woman killing Max Lord for an example of this.

Wonder Woman was acting in Self-defense and in defense of others when she killed Max to stop him from controlling Superman.

Now granted we are talking about two different genres but since the "Moral Code" that Movie Batman had was inspired by his comic book counterparts moral code a comparison can be made.

If Batman is put into a situation where the only choices are: a) kill a criminal that is putting Batman or someone close to him in immediate danger or b) die, Batman will kill him. He values his mission and his importance to Gotham too much; he is not the type to become a martyr for his ideals. You basically just said that to be comic-accurate in Batman Begins Bruce would have had to have said to the League of Shadows "I won't kill this man," kneel down, and allow himself to be beheaded. The only way for him to make it out alive is to put other lives in danger. Batman's rule dictates that he won't mercilessly strike someone down, but it doesn't account for letting people who play with fire get burned.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

If Batman is put into a situation where the only choices are: a) kill a criminal that is putting Batman or someone close to him in immediate danger or b) die, Batman will kill him

To put it simply..... thats out of character.Batman [comics anyway] has been placed in that kind of position many many times and he always makes a 3rd option.

Even last year ,when Jason Todd had the Joker in some kind or trap in which Batman's only choices were to ether kill the Joker himself of Kill Jason to stop him from killing the Joker, Batman found a way to keep both of them alive.

Granted comic Batman has been on the job much longer and being a comic they tend to write Bat's to be able to get out of any situation.

But no matter how you try to spin it Batman [comics] has pretty much always drawn the line at doing "ANYTHING" that can deliberately cost a life.

He values his mission and his importance to Gotham too much;

Time and Time again in different stories [comics].....anytime that it appeared that his actions may have been responsible for ending an inacent life Bruce quit being Batman.

Batman never placed his mission above human life.Even in the new movie he almost quit being Batman and almost went public to ensure that other's didnt die because of his mission.

he is not the type to become a martyr for his ideals.

Sure he is.He even did that in the movie.He became the "Martyr" for Gotham.He put a target on his on head.

And besides that every time he puts on that suit to fight crime he runs the risk that some punk with a gun is going to get lucky and kill him one night.

Not to mention that he now has both the cops and the crooks gunning for him.

By his very nature Bruce Wayne [Batman] is a MARTYR".The definition of the word includes the following

1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

Batman fits that second definition to the letter.The only thing he hasnt sacrificed yet is his life and its not because he's not willing.

Remember Batmen [earth 2] have died durring the mission.

You basically just said that to be comic-accurate in Batman Begins Bruce would have had to have said to the League of Shadows "I won't kill this man," kneel down, and allow himself to be beheaded.

Or if they had a better writter they could have written him a 3rd option.One that did not have the character acting outside of his moral code.

The only way for him to make it out alive is to put other lives in danger..

Which was out of character for Batman.It may have been more realistic but it still was out of character.

Granted even comic Batman has broken that rule from time to time.

Batman's rule dictates that he won't mercilessly strike someone down, but it doesn't account for letting people who play with fire get burned.

And aside from the metaphor it was Bruce that started the fire.

If Bruce had brought a box full of guns to a gang fight he would be responsible for the gangs shooting each other.....not to mention the bystanders.

Its the same here.No matter how you see it.Even if there was no other way to save himself he still killed to do it.

 

[Motown Marvel]

batman taking the blame for harvey was completely unnecessary and totally stupid.

first off, no one needs to take the blame for it. with all the mayhem that was going on, no one is gonna bat an eye at a few unexplained and unsolved murders.

second: it would be dishonest of gordon to blame it on the joker? screw that. its dishonest of him to blame it on batman (dsepite his permission). it'd be dishonest to let gotham have false hope in their corrupt leaders. no good can come of that. and what good is false hope gonna do when now the people of gotham are scared of an unstoppable masked cop killer roaming through the night?

third: we fall to pick ourselves back up again? that doesnt mean you willingly throw yourself under the train. that doesnt do any good for anyone. through the whole movie batman is talking about his faith in the citizens of gotham. if he trusts them so much, then he should trust them with the truth. and if anything detrimental comes from that, in regards to gotham's faith and hope, then he needs to step up as batman and be the hero and icon that gotham needs and restore their faith and hope. not lie to them about it and coming off as a cop killer.

 

[Motown Marvel]

If Batman is put into a situation where the only choices are: a) kill a criminal that is putting Batman or someone close to him in immediate danger or b) die, Batman will kill him.

or C) find a way to solve the situation without dying or killing. because, thats what batman does. and he's good enough to do it. he's trained to do just that.

 

[Mrs.J]

Batman takes the blame therefore showing once again that he is human like all of us--not some cliche superhero that gets his powers from the sun--and also not to glorify him. The reason we love batman is because he is an outcast--he is the odd one--he isnt the cookiecutter superhero. He is human. with faults--triumphs--tragedies. he is one of us. and hell im no white knight.