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

[Lance]

We've had various versions of the Joker so Batman not killing him to uphold his 'no killing stance' would make sense when it was a 'one off' appearance by that villain in regards to the movies or maybe even the animated tv series I have yet to see in full. However, the comics really show him to be a menace and someone who seems to continually get off easy w/o Batman really influencing anything...even the police or Arkham Asylum who continually takes in Joker and he continually escapes. And, even gets a crazy companion named Harley Quinn....

It sounds just like the real-life justice system in some countries.

The number of times I see people in my local papers who are as guilty as molasses of whatever crime, and are even given a guilty verdict by a jury, but then promptly get given a suspended sentence and are let free by the judge..... it's crazy. But that doesn't mean it would be alright for a caped crusader to go around beating them all to death as a means of stopping the crimes.

Bats knows this, and respects the justice system, even though he knows first-hand how flawed it really is. That's why he's always there to put the Joker away again every time he gets out.

I guess the discussion is really about rehabilitation. Gotham's justice system evidently works on a level similar to some justice systems we see in Western societies: the bad-guys aren't just 'locked up', they are 'rehabilitated' to become members of society again. The criminals know this is how it works, and exploit it. Batman's job isn't to stop crims, it's to deliver them to justice so justice can do it's job. Even though, inevitably, he only ends up having to do so again when somebody like the Joker gets released and promptly becomes a psycho again.

 

[Captrek]

BTW, what ever became of the League of Shadows' prisoner whom Bruce refused to kill in BB? Are we to believe he made it safely off the mountain, or surviving members of the LOS caught him before he got very far? The latter seems all but certain. When Bruce torched the place, killed a bunch of his comrades and escaped, what was he trying to accomplish? He wasn't protecting the prisoner, so why not just leave if he didn't want to be a part of the execution?

 

[Peach Wookiee]

There was one episode of B:TAS where Bats was dealing with the Sewer King. He was that guy who trained children to be pickpockets and kept them as virtual slaves. Toward the end of the episode, the crook was about to be taken out by a train and Batman saved him. The villain asked why and Batman responded, "I don't dispense justice. That's for the courts! But this time... this time I am sorely tempted to do the job myself!"

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I never bought Batman's comment about not killing R'as in Batman Begins. He blew up the elevated tracks in front of a speeding train, boarded the train, sabotaged the brakes, engaged the occupant in combat and held him down as the train approached the gap he had created, then roped himself to safety leaving the other guy to die. It's like throwing him off a cliff and shouting, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you from your impending impact with the ground!" If you put a guy in a death trap, you don't get to claim innocence just because you don't stick around to witness the very end.

Sorry, but Ra's created the deathtrap himself. Ra's was fighting to take the train carrying the microwave emitter into Wayne Tower, where it would blow up as the water supply exploded. Anyone aboard the train at that point would certainly die.

It's cute how you elided the part when Ra's tried to hold Batman down so they could both ride the train to their deaths. When Batman got on top of Ra's, it was as a counter to Ra's holding down Batman, which Batman was able to do when Ra's lost concentration at the revelation that Batman was going to crash the train. If Ra's hadn't been trying to destroy the whole city, none of this would have happened.

And, for the record, it was Gordon who blew up the tracks, in coordination with Batman. Their plan was to destroy the train and the emitter aboard, in order to foil Ra's' plan by crashing the train. Since Ra's was personally aboard the train fighting Batman and time was limited, it's not like Batman had the opportunity to simply sabotage the emitter by other means.

Whatever Batman and Gordon did was necessary to save the city and the lives of the people in it.

The way your description reads, Ra's was out one night riding the "L" and minding his own business, when he was inexplicably attacked by Batman.

 

[Captrek]

No, Ra's is not minding his own business, and killing Ra's is not Batman's primary motive for doing the doing the things I described, but he still does them.

It's like preventing an enemy attack by blowing up the enemy base with the enemy still inside. It may be that your primary motive in blowing up the base is to prevent the attack rather than to kill the occupants. Still, if you have the opportunity to protect the occupants from your own bomb and you choose not to do so, you're killing them. Batman's role in Ra's' death is not a passive role of merely "not saving" him, nor is it unavoidable collateral damage. Batman actively and willfully causes it.

And for the record, delegating somebody else to pull the trigger doesn't mean he isn't blowing up the tracks. He provides the missiles, specifies the target, and gives the order to fire.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's like preventing an enemy attack by blowing up the enemy base with the enemy still inside.

Hardly.

