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

[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 is invincible.
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.

To have made batman come out on top-would make it like every other superhero movie. I appauld the fact that Nolan took it in this direction.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

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.

Which is why I say that his actions in "BEGINS" were out of character for Batman.

Althou in Begins he was still in the middle of his training.

 

[Motown Marvel]

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 is invincible.
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.

To have made batman come out on top-would make it like every other superhero movie. I appauld the fact that Nolan took it in this direction.

im cool with batman being an outcast. thats a natural part of what he does. but theres a right and wrong way to portray that. and in TDK, they did it in the wrong way.

Which is why I say that his actions in "BEGINS" were out of character for Batman.

Althou in Begins he was still in the middle of his training.

in BB, i was more concerned with him allowing Ra's to die. he willingly made the choice to leave him for dead instead of making the right choice to save him, which he was capable of doing. Batman doesnt leave people for dead, regardless of who they are or what they've one, if its in his ability to save them.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

in BB, i was more concerned with him allowing Ra's to die. he willingly made the choice to leave him for dead instead of making the right choice to save him, which he was capable of doing. Batman doesnt leave people for dead, regardless of who they are or what they've one, if its in his ability to save them.

For me that didnt bother me as much as what he did with the Ninjas.

 

[magus]

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.

Unfortunately that isn't always an option. The comic books do it as a matter of convenience, to not have to force Batman to kill, but there should be very little doubt in most people's minds that certain interpretations of Batman would kill if absolutely necessary (Frank Miller comes to mind) to save himself. You can't just say "Batman is good enough to get out of ANY situation"; that is a weak cop-out.

The whole purpose of presenting the two choices is to engage in a thought exercise of applying Batman's rule to unusual circumstances. Batman never faces a situation where he has to kill or be killed because the writers write around his moral code, but that doesn't mean we can't apply what we know about the character and basic deontological principles to figure out what actions would be justified. Batman inadvertently killing Ra's's men is justified in the situation it took place in for a few reasons:

1. Again, intent. Bruce had no discernible intention to kill anyone.
2. Bruce's choices at the time were to a) kill an innocent man, b) get killed for not killing an innocent man, or c) create a distraction that could potentially kill those putting him in immediate danger. Killing in self-defense is justifiable and this situation is even less than that as Bruce isn't directly killing. You can't simply say, "there's an option d," especially in this situation where Bruce isn't even Batman yet and has next to no equipment/experience.

You can argue that Batman's moral code obligates him to save people as well as not killing them, and that would be a much more worthwhile debate, but it is completely erroneous and a disservice to discussion to say, when presented with ONLY choices A) and B), Batman should choose C).

As for Ra's on the train, this is my take: it is justified through the combination of Ra's creating the situation (reaping what you sow), Batman having saved him previously, and the fact that Ra's simply didn't WANT to be saved (very much in line with his character). By destroying the controls Ra's knew he wouldn't survive, regardless of the fact that Batman blew up the track -- what do you think happens to a train with no brakes? Ra's is certainly the type to follow through with his plans at any cost, including his own death, and Batman allows him to make that choice.

The only argument at present is whether or not Batman's moral code obligates him to save everyone in every situation regardless of whether or not he created the situation, and that is a much more complicated one. But neither of these events broke the "no kill" portion of the moral code.

 

[wootbaby]

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.

No if I remember that part correctly, the farmer is a MURDERER, not a thief. Also Bruce balks saying he does not know what this man did (as in he cant just take Ra's word for it without any information and act as his hatchet man). Ra's on the other hand wants him to be a good soldier and take orders without question.

