• 123 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

Does anyone else think that what Bruce does qualifies as murder? Allowing Ra's to die on the train [In Batman Begins] when he could have saved him = murder via negligence.

A little like saying, 'I didn't lie' when you didn't tell someone something. This = A lie of omission.

I was having this discussion with someone a few days ago and they didn't seem to get it. I really don't understand how anyone making that film [Nolan, Bale etc] could validate that scene as Batman not breaking his, '1 rule'. Most importantly, it's never even mentioned by Bruce again, though I would have thought that it would have weighed heavily on his conscience in the future. For example, In, 'the Dark Knight' he saves the Joker as he falls, he could have easily allowed him to die and applied his mantra to this situation as well. Why didn't he?

Unless the reason he saved the Joker was because of his previous failure with Ra's, and that was an exceptionally subtle bit of character development. Though I feel I'm giving the film-makers far too much credit, as it certainly feels like an oversight, after all he later rides off into the sunset with the murderer of the next, 'Big Bad', I could believe he would be sexually or romantically interested in Selina, but the idea of him forming a solid relationship with her is bewildering.

The character lacks anything close to linearity in terms of character development, despite the fact they had a solid 3 film arc to flesh him out, this could have and should have been one of the fundamental parts of Bruce's story, how he deals with his refusal to kill, and if they had still decided to have Bruce kill Ra's, how that moment impacted on him. Of the Batman Graphic Novels I have read [Which I would be the first to admit is limited, but perpetually expanding] I have noticed that an important and truly core component of his character is his strong moral values against murder, under any circumstances, it has caused many breakdowns in relationships, and general psychological torment for the Caped Crusader, I would definitely like to see this aspect further explored in Batfleck's movies.

Any errors I've made are welcome, I would like to think I am 100% wrong as I thoroughly enjoy the Nolan movies, but this has always irked me to no end more than any plot holes or other strange happenings.

Online
#2 Posted by RBT (4829 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope. He didn't blow up the bridge. It was Gordon. He technically didn't murder him.

#3 Edited by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

@rbt: He let him die when he could have saved him.

Online
#4 Posted by ccraft (5591 posts) - - Show Bio

He gave the orders to Jim to blow up the bridge, and then let Ra's die. Maybe manslaughter?

#5 Posted by The_jackolantern (445 posts) - - Show Bio

Manslaughter if anything

#6 Posted by Grand_Overseer_Mu (47 posts) - - Show Bio

Legally speaking, that's at least Manslaughter 1 by the American legal system, with a very real possibility of getting convicted for murder 2.

#7 Edited by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio

Very comparable to Euthanasia. The act of knowingly not helping someone who is bound to die counts as indirect manslaughter.

#8 Posted by Vulshock (159 posts) - - Show Bio
#9 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@warlock360 said:

Very comparable to Euthanasia. The act of knowingly not helping someone who is bound to die counts as indirect manslaughter.

That's not what Euthanasia is. Like, at all.

This isn't murder. It's leaving a known terrorist to their own devices to escape death. Nolan's Batman is far more pragmatic, because he doesn't have the luxury of comic book laws, with the no kill rule.

People freak out about an interpretation because it's not a direct xerox of the comic they usually haven't read or know nothing about.

#10 Posted by SupBatz (1855 posts) - - Show Bio

Absolutely. I felt that Bruce was incredibly out of character in that scene. Batman doesn't let anybody die if he can save them. Period.

#11 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18967 posts) - - Show Bio

@rogueshadow said:

Unless the reason he saved the Joker was because of his previous failure with Ra's, and that was an exceptionally subtle bit of character development. Though I feel I'm giving the film-makers far too much credit, as it certainly feels like an oversight, after all he later rides off into the sunset with the murderer of the next, 'Big Bad', I could believe he would be sexually or romantically interested in Selina, but the idea of him forming a solid relationship with her is bewildering.