It's more like your destroying an enemy tank on the front lines that has announced that it intends to attack, and that is moving into position and turning its turret onto its declared target, without your rescuing the lone occupant (the one hellbent on carrying out the attack) first.

This, incidentally, would be an occupant who is a match for you in combat and who has just tried to hold you down in the tank so that you could both explode together.

What you're saying is that Batman was morally obligated to risk his life to save Ra's. That is an absurd thing to demand of him.

He actively and willfully causes Ra's' death.

No.

And for the record, delegating somebody else to pull the trigger doesn't mean he didn't blow up the tracks.

It's like you didn't read the part when I wrote that Gordon did it "in coordination with Batman."

 

[Captrek]

What you're saying is that Batman was morally obligated to risk his life to save Ra's. That is an absurd thing to demand of him.

Saving Ra's would not endanger Batman's life, except in the sense that Ra's' continued existence is a threat. I.e., he's an evil villain who might, out of vengeance, turn and attack Batman after being saved. You're basically arguing that "Unless he's a dangerous man who has a beef with me" is an exception to Batman's "no killing" rule, which would be a damn huge exception for someone like Batman.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What you're saying is that Batman was morally obligated to risk his life to save Ra's. That is an absurd thing to demand of him.

Saving Ra's would not endanger Batman's life, except in the sense that Ra's' continued existence is a threat.

Given that Ra's just tried to hold down Batman as the train rode into Wayne Tower, you don't know that.

You're basically arguing that "Unless he's a dangerous man who has a beef with me" is an exception to Batman's "no killing" rule, which would be a damn huge exception for someone like Batman.

No, that would be sticking words in my mouth.

What I've actually said is that Batman isn't under any obligation to save Ra's from this situation, and it doesn't even qualify as Batman killing Ra's.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Since I think people are going in circles, I'm going to try a different take on this. It's been awhile since I've seen Batman Begins, so I'll just lay the groundwork and let others take a stab at answering the question. Here is my question: Could Batman be sued for failure to save Ra's al-Ghul's life? I think that does a good job of mirroring traditional moral judgments about duty to help.

The general rule is this: You do not have a duty to rescue someone, even if helping that person would be of no risk or inconvenience to you and failure to help will certainly lead to that person's death.

But there are two exceptions:
The first is a person in a special relationship (e.g., parent-child, doctor-patient). Obviously those don't apply.

The second is when a person puts someone in peril, makes that peril worse, or makes it harder for others to rescue that person. In that scenario, you do have a duty to help.

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that question?

 

[iguana_tonante]

But there are two exceptions:
The first is a person in a special relationship (e.g., parent-child, doctor-patient). Obviously those don't apply.

Well, technically Ras and Batman are respectively teacher and student. Does that apply?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The second is when a person puts someone in peril, makes that peril worse, or makes it harder for others to rescue that person. In that scenario, you do have a duty to help.

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that question?

I believe that any way in which Batman did any of these things is mitigated by the fact that what Batman did was necessary in order to prevent Ra's from destroying the city. In my posts today, I've described why I believe all that is the case, so I won't repeat all that.

It would be a broken system of justice in which Ra's could conspire to destroy the city as he did, to murder an untold number of people, and then turn around and sue whoever does what is in fact necessary to prevent that.

 

[urbandefault]

Ra's bragged about coming back from the dead, or something to that effect, when he burned down Wayne Manor and left Bruce to die in the fire. If Ra's was so good at it, he shouldn't have had any trouble surviving the train wreck.

 

[Captrek]

Obviously, Batman puts Ra's in peril. Ra's is collateral damage rather than the primary target, but it is still Batman who puts him in peril.

The question is, given that destroying the train is necessary, does the man destroying the train have an affirmative obligation to prevent collateral fatalities from the crash when he has the opportunity?

Keep in mind we're talking Batman law rather than law law. CC's position on Batman's no-killing rule seems to be, "Targeting the bad guys for death as primary targets is unacceptable, but allowing preventable collateral fatalities from one of my attacks is A-OK." And that strikes me as a huge fucking loophole for someone like Batman.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm no expert in the law, but I think that if a person dies in the process of committing a crime it's pretty much an "oh well, sucks to be you" thing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

CC's position on Batman's no-killing rule seems to be, "Targeting the bad guys for death as primary targets is unacceptable, but allowing preventable collateral fatalities from one of my attacks is A-OK." And that strikes me as a huge fucking loophole for someone like Batman.

Except that's not my position, and I never said or implied that.

 

[Captrek]

You didn't? How is this not preventable collateral damage? By his own admission, he could have saved Ra's but felt no obligation to do so. "I don't have to save you" isn't something a superhero says to someone he can't save.