That scene Bruce is balking at the League's authority as much as anything. Of course Bruce doesn't want to kill the dude but his refusing to execute someone on someone else's orders wouldn't necessarily by itself establish Batman's code because there's a lot going on there including imprisonment, summary execution etc that he could be objecting to. And IMO at that point in the movie he doesn't actually HIMSELF know exactly what his limits are. He doesn't even yet have a concept of Batman. It's not like Bruce Wayne is born from the womb refusing to kill. In his past he was willing to kill... he was going to murder Chill in the courthouse. That entire movie, Bruce is changing and growing, and the way the League conducts those executions may have well been part of Bruce's learning process on what he did NOT want to do. The reason the monorail scene is important is because it's that moment he become fully becomes The Batman, with Batman's ethos of the comics. When he says that line he's not only telling Ra's, he's telling himself, the audience etc.

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?

How many different times can you ask the exact same question? He didn't leave him on a train he "planned to take out" he left him on a train that was GOING DOWN around them. He simply didn't save him. There is a difference look at it this way. Let's say you want to eat an ice cream bar. You ask your older brother for 2 bucks and he REFUSES GIVE IT TO YOU. Different scenario, you are about to eat an ice cream bar, your brother comes up and takes it from you. Action. Inaction. Are the 2 things the same? The results are the same. Both times you are left without an ice cream bar... Ra's is left dead.

Contrary to your post Batman does determine who lives or dies, he does that all the time. Rachel died and Dent lived... I guess he killed Rachel? It's a circular argument, but Batman's actions are consistent

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.

Anybody that died in that fire died because Bruce started it.

No, anyone who died in that fire died because he didn't get himself out. You make it sound like the moment Bruce lit the place up was a death warrant. Yet we see League assassins (presumably some from the monastery) all over Gotham later... if that fire in and of itself was a death warrant how did those guys cheat death? There are 2 actions and 2 actors which ends at <dead ninjas>. How do you know Bruce didn't expect them to try to put out the fire instead of having a battle royal inside a burning house (Klingon proverb" only fools fight inside a burning house"). If those guys chose to fight over fleeing or putting out the fire that's choices they made. This is essentially a retread of the monorail argument

I also disagree with your impression of collateral damage

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

no not really. using that reasoning the guy who fires off the tank round that misses its target and hits the house full of kids "insured" collateral damage. the very definition of collateral damage is unintended or incidental damage of your own actions. Batman didn't start the fire as some sort of weapon to wipe out the League, you said yourself he did it to as a diversion to help the prisoner. That speaks to intent. People did die as result (partially) of his actions but also (and more significantly) as a result of their own actions.

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.

Now THIS is the Kobayashi Maru of Batman questions. Because comics are a commercial medium in a serialized format (ie they need to keep superheroes alive to sell the next month's issue), writers use all sorts of deux ex machina mechanisms to insure Batman never answers this question. Given a choice between 1)explicitly executing and 2)letting himself be executed Batman will always choose C) God Button... manifest in any of several flavors: magical escape, magical survival, rescue, and the ever popular size 12 boot steel toe ass kicking. There's really no way to definitively answer the unaskable question and if you polled 10 past writers about what they'd honestly do with the character you'd get both responses.

Of course in the comics this question would never be addressed but part of the big blowup here with outraged people is that movies are different. They can have a beginning and an end. Nolan doesn't ask or answer that question but he inches up to the line very closely and definitely leans to a side. And IMO in the Nolan universe the answer is clear: the only tonally consistent option is 2. Batman is a creature of vengeance not a creature of pacifism. He'd not let himself be killed if only so he could extract retribution for the victim who'd surely be killed right after Batman.

IF you could ask that question, IMO that would surely also be the end of Batman, if he ever was confronted with that choice and deliberately took a life without figuring some way in the moment to escape that choice he would deem himself no longer fit to be Gotham's guardian and quit. I've always considered that to be Batman's last story.. the one which would never be written. But logically there is no way out for Batman, in the universe that Batman lives, he will NEVER be a success crime will always be out there. Either he dies on the job (impossible) or he crosses that line and gives it up.