This would be my only explanation as well. If he didn't let the Joker fall to his death ala "not save him", he should have not let Ra's die either to keep consistent with his beliefs. The only way you can justify letting 1 die and not the other is to attribute it to character growth and development. But seeing as its never mentioned, it would feel like giving the film-makers more credit than they deserve.

Still two great movies either way, but it is an argument to be used when people start crying about heroes killing villains.

Frankly...more heroes should probably kill more villains if we're being practical about it. Other than eventually running out of villains and thus no more stories...their respective worlds would be better places =P

#12 Posted by Whodid (73 posts) - - Show Bio

I have had many a good debate about the whole I don't have to save you thing, but the reason he saved Joker was he actively threw him off the building, so that would be outright murder. Whereas with Ra's I do believe he wanted to stop the train safely, but he couldn't risk Gothams safety on a fist fight with Ra's. so he had Gordon blow up the track as a contingency (or at least I like to think so)

Although there are other times he did directly kill people like Harvey Dent, or even all the Ninjas that got blown up in the monastery.

And I know it was a desperate situation but he put all those cops in the firing line at the end of Rises, still though I wouldn't change it.

#13 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager said:

@rogueshadow said:

Unless the reason he saved the Joker was because of his previous failure with Ra's, and that was an exceptionally subtle bit of character development. Though I feel I'm giving the film-makers far too much credit, as it certainly feels like an oversight, after all he later rides off into the sunset with the murderer of the next, 'Big Bad', I could believe he would be sexually or romantically interested in Selina, but the idea of him forming a solid relationship with her is bewildering.

This would be my only explanation as well. If he didn't let the Joker fall to his death ala "not save him", he should have not let Ra's die either to keep consistent with his beliefs. The only way you can justify letting 1 die and not the other is to attribute it to character growth and development. But seeing as its never mentioned, it would feel like giving the film-makers more credit than they deserve.

Still two great movies either way, but it is an argument to be used when people start crying about heroes killing villains.

Frankly...more heroes should probably kill more villains if we're being practical about it. Other than eventually running out of villains and thus no more stories...their respective worlds would be better places =P

He threw Joker off the building. That's why he saved him.

Ra's was on a train about to crash. Batman didn't put him there or tie him down. Oh, and Ra's wanted to die, there's that too.

#14 Posted by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio

@warlock360 said:

Very comparable to Euthanasia. The act of knowingly not helping someone who is bound to die counts as indirect manslaughter.

That's not what Euthanasia is. Like, at all.

I didn't mean that the act itself was Euthanasia, i meant that the situation between thus and Manslaughter are similar, in terms of direct and indirect.

#15 Posted by Ninjablade09 (3194 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager said:

@rogueshadow said:

Unless the reason he saved the Joker was because of his previous failure with Ra's, and that was an exceptionally subtle bit of character development. Though I feel I'm giving the film-makers far too much credit, as it certainly feels like an oversight, after all he later rides off into the sunset with the murderer of the next, 'Big Bad', I could believe he would be sexually or romantically interested in Selina, but the idea of him forming a solid relationship with her is bewildering.

This would be my only explanation as well. If he didn't let the Joker fall to his death ala "not save him", he should have not let Ra's die either to keep consistent with his beliefs. The only way you can justify letting 1 die and not the other is to attribute it to character growth and development. But seeing as its never mentioned, it would feel like giving the film-makers more credit than they deserve.

Still two great movies either way, but it is an argument to be used when people start crying about heroes killing villains.

Frankly...more heroes should probably kill more villains if we're being practical about it. Other than eventually running out of villains and thus no more stories...their respective worlds would be better places =P

He threw Joker off the building. That's why he saved him.

Ra's was on a train about to crash. Batman didn't put him there or tie him down. Oh, and Ra's wanted to die, there's that too.

Pretty much. I don't get what all you people are getting at. He didn't kill nor save Ra's. Had he not saved the Joker the Joker would have won. joker was trying to push everyone over into insanity, specifically Batman and Dent. Joker wanted Batman to break his rule. With Ra's he was expecting to be able to stop him before he got on the train, and the back up plan was to destroy the train tracks. It's kinda like the whole thing at the manor minutes earlier. Ra's men lit the house on fire, but a burning piece of debris fell on Bruce. Ra's didn't kill him or save him from the log, so does that mean he would have been the one to kill Bruce? I don't think so.