Maybe you can articulate your theory more precisely.

Are you saying Batman didn't kill Ra's? That's absurd. Batman knowingly took actions that led directly and inevitably to Ra's death. He killed him.

So you seem to be saying that this falls under some sort of legitimate exception to Batman's "no killing" rule, but you haven't articulated the nature of the exception to which you are appealing. You mentioned that Ra's was collateral damage rather than the primary target, but say that's not the exception you're claiming. You've pointed out that Ra's, had he lived, would be a continuing threat to Batman, but say that's not the exception you're claiming. So what is the exception that covers what happens to Ra's?

I guess you're making a "self-defense" argument, but I don't think Batman's code permits unnecessarily killing in self-defense.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You didn't? How is this not preventable collateral damage? By his own admission, he could have saved Ra's but felt no obligation to do so. "I don't have to save you" isn't something a superhero says to someone he can't save.

Jesus, dude.

Ra's death is not even necessarily preventable, and Ra's isn't "collateral damage," as if he's some non-combatant bystander. He's the fucking instigator, and he's a legitimate target to be neutralized.

It's obviously implicit that Batman saving Ra's would depend on Ra's' cooperation. It's like you forget that Ra's can defeat Batman. The biggest advantage Batman has at that moment for his own sake is that he's not behaving in the way Ra's expects him to.

What Batman is saying is that there is no reason why he should stick his neck out for Ra's, and I agree completely with that.

Are you saying Batman didn't kill Ra's? That's absurd. Batman knowingly took actions that led directly and inevitably to Ra's death. He killed him.

No. Clearly not.

You mentioned that Ra's was collateral damage rather than the primary target, but say that's not the exception you're claiming.

Except I never said that.

You've pointed out that Ra's, had he lived, would be a continuing threat to Batman, but say that's not the exception you're claiming. So what is the exception that covers what happens to Ra's?

Actually what I said was:

About all that can be said of the actual situation is that Batman failed to live up to any higher standard transcending ordinary moral codes, under which a person heroically acts to save a life even at mortal risk to themselves. But Ra's was not an innocent victim of a criminal, and saving Ra's would likely have cost innocent lives down the road, given Ra's' stated plan for the city. Were those innocents who Batman might not be able to protect Batman's to risk as well?

No one's answered that last question yet that I've seen.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The second is when a person puts someone in peril, makes that peril worse, or makes it harder for others to rescue that person. In that scenario, you do have a duty to help.

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that question?

I believe that any way in which Batman did any of these things is mitigated by the fact that what Batman did was necessary in order to prevent Ra's from destroying the city. In my posts today, I've described why I believe all that is the case, so I won't repeat all that.

It would be a broken system of justice in which Ra's could conspire to destroy the city as he did, to murder an untold number of people, and then turn around and sue whoever does what is in fact necessary to prevent that.

Well, Batman may have affirmative defenses based on Ra's actions, but I'd rather not get into that because that's making this way more complicated than it need be. It's basically a question of whether Batman had a duty to save Ra's life. Technically, I'm sure Talia would be suing as Ra's successor anyway, what with Ra's being dead and all.

 

[Captrek]

Actually what I said was:

About all that can be said of the actual situation is that Batman failed to live up to any higher standard transcending ordinary moral codes, under which a person heroically acts to save a life even at mortal risk to themselves. But Ra's was not an innocent victim of a criminal, and saving Ra's would likely have cost innocent lives down the road, given Ra's' stated plan for the city. Were those innocents who Batman might not be able to protect Batman's to risk as well?

No one's answered that last question yet that I've seen.

We are talking about a specific standard: Batman's personal rule against killing the bad guys. Whether or not that's a "higher standard transcending ordinary moral codes" is another matter.

The fact that Ra's would pose a continuing threat to Batman if he lived is, I believe, irrelevant. Killing the bad guy is often the quickest and surest way to end the fight and eliminate the threat, but Batman surely can't use that as an exception.

The fact that Ra's is collateral damage rather than the primary target is also irrelevant IMO, because it's preventable collateral damage.

So if the "self-defense" and "unavoidable collateral damage" exceptions don't apply, what makes killing Ra's an exception to the no-kill rule rather than a violation?

Dent's case is a pretty easy exception. "It's okay to kill the villain when killing the villain is the only possible way to save the hostage's life" is, I think, generally accepted as a legitimate exception to the rule.

In Ra's' case, we have yet to clearly articulate such an exception.

 

[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.