 

[wootbaby]

The whole purpose of presenting the two choices is to engage in a thought exercise of applying Batman's rule to unusual circumstances. Batman never faces a situation where he has to kill or be killed because the writers write around his moral code, but that doesn't mean we can't apply what we know about the character and basic deontological principles to figure out what actions would be justified.

correct.

Batman will never have to face this question in the comics by design. But as a logical extension of the character, what he WOULD do based on his values, his past action and his character can be inferred.

Nolan in truth cant really ask that question in the movies either-- there would be too much backlash but he has repeatedly put Batman in the "one tier down" situation... where he doesn't directly cause a death and must act to saves others' lives which ends with someone's evident death (cleverly 3 mitigating circumstances to the naked "ultimate question"). IMO Nolan has been extremely consistent and nuanced in applying Batman's one rule, making the movies that much more interesting for it.

 

[magus]

No if I remember that part correctly, the farmer is a MURDERER, not a thief. Also Bruce balks saying he does not know what this man did (as in he cant just take Ra's word for it without any information and act as his hatchet man). Ra's on the other hand wants him to be a good soldier and take orders without question.

That scene Bruce is balking at the League's authority as much as anything. Of course Bruce doesn't want to kill the dude but his refusing to execute someone on someone else's orders wouldn't necessarily by itself establish Batman's code because there's a lot going on there including imprisonment, summary execution etc that he could be objecting to. And IMO at that point in the movie he doesn't actually HIMSELF know exactly what his limits are. He doesn't even yet have a concept of Batman. It's not like Bruce Wayne is born from the womb refusing to kill. In his past he was willing to kill... he was going to murder Chill in the courthouse. That entire movie, Bruce is changing and growing, and the way the League conducts those executions may have well been part of Bruce's learning process on what he did NOT want to do. The reason the monorail scene is important is because it's that moment he become fully becomes The Batman, with Batman's ethos of the comics. When he says that line he's not only telling Ra's, he's telling himself, the audience etc.


How many different times can you ask the exact same question? He didn't leave him on a train he "planned to take out" he left him on a train that was GOING DOWN around them. He simply didn't save him. There is a difference look at it this way. Let's say you want to eat an ice cream bar. You ask your older brother for 2 bucks and he REFUSES GIVE IT TO YOU. Different scenario, you are about to eat an ice cream bar, your brother comes up and takes it from you. Action. Inaction. Are the 2 things the same? The results are the same. Both times you are left without an ice cream bar... Ra's is left dead.

Contrary to your post Batman does determine who lives or dies, he does that all the time. Rachel died and Dent lived... I guess he killed Rachel? It's a circular argument, but Batman's actions are consistent



No, anyone who died in that fire died because he didn't get himself out. You make it sound like the moment Bruce lit the place up was a death warrant. Yet we see League assassins (presumably some from the monastery) all over Gotham later... if that fire in and of itself was a death warrant how did those guys cheat death? There are 2 actions and 2 actors which ends at <dead ninjas>. How do you know Bruce didn't expect them to try to put out the fire instead of having a battle royal inside a burning house (Klingon proverb" only fools fight inside a burning house"). If those guys chose to fight over fleeing or putting out the fire that's choices they made. This is essentially a retread of the monorail argument

I also disagree with your impression of collateral damage


no not really. using that reasoning the guy who fires off the tank round that misses its target and hits the house full of kids "insured" collateral damage. the very definition of collateral damage is unintended or incidental damage of your own actions. Batman didn't start the fire as some sort of weapon to wipe out the League, you said yourself he did it to as a diversion to help the prisoner. That speaks to intent. People did die as result (partially) of his actions but also (and more significantly) as a result of their own actions.



Now THIS is the Kobayashi Maru of Batman questions. Because comics are a commercial medium in a serialized format (ie they need to keep superheroes alive to sell the next month's issue), writers use all sorts of deux ex machina mechanisms to insure Batman never answers this question. Given a choice between 1)explicitly executing and 2)letting himself be executed Batman will always choose C) God Button... manifest in any of several flavors: magical escape, magical survival, rescue, and the ever popular size 12 boot steel toe ass kicking. There's really no way to definitively answer the unaskable question and if you polled 10 past writers about what they'd honestly do with the character you'd get both responses.