#16 Posted by Whodid (73 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt said:

@fallschirmjager said:

@rogueshadow said:

Unless the reason he saved the Joker was because of his previous failure with Ra's, and that was an exceptionally subtle bit of character development. Though I feel I'm giving the film-makers far too much credit, as it certainly feels like an oversight, after all he later rides off into the sunset with the murderer of the next, 'Big Bad', I could believe he would be sexually or romantically interested in Selina, but the idea of him forming a solid relationship with her is bewildering.

This would be my only explanation as well. If he didn't let the Joker fall to his death ala "not save him", he should have not let Ra's die either to keep consistent with his beliefs. The only way you can justify letting 1 die and not the other is to attribute it to character growth and development. But seeing as its never mentioned, it would feel like giving the film-makers more credit than they deserve.

Still two great movies either way, but it is an argument to be used when people start crying about heroes killing villains.

Frankly...more heroes should probably kill more villains if we're being practical about it. Other than eventually running out of villains and thus no more stories...their respective worlds would be better places =P

He threw Joker off the building. That's why he saved him.

Ra's was on a train about to crash. Batman didn't put him there or tie him down. Oh, and Ra's wanted to die, there's that too.

Pretty much. I don't get what all you people are getting at. He didn't kill nor save Ra's. Had he not saved the Joker the Joker would have won. joker was trying to push everyone over into insanity, specifically Batman and Dent. Joker wanted Batman to break his rule. With Ra's he was expecting to be able to stop him before he got on the train, and the back up plan was to destroy the train tracks. It's kinda like the whole thing at the manor minutes earlier. Ra's men lit the house on fire, but a burning piece of debris fell on Bruce. Ra's didn't kill him or save him from the log, so does that mean he would have been the one to kill Bruce? I don't think so.

I agree with you about most of this, but I believe if you set someone's house on fire and leave them to burn, and they die. Yes, yes you have murdered them.

#17 Edited by RustyRoy (13968 posts) - - Show Bio

Not saving someone doesn't mean killing, if it was then politicians would be considered mass murderers.

#18 Posted by Lvenger (21233 posts) - - Show Bio

He let Ra'as die when he could have saved him or done otherwise. For me, that's at least manslaughter if not murder. And I'm not a fan of Nolan's interpretation of Batman despite really liking the first two Nolan Batman films. Weird right?

#19 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

Didn't Joker say something along the lines of "Not saving one of them is making a choice" meaning that the choosing to not save someone is choosing to let them die? Maybe that's not murder unless in the strictest definition of the word, but it certainly isn't heroic.

#20 Posted by UncleEmu (179 posts) - - Show Bio

Let's forget the movie for a second. You're on a train that is about to go off the tracks, and there is another person in the train. You jump out of the train. Because you didn't save the other person, have you just murdered that person? I would say no, that is ridiculous. Now put it back in the movie.

#21 Posted by RDClip (1167 posts) - - Show Bio

Nolan Batman kills a hell of a lot more people than just Ra'as. Earlier in Begins, right after he refuses to kill the murderer farmer, he blows up the League mountaintop fortress. In the process, killing at least Ken Wantanabe and probably a few other ninja. During his car chase with the cops, he causes some serious accidents, which would seem likely that a few cops could have died (or at least been seriously injured, permanently). And then there was the scene with Ra'as. No matter how someone tries to justify it, Batman is directly responsible for the death of Ra'as.

That's just the first movie, he kills people in the other two as well as being very careless with other people's well-being to where they may have died or had serious injury.

#22 Posted by HumanRocket (9366 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Best line in the whole movie.

#23 Edited by Reactor (2668 posts) - - Show Bio
@uncleemu said:

Let's forget the movie for a second. You're on a train that is about to go off the tracks, and there is another person in the train. You jump out of the train. Because you didn't save the other person, have you just murdered that person? I would say no, that is ridiculous. Now put it back in the movie.

