Sooo, Batman and his 'one rule'...

[Captrek]

Again, I reject your characterization of Ra's as collateral damage. That's a misapplication of the term, since Ra's does not correspond to a non-combatant. Ra's is in fact steadfastly operating the very thing that it is necessary for Batman to neutralize.

But once the threat posed by the train has been neutralized, how is that still relevant? When Batman makes his decision to let Ra's die, Ra's is merely the former operator of the weapon.

I'm still waiting for you to articulate the exception that applies. Under Batman rules, if you have the opportunity to destroy the weapon and spare the operator, you do. You can't say "I'm blowing up the weapon anyway, so it's okay to kill the operator along with it" if you can spare the operator without jeopardizing the mission.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, I reject your characterization of Ra's as collateral damage. That's a misapplication of the term, since Ra's does not correspond to a non-combatant. Ra's is in fact steadfastly operating the very thing that it is necessary for Batman to neutralize.

But once the threat posed by the train has been neutralized, how is that still relevant? When Batman makes his decision to let Ra's die, Ra's is merely the former operator of the weapon.

And at that point, when Batman decided not to save Ra's, there are only seconds to get out.

 

[Captrek]

Again, I reject your characterization of Ra's as collateral damage. That's a misapplication of the term, since Ra's does not correspond to a non-combatant. Ra's is in fact steadfastly operating the very thing that it is necessary for Batman to neutralize.

But once the threat posed by the train has been neutralized, how is that still relevant? When Batman makes his decision to let Ra's die, Ra's is merely the former operator of the weapon.

And at that point, when Batman decided not to save Ra's, there are only seconds to get out.

Nonetheless, the clear implication of the scene is that he has the opportunity to spare Ra's' life but chooses not to.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But once the threat posed by the train has been neutralized, how is that still relevant? When Batman makes his decision to let Ra's die, Ra's is merely the former operator of the weapon.

And at that point, when Batman decided not to save Ra's, there are only seconds to get out.

Nonetheless, the clear implication of the scene is that he has the opportunity to spare Ra's' life but chooses not to.

OK, so that's your read on the scene. My read on the scene is different.

We'd just seen an even match between the two within the cabin in the moments before, in which Ra's tried to prevent Batman from escaping and in which Ra's might have succeeded in that. What we'd just seen there isn't miraculously rendered irrelevant, when Batman says that he doesn't have to save Ra's. It's still the very same Ra's, and he's still just as dangerous. In the context of what we'd just seen, what Batman says is the practical equivalent of his saying that he doesn't have to stick has neck out for Ra's. It's certainly not a guarantee that Ra's is savable.

As urbandefault said, it sucks to be Ra's right then.

 

[Captrek]

OK, we read it differently. My take is that he has a choice to destroy the weapon and spare the operator, or destroy the weapon along with its operator. He chooses the latter over the former, which I see as a violation of his no-kill rule.

But here are some further thoughts that cast the choice more sympathetically...

Bruce never actually articulates a "no killing" rule in BB (other than his comment "I won't kill you," which I'll address later). What he says early in BB is that he won't be an executioner, and what he does to Ra's doesn't qualify as an execution. By TDK, he has an expressed rule against killing.

I've been arguing the train scene kind of like a lawyer, looking for a clearly articulable exception to the no-kill rule that covers the situation. But Batman is making a split-second decision in a highly stressful situation here, and may not have thought much before this very moment about what a no-kill rule entails.

It's possible he thinks about it afterwards, regrets his choice, and comes up with the no-kill rule as a reaction to this situation. It's also possible that he decides there should be no exceptions and that's why he decides to hang up the cowl immediately after killing Dent, which would seem to qualify as a legitimate exception.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Batman is making a split-second decision in a highly stressful situation here, and may not have thought much before this very moment about what a no-kill rule entails.

It's possible he thinks about it afterwards, regrets his choice, and comes up with the no-kill rule as a reaction to this situation. It's also possible that he decides there should be no exceptions and that's why he decides to hang up the cowl immediately after killing Dent, which would seem to qualify as a legitimate exception.

If you consider the villain's last scene in Man Of Steel, which basically (sorry, spoilers) follows a very similar path, it's clear that what we're seeing here is an origin story, where the "rules" the character lives by haven't yet been set.

 

[Captrek]

This has been a great discussion. It has given me a new head canon.

In the Nolanverse, Batman's "one rule" is something that evolves between the events of BB and TDK.

He reflects on the events on the train and realizes he was wrong. He can't send someone plummeting to his death and shout after him, "I don't have to save you!" No matter how good his reasons for sending him plummeting in the first place.

So he decides: never again. He challenges himself to go out there and be Batman without killing. But just in case, he swears, on the souls of his parents, that if Batman ever kills again, he will end Batman so it can't become a habit.

In TDK, the train scenario is repeated almost exactly with the Joker. This is the man who murdered Rachel and turned Harvey into Two Face. Batman has to send him plummeting to his death in order to prevent him from committing mass murder. But this time, instead of shouting "I don't have to save you," he saves him.

Then the scenario is repeated yet again when he has to send Dent plummeting to his death to prevent him from killing Gordon's child, and this time he is unable to save Dent. And he retires Batman immediately.

Batman's attitude about killing definitely changes between the two films, and in a believable way.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ But at the same time he killed Talia and her driver in TDKRises. Talia died due to a fall from inside the truck and her driver caught a bullet/shrapnel presumably in the throat.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

^ But at the same time he killed Talia and her driver in TDKRises. Talia died due to a fall from inside the truck and her driver caught a bullet/shrapnel presumably in the throat.

When you consider the ending of the film, yes, technically this may break the rule, but considering what happened the last time the rule was broken, it does fit the evolution.

Besides, this has probably been mentioned before, but just because Batman doesn't kill you, it doesn't mean you're necessarily going to walk away from a Batencounter, either.

 

[Sci]

The Batman I interpret is a person who will do everything he is physically capable of to prevent everyone from dying. He may kill somebody if there is absolutely no alternative to doing so in order to prevent a greater loss of life (e.g., Talia dying in the battle to capture the nuke in TDKR, or Harvey dying in order to save Jim's son), but he would never just let another person die if he were able to save them -- not even Ra's al-Ghul. So that sequence in BB never rang true to me. I view Batman as the kind of person who would think of himself as having to try to save Ra's.

Because, to me, that's the key to Batman: He's trying desperately to keep anyone else from ever dying.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I do think there was a change of philosophy between the first and second films. Saving the Joker could be viewed as a callback to the first film.

 

[Captrek]

Further development of the head canon:

But just in case, he swears, on the souls of his parents, that if Batman ever kills again, he will end Batman so it can't become a habit.

Later, thinking back on the terms of the oath he swore, he realizes he left himself room for one more kill, but it would have severe consequences for both himself and Gotham, since it would mean the end of Batman.

Then during the Joker interrogation:

BATMAN: I only have one rule.
JOKER: Then that's the rule you're going to have to break.
BATMAN: I'm thinking about it.​

That exchange just took on a new subtext.