Of course in the comics this question would never be addressed but part of the big blowup here with outraged people is that movies are different. They can have a beginning and an end. Nolan doesn't ask or answer that question but he inches up to the line very closely and definitely leans to a side. And IMO in the Nolan universe the answer is clear: the only tonally consistent option is 2. Batman is a creature of vengeance not a creature of pacifism. He'd not let himself be killed if only so he could extract retribution for the victim who'd surely be killed right after Batman.

IF you could ask that question, IMO that would surely also be the end of Batman, if he ever was confronted with that choice and deliberately took a life without figuring some way in the moment to escape that choice he would deem himself no longer fit to be Gotham's guardian and quit. I've always considered that to be Batman's last story.. the one which would never be written. But logically there is no way out for Batman, in the universe that Batman lives, he will NEVER be a success crime will always be out there. Either he dies on the job (impossible) or he crosses that line and gives it up.

Great response and very much in line with how I feel, though I am not sure about Batman quitting so soon if he had to make that choice; that is certainly an option, and maybe the most likely one, but I see certain authors taking it down the route of Batman falling further into the abyss (an escalation of violent methods, including more kills) until he is caught by police/Justice League, killed, or completely breaks down.

Also, you said Batman would choose option 2, let himself be killed, when the rest of your paragraph sounded like he would choose option 1, kill if necessary. I wasn't sure if you intended that.

 

[wootbaby]

I noticed you referenced Miller's Dark Knight in your comments that Batman would kill if absolutely necessary. I think reading that book there's no question that he would indeed kill. But Miller could be that emphatic because he intended it to be Batman's "last story." Of course DC editors have sidestepped that issue by placing it in an alternate universe

I agree that you could take Batman in another direction after he kills, but to me that's the moment he stops being Batman and becomes another character.

Yeah I misspoke, meant option 1.

keep posting I'm digging your responses

 

[magus]

I noticed you referenced Miller's Dark Knight in your comments that Batman would kill if absolutely necessary. I think reading that book there's no question that he would indeed kill. But Miller could be that emphatic because he intended it to be Batman's "last story." Of course DC editors have sidestepped that issue by placing it in an alternate universe

I agree that you could take Batman in another direction after he kills, but to me that's the moment he stops being Batman and becomes another character.

Yeah I misspoke, meant option 1.

keep posting I'm digging your responses

The last part is really tough to decide and will be a matter of preference but I have no qualms with Batman killing if it is JUSTIFIED. By which I mean the only choices were to kill or be killed and the writer didn't sidestep around it with some fantastic escape. I don't want Batman to become the Punisher or begin killing for utilitarian reasons (killing the Joker to save the lives of the thousands that will be killed by Joker, for instance), but having him be forced to kill and his subsequent internal conflict could be a fascinating read.

And I have no doubts that Batman would kill if anyone ever presented that scenario; I have never seen an interpretation of Batman that would allow himself to be a martyr. Sure he isn't afraid of dying on the job, but he wouldn't willingly allow it.

I recommend picking up the book Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul if these discussions about the character really interest you. I bought it on a whim and found it a good read. The first chapter is "Why Doesn't Batman Just Kill the Joker?" and discusses this very topic. It came out this year but unfortunately doesn't include anything from The Dark Knight. The other philosophical questions tackled in it are interesting as well.

 

[Viper81]

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.

Ok, so how is Gordon supposed to explain to the hundreds of cops that are outside creating a perimeter for him that his family has been terrorized and that Dent is dead and the only other person on the scene is Batman?

Batman had to fall because he was the only other person ON THE SCENE of Dent's death. It had nothing to do with the other five cops.