Faulty reasoning; getting out of the train without Ra's isn't the real issue, it was leaving Ra's when he had the means and power to save him. Change your scenario;

You're on a train that is about to go off the tracks, and there is another person in the train. You see that there is time for you both to get off safely if you help them, but you intentionally choose to leave that person behind knowing full well that they will die without your help. Because you didn't save the other person, have you just murdered that person? I would say yes, that is undeniable. Now put it back in the movie.

#24 Posted by RustyRoy (13968 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

He let Ra'as die when he could have saved him or done otherwise. For me, that's at least manslaughter if not murder. And I'm not a fan of Nolan's interpretation of Batman despite really liking the first two Nolan Batman films. Weird right?

I feel the same way, I liked the movies and how Bale portrayed him but something was always missing, we have yet to see a near perfect portrayal of Batman.

#25 Posted by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy: @rustyroy: I agree, I always felt he was a bit... loose [Not in terms of his bowels or anything] But he just lacked a moral centre/characterisation I could really pinpoint, he was so nebulous in his personality, I never really got where he was coming from [Even though Comic Batman's motives are postulated on faulty logic, I still totally get where he's coming from and understand the character,I don't know in the comics, I just...got it], some other characters were a lot more solid and coherent.

Online
#26 Edited by Jayc1324 (13473 posts) - - Show Bio

In my mind he didnt kill him. It's ra's' own fault for being on the train and making it impossible to stop. You guys are forgetting that part. Nothing batman did killed ra's technically. Yes batman could've saved him, but it's not like batman stabbed him to death or something, or was even te cause of his death.

I think batman was thinking something like this. And remember this is bale batman not comic batman so they don't have the same exact ideals

#27 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

He let Ra'as die when he could have saved him or done otherwise. For me, that's at least manslaughter if not murder. And I'm not a fan of Nolan's interpretation of Batman despite really liking the first two Nolan Batman films. Weird right?

He couldn't have saved him though. The cape has never been able to support more than the weight of one person. It sank like a stone when he grabbed Rachel in Dark Knight, and she weighs a lot less than Ra's. The "I won't save you" is just an awesome line, Bruce couldn't have saved him.

And, once again, RA'S WANTED TO DIE.

"My fate lies with the rest of Gotham"

#28 Posted by Lvenger (21233 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt: Do we always have to argue over Nolan? I do love the first two films but not because of Nolan's interpretation of Batman/Bruce Waye. Bale's performance as both characters was not done well at all IMO. Not how the Dark Knight should have been portrayed. Fortunately, the first two films had so much else right about them that this complaint of mine is outweighed by them.

You've already told me the difference in Nolan's Batman moral codes so we'll have to disagree over whether Batman letting someone die makes for an awesome line or not, regardless of who it is and going against Batman's staunch moral code in the comics.

#29 Posted by M3th (2099 posts) - - Show Bio

Meth would always point that out but everyone would argue with Meth. Batman totally let Ras die but he wouldn't let the Joker fall. It was very annoying for Meth. The only excuse Meth could create was that sometimes death might be the only solution but Batman will not pull the trigger. He'll just won't save ye. It is annoying but screw it.

-m3th.O.D.-

#30 Edited by Nathaniel_Christopher (1687 posts) - - Show Bio

He murdered him yes. That's the way i've always seen it. Choosing not to save someone when you have the ability to is just killing them, but wanting to be able to feel good about yourself and being able to say otherwise. It's a cop out. One of the red marks on Bale's Batman for me. Really, i'd have respected him more if he'd just put a gun to his enemy's head and pulled the trigger. Or had a callback to the old days and had them get into another swordfight where he stabs Ra's and leaves his body.

#31 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Not arguing with you, mate.

Not saying that the characterisation was how Batman should be done, just saying that he couldn't have saved Ra's due to the cape not having the strength. Not an argument, just pointing something out that people seem to be overlooking.

