I won't kill you but i don't have to save you

>i won't kill you but i don't have to save you

Attached: 5684584568568.png (846x518, 179K)

Classic Jigsaw defense

>the choices were up to them

Attached: Sawiii.jpg (350x233, 71K)

At least he’s not smashing his batmobile into minivans and cleaving through the top of a 10-wheeler.

Yet he managed to rack up a bodycount much higher than if he did.

So Man of Murder becomes Man of Manslaughter?

but that’s killing him

all Batman did was give him a choice

yes Ra's al Ghul choice on his own to hijack the train with his bomb thing

Morally speaking he's not innocent, but techinically speaking he's just allowing Ra's to commit suicide on his own terms

Not really, and the difference is like night and day

It was during the whole "The bad guy HAS TO DIE AT THE END NO EXCEPTIONS REEE" period of superhero films

He jammed the controls and had gordon shoot the rail system out guaranteeing his death but Ra's made the choice to happygas gotham so tough shit

It was up to you, to do like I did, and solve this clever conundrum by bringing your very own set of Wayne Tech off the book memory cloth glider wings to this situation so you could escape. You chose not to do so.

Won't disagree, but seeing where we are now it's better than having a franchise

0.5% chance top that that's murder

Ra's jammed the controls. Batman just changed the where it was going to crash.

>crashing this train.... with no survivors!

you are a big guy

>saves joker, someone arguably far more evil and dangerous than r'as, from falling to his death in the next movie

What did he mean by this?

Attached: maxresdefault (3).jpg (1280x720, 34K)

It was unabashed sequel bait but alas

Why is this a meme now?

Joker wanted Batman to kill him cause then he would've broken his one rule, therefore he saved his life.

how is he more evil? he just wanted to blow up a few people, Ra's was going to induce a city wide mass murder/rape etc

He did.

R'as was driven by his moral code amf genuinely thought gotham's destruction would make the world a better place, whereas the joker exclusively wanted to spread chaos and suffering for no reason than to prove moralists wrong.

your argument is 'it is the thought that counts'?

>"if you kill a killer, the number of killers remains the same"

From a more utilitarian, "who hurts more people" perspective: r'as getting his way would've resulted in the city's absolute destruction. Joker wouldn't have destroyed gotham if he got his way, it would have rather been in a never-ending state of anarchy that in the long run would have produced more suffering than if the league had just ended it all

that was a dumb
>using fucking Joe Chill
>shit training backstory
>shitty watering down of Ra's
>shit plot contrivance with the fucking steam thing

But if you kill another killer after that, the number of killers goes down

Punisher's rebuttal.

Why did he save thejoker? He could have let him fall to his death?

Yeah when he shot those guys they could have easily dodged those bullets. Once the bullet left the chamber they were out of Batman's control.

Better example. When Batman kicked a grenade back to a thug and the thug leaped on it. There wasn't anywhere else Batman could have aimed the grenade to prevent fatalities. I forget why was Batman upset at Superman again? Because as far as I'm concerned Batman took out more fathers and sons and brothers on purpose than Superman did on accident.

Oh nose. This is far more worse than all the life's on the line.

>go ahead, officer. Charge me with... Owning a chainsaw?