Gordon had a choice: Blame Dent or Blame Batman. That was his ONLY choice.

 

[Quinzel]

It would have made more sense if they had just blamed the joker.

But whatever.

I'm fine with it.

 

[abcdefz]

I think it's kind of fitting because Batman sort of will need to be redeemed, anyway. He did SO MUCH stuff in TDK which was illegal or unethical... not just the cell phone taps, but kidnapping and extradicting Lau, breaking Sal's legs, tons of property damage (I'm thinking especially of the cars he blew up just so he could get his Bat-Pod out -- that was incredibly gratuitous). He really is a villain -- he's just a villain for the good guys, but does that make it right?

 

[Quinzel]

That's on reason batman is so popular, everyone likes the villians, and batman operates like a villian.

 

[Eggyman]

Nolan had a lot of balls ending the film like this. I think if there was ever a hero that this could work for, it's Bats.

It worked so well with what Alfred said: 'Endure. You can be the outcast . . .'

I loved it.

 

[ultimatefan]

im cool with batman being an outcast. thats a natural part of what he does. but theres a right and wrong way to portray that. and in TDK, they did it in the wrong way.



in BB, i was more concerned with him allowing Ra's to die. he willingly made the choice to leave him for dead instead of making the right choice to save him, which he was capable of doing. Batman doesnt leave people for dead, regardless of who they are or what they've one, if its in his ability to save them.

There was absolutely no other way to end the movie. If Harvey´s reputation fell, The Joker would win. Harvey´s prosecutions would fall and criminals and crooked cops would all go back to the streets. People would lose hope. Batman was an outlaw vigilante, killing those people was what people would assume he was capable of doing. It was the perfect way to beat Joker in his own game, but for the reasons Joker would never do it, for noble reasons. Yet, it´s true Batman, he always tries to do what he thinks is right, but he doesn´t always play by the books, or does the neat thing that Superman or Spider-Man would do.

And yes, mayhem or not, five dead are five dead, these things are not just overlooked. And Joker was already arrested when Harvey fell and the only two people on the scene were Batman and Gordon. Joker and his goons were alive to testify, deny, give evidence in their favor. If Batman has to, he will confess. Gordon will help him with information. It´s much safer to have someone reliable take the fall on purpose than to depend on accusing others.

Batman has done tons of morally dubious decisions in comics. It wasn´t necessarily wrong to leave Ra´s - trying to save him would make his own escape much harder, carrying extra weight. He also didn´t want to repeat the mistake made earlier, when he risked himself to save Ra´s and paid a big price for it. It wasn´t the noble thing to do, but Batman isn´t always noble. He´s not The Punisher, but he isn´t Superman either.

 

[November Rain]

Question: Did Batman really need to take the fall for everyone Dent killed? Was it simply a matter of needing to have it happen for thematic purposes? Couldn’t Gordon blame one of the Jokers dead goons or a mobster or some other person besides Gorham’s hero?

Wondering what you all think about this, I am conflicted. I do *love* the idea of Batman having everyone on his tail and being a real outlaw, but I don’t think the logic is there for how it happened in this version of that story.

he didn't too, it was completely drammatic, there's nothing leading batman to it, they could have even pinned it on the joker taking out his contacts, no big deal.

 

[Eggyman]

There was absolutely no other way to end the movie. If Harvey´s reputation fell, The Joker would win.

The Joker did win, it's just that Gotham doesn't know he did.

 

[ultimatefan]

he didn't too, it was completely drammatic, there's nothing leading batman to it, they could have even pinned it on the joker taking out his contacts, no big deal.

It was a HUGE deal. All those people were alive to testify, deny, give evidence in their favor. If Batman has to, he will confess. Gordon will help him with information. It´s much safer to have someone reliable take the fall on purpose than to depend on accusing others.

 

[ultimatefan]

The Joker did win, it's just that Gotham doesn't know he did.