And the bold wasn't aimed at you, but at the other people on this thread who are more "I dont like Nolan's batman coz its diffrunt to what I wood do"

#32 Edited by Lvenger (21233 posts) - - Show Bio

@fadetoblackbolt: I know mate don't worry but we always disagree over matters Nolan it seems. Your points are sound as per usual. And as I said, Nolan gets a lot of things right in the first two films that Batman's portrayal being off doesn't matter. Which is an impressive feat really.

#33 Posted by sinestro_GL (3322 posts) - - Show Bio

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

ALSO...I heard that WB had filmed two endings for the Joker at the end of TDK - one where Bruce saves him, and one where he didn't, but thet scrapped the latter after Heath Ledger passed. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I heard from one of my friends.

#34 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_gl said:

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

Entirely different scenario. Bruce threw Joker from the building. If Joker went splat, that was murder.

Bruce left Ra's to a death machine of his own making, which isn't murder, it's just a dick-move.

#35 Posted by sinestro_GL (3322 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_gl said:

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

Entirely different scenario. Bruce threw Joker from the building. If Joker went splat, that was murder.

Bruce left Ra's to a death machine of his own making, which isn't murder, it's just a dick-move.

Nope.

According to U.S. law, what Bruce did to Ra's meets the murder statute, and Bruce would be faced with a charge of murder in the second degree if he was ever indicted.

Murder 2 - depraved indifference.

#36 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_gl said:

@fadetoblackbolt said:

@sinestro_gl said:

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

Entirely different scenario. Bruce threw Joker from the building. If Joker went splat, that was murder.

Bruce left Ra's to a death machine of his own making, which isn't murder, it's just a dick-move.

Nope.

According to U.S. law, what Bruce did to Ra's meets the murder statute, and Bruce would be faced with a charge of murder in the second degree if he was ever indicted.

Murder 2 - depraved indifference.

So it's illegal to not put yourself in mortal danger to save a terrorist?

To be fair, that does sound like a US law.

#37 Posted by sinestro_GL (3322 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_gl said:

@fadetoblackbolt said:

@sinestro_gl said:

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

Entirely different scenario. Bruce threw Joker from the building. If Joker went splat, that was murder.

Bruce left Ra's to a death machine of his own making, which isn't murder, it's just a dick-move.

Nope.

According to U.S. law, what Bruce did to Ra's meets the murder statute, and Bruce would be faced with a charge of murder in the second degree if he was ever indicted.

Murder 2 - depraved indifference.

So it's illegal to not put yourself in mortal danger to save a terrorist?

To be fair, that does sound like a US law.

Hence why I said "if he was ever indicted"

#38 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinestro_gl said:

@fadetoblackbolt said:

@sinestro_gl said:

@fadetoblackbolt said:

@sinestro_gl said:

Like OP says, he could have applied the same rule to the Joker at the end of TDK...but I guess that scene happened in BB because the film called for it.

Entirely different scenario. Bruce threw Joker from the building. If Joker went splat, that was murder.

Bruce left Ra's to a death machine of his own making, which isn't murder, it's just a dick-move.

Nope.

According to U.S. law, what Bruce did to Ra's meets the murder statute, and Bruce would be faced with a charge of murder in the second degree if he was ever indicted.

Murder 2 - depraved indifference.

So it's illegal to not put yourself in mortal danger to save a terrorist?

To be fair, that does sound like a US law.

Hence why I said "if he was ever indicted"

Ah good point. Covered your bases well haha

#39 Edited by UncleEmu (179 posts) - - Show Bio

Depraved Indifference (2nd degree murder) requires a "callous disregard for human life" in situations where there is "reckless endagerment," such as driving a car too fast and hitting someone, or throwing a tv out the window and it falling on someone. Ra's put himself in that situation. If Batman had trapped him on the train on purpose, or through negligence (as in he was the train operator responsible for getting people off), it could be a 2nd degree murder charge. But as Batman found himself on a train that was going to explode, and Ra's happened to also be on that train, Batman did nothing to put Ra's in that situation or stop him from leaving.

edit: @fadetoblackbolt @sinestro_gl

#40 Posted by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

The point is that Batman has clearly shown a moral urgency to save people wherever possible, in the films he callously lets them die and abandons his moral code when it suits him. An interesting thing for some characters. Not Batman.

