Yeah not physically but as far as I'm concerned intentionally not saving someone from certain death is the same as killing them. The authorities in the U.S would arrest you for such a thing and would put you in prison for several years. I am fine with Ra's dying but don't act like Nolan's Batman isn't responsible for his death. Also I do like this and the Dark Knight but prefer Burton's movies.
shareI don't know what US law you think mandates someone to save another, but it definitely does not exist. If i'm walking by and see someone choking and needing the Heimlich, I don't have to do a damned thing. Morally, this may put me in a bad spot, but i'm not going to jail for that.
At best, they could charge batman with vigilantism and reckless endangerment, but nothing to do with Ras' self inflicted death.
If there is a man you know who you believe is guilty of sexual assaulting someone you know, and you coincidentally meet him at a park where there are rocky cliffs, and you yell at him that he deserves to die for that crime, and he falls off and grabs onto the rock he fell off of, and you choose not to help him, and he falls to his death, and there are witnesses down below at the bottom of the cliff, who heard everything you said to him, the police will arrest you and charge you with his death.
It's the samething here. But even if not from a law point but from a moral one, Batman is responsible for his death. Yet everyone insists otherwise.
The police may incorrectly charge me for his death because there would be a reasonable suspicion I may have pushed the guy, but in the scenario you created, i've clearly committed no crime. A good lawyer could probably beat the charges.
So is your argument both the man on the cliff and Batman should go to prison for crimes they didn't commit?
Here's your original argument: "as far as I'm concerned intentionally not saving someone from certain death is the same as killing them." Morally, you may be correct(it's a grey area), but legally, you are 100% wrong.
He had no legal obligation to save him at all, and this didn't contradict his moral code. He said he would not be an executioner he never said he would save everyone he was in a position to.
Also all 3 Dark Knight movies are amazing.
2 are good , the 3rd not so good, just correcting your statement.
shareNo all 3 are good, you are only spouting off your subjective opinion that no one really cares about.
The third movie is easily the greatest conclusion to any trilogy.
Nope , it was a huge disappointment, most people will agree with me , ROTJ , BTTF, LOTR all had far superior conclusions , especially ROTJ
shareIt was everything a conclusion should be and was as close to perfect as it gets. ROTJ was boring until the last act, BTTF was never anything more than an entertaining popcorn flick for 12 year olds, LOTR not only raped the source material but it isn’t a trilogy and the 3rd act: Return of the king had A LOT of problems and plot holes
shareTDKR is the weakest of the trilogy, most people will agree with me, rather boring film if im honest.
shareI’m sorry it didn’t have enough batsuit scenes to satisfy your short attention span . Also the data proves that far more people love it than hate it, you’re in the minority
shareIt is the weakest of the trilogy , most audience reviews back this up, you sir are in the minority.
shareActually IMDb, RT and MC all say TDKR is better than batman begins. Sorry kid, I hope you don’t feel too humiliated
shareI hate embarrassing people but here goes , batman begins is a better film than the dark knight rises , fact, go on most batman fan websites and its clear winner, you lost today kid but it doesnt mean yoiu have to like it, i won today better luck next time
shareYou deflected to critical data yet the critical data says TDKR is better. I have absolutely destroyed you, I kind of feel like a bully but on the other hand you are kind of asking for it. Critics gave it very positive reviews , you are at odds with them, sorry peewee
shareIt is the weakest of the trilogy , most audience reviews back this up, you sir are in the minority.
No.He just choose to be selfish.
shareIncorrect and just shows you do not even understand the film.
Re watch the movie.
How many times has batman saved Ra's al ghul? Once.
How many times Ra's was attempting to kill Batman? More than twice.
It's easy to see why on the train Batman chose to leave Ra's to die.
Incorrect again.
As stated before re watch the whole film you have missed massive points and it is nothing to do with selfishness or revenge.
It is all explained throughout the film.
You appear incapable of forming a counter argument MillerJones, so i will count you defeated.
shareNo argument to begin with you clearly have no understanding of the film or just here to try cause arguments.
As I stated before re watch the film it is very clear to see if you still believe it is based on selfishness etc no one can help you your brain don't appear to understand character development
My brain is wonderful, your knowledge is still weak. Look what is written above, what makes YOU think I don't understand? Learn to count, batman is not a machine.
He saved Ra's but the latter couldn't get it.
You should learn to be more polite.
shareYou should try to stop being a retard.
You have no knowledge you think because someone attempted to kill multi times means he goes for revenge by letting some one die.
As I stated before re watch the film Batman does not work by revenge it shows this in the film and is explained even Bruce didn't follow through on revenge for his parents death again shows plus mentioned in the film.
Ras works by revenge Bruce does not they are the opposites.
Not going to comment anymore you are either just trolling or you as stated to dumb to even understand.
[deleted]
The US authorities would not as there isn't any law requiring you to rescue someone in distress even if you can.
shareI'm not an expert in US law, but I think I read an article once that doctors in the US wanted to be protected from malpractice suits if they attempted to save a bystander's life and the attempt went wrong. I think it was in connection with a doctor who came forward to save a fellow passenger in medical distress, but was subsequently sued by the passenger for malpractice because they were left with permanent injuries.
That would imply that there's no requirement for anyone to have to step up and try to save someone. It's something that's a choice.
the seinfeld 4 were arrested due to the good samaritan law
share