Which means he DIDN´T win, cuz his ultimately goal was to take down the city´s spirit.

 

[abcdefz]

Nolan had a lot of balls ending the film like this. I think if there was ever a hero that this could work for, it's Bats.

He talked about The Empire Strikes Back as one of the only sequels he admires; I guess he got his own Empire.

 

[Quinzel]

Which means he DIDN´T win, cuz his ultimately goal was to take down the city´s spirit.

well, they didn't really show much of the aftermath. The city might have just gone back to being run by a bunch of creeps and the only ones who care not speaking up.

idk.

 

[Eggyman]

Which means he DIDN´T win, cuz his ultimately goal was to take down the city´s spirit.

That's not what I took away from seeing it. I just thought he wanted to prove a point that good guys turn bad in the right/wrong situation. I agree though that it does take away from his victory that no one knows about it

 

[abcdefz]

I thought the whole point of the freighter sequence was to show that the city still had some heart. Reminded me of the "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" bit from Spider-Man, and I don't think it worked. At least one of those freighters should have blown.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Unfortunately that isn't always an option. The comic books do it as a matter of convenience, to not have to force Batman to kill, but there should be very little doubt in most people's minds that certain interpretations of Batman would kill if absolutely necessary (Frank Miller comes to mind) to save himself. You can't just say "Batman is good enough to get out of ANY situation"; that is a weak cop-out.

Yes some interpretations of Batman have killed.But even in Frank's Batman the "Moral Code" is handled more like a joke.

And in other's the code in question wasnt alway a top priority.

To me this isint an issue about wether or not the killings were justified.I believe they were.

But you cant deny that its a departure from the character norm's and his strict moral code.

No, anyone who died in that fire died because he didn't get himself out.

Only if you assume that everyone in the house could have.Even with the begining of the fire you can see some of the Ninjas running for safty but some of them were blown off their feet and thrown wildly accross the rooms.

Those guys cuould have been knocked out by the impact and then died.Not to mention that the League could have had other prisoners that could not free themselfs.

Any of those deaths are on Bruce's head because he started the fire.

You make it sound like the moment Bruce lit the place up was a death warrant.

To some it was.

Yet we see League assassins (presumably some from the monastery) all over Gotham later... if that fire in and of itself was a death warrant how did those guys cheat death?

Again some of your post seems rather thought out and intelligent while other parts seem like you havent really considered every thing.

The League has existed for thousands of years......do you really think that every current member was in that house at one time?????

There are 2 actions and 2 actors which ends at <dead ninjas>. How do you know Bruce didn't expect them to try to put out the fire instead of having a battle royal inside a burning house (Klingon proverb" only fools fight inside a burning house").

Nice one.But there is an other old proverb......."never expect anyone to do the right or smart thing"

If those guys chose to fight over fleeing or putting out the fire that's choices they made. This is essentially a retread of the monorail argument

Like I said not all of them were able to run if they wanted too.

I also disagree with your impression of collateral damage

no not really. using that reasoning the guy who fires off the tank round that misses its target and hits the house full of kids "insured" collateral damage. the very definition of collateral damage is unintended or incidental damage of your own actions. Batman didn't start the fire as some sort of weapon to wipe out the League, you said yourself he did it to as a diversion to help the prisoner. That speaks to intent. People did die as result (partially) of his actions but also (and more significantly) as a result of their own actions.

And the difference between the guy in a tank that miss'es his target and Bruce was that Bruce didnt miss his target.He intended to start the fire.

My point was not to say that the deaths and the fire were collateral damage my point as that they werent.He may not have intended for the deaths but what do you expect when you start a fire.

I have never seen an interpretation of Batman that would allow himself to be a martyr. Sure he isn't afraid of dying on the job, but he wouldn't willingly allow it. .

Your definition of the word "MARTYR" differs from mine.The way I see it every time he puts himself in danger he is running the risk of ending up dead for his mission.