Online
#41 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

The point is that Batman has clearly shown a moral urgency to save people wherever possible, in the films he callously lets them die and abandons his moral code when it suits him. An interesting thing for some characters. Not Batman.

Exactly. In the comics he would have at least attempted to save Ras.

#42 Edited by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363: That's the way it should have been played, Batman attempts to save him but Ra's refuses, or Bruce fails, thereby cementing his staunch anti-killing code. It is especially annoying that Bruce ignores his side of the argument on what is essentially the fundamental, and most divisive aspect of their relationship, in the film and the comics. It would have been far more potent for the scene to have Ra's try to deny Bruce his wish to save everyone and then

a) Bruce fail and Ra's in a bittersweet way, 'win'.

b) Or go for the more heroic option and have Bats save him.

I prefer a personally it could have and should have been a core part of the trilogy, but was abandoned after 50 minutes of 'Batman Begins'.

In the actual film Ra's outright wins the debate, Batman succumbs to his darker urges.

People are extending the logistics of the law, and the workings of the legal system. Which is frankly irrelevant to the debate.

Frankly Bale's Batman was a very ungrounded character. I understood Bane, Fox, Gordon and Ra's far better than Batman himself. The Trilogy still somehow manages to be impressive because of them, Bale was nothing special, and I genuinely believe that Affleck has a far greater depth and emotional intelligence than Bale or Nolan did, Nolan was just about being, 'gritty', and, 'real', even though his movies showed nothing close to grit or realism.

Give me Avengers anyday, it doesn't take itself too seriously, it's fun and there's an emotional backbone to it I can buy into.

And don't even get me started on Man of Steel's ending, that needs rectifying. Fast.

Rant over.

Online
#43 Posted by ganon15 (1921 posts) - - Show Bio

@ninjablade09: It's still out of character for Batman, he'd always save someone if he has the chance to.

#44 Edited by ULTRAstarkiller (6491 posts) - - Show Bio

No it was suicide on Ra's part, Batman just watched.

Online
#45 Edited by Ninjablade09 (3194 posts) - - Show Bio

Does it matter it's still a great line.

#46 Edited by Celineness (134 posts) - - Show Bio

It was totally out of character, but we got an apology in the form of him saving the Joker in the next movie.

Any DC comics fan knows that Ras didn't die in that crash :)

#47 Posted by ThanosIsMad (2216 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman letting Ra's die, I had no issue with.

Batman saving Joker after letting Ra's die, I had an issue with. He had more of a reason to simply let Joker fall to his death than he had to simply leave Ra's to die.

#48 Posted by RogueShadow (11963 posts) - - Show Bio

@thanosismad: I can appreciate that. If it had been a character defining moment in BB, where he made a decision post Ra's' death to never kill or not save a life when possible due to his shame and regret for allowing Ra's to die. I could accept that a tiny but more, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it.

@celineness: I'm pretty sure he did. This is Nolanverse, no Lazarus pit for Ra's here. Yeah, it sucks.

Online
#49 Posted by BigCimmerian (8862 posts) - - Show Bio

He killed him, he's goddamn Batman, he's supossed to save everybody, even mass murderers and terrorists. It was completely out of character.

#50 Posted by tokoolio (3 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman didn't murder Ra's. "mur·derˈmərdər/noun 1.the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Batman didn't put Ra's on the train and didn't prevent him from leaving, and he didn't kill him...so it definitely isn't murder. If there is an accidental fire in a building and you run out but could have stayed behind and saved someone who died, you didn't kill them, the fire did...yeah maybe it's not nice, but still. If I get zero credit for the consequences of not stopping someone from putting out a fire, then Batman shouldn't get all the credit for the consequences of not taking Ra's off the train.