>>99524446It depends on the precise jurisdiction and the circumstances but in general, if you can prevent a person's death without risk or injury to either of you and do nothing to help them, then yes.
The less clear-cut it is that you could step in, the more likely you'll get away with it; if you stood by the side of a railroad and the guy next to you jumped in front of the train coming - with maybe enough time for you to see and realize what had happened - that's obviously different to his laying down on the track and your seeing it, for several minutes, but saying and doing nothing to help just because you didn't feel like helping.
With Batman it's even less clear-cut because clearly his plot armor allows him to carry unreasonably heavy dudes clear of a fire or whatever, and to survive. So when he chooses not to do it, it's done for narrative effect - to shock. But if he were to have his actions questioned and a real court were able to examine both his capabilities on the day in question and his motivations, under say a manslaughter charge, it's a toss-up whether he'd get jail time.
What it's not is a moral equivalence test where you say "x is worth more than y because y did y1, which is a crime". Law in the US is descended from the English system, where you expressly cannot have that kind of moral equivalence test because the system respects earlier judgments and the practicalities of real life (the "reasonableness" test, whether an action is reasonable or not) just as much as statute law, so it's impossible to just make it the law that "y1" is a crime and therefore anybody who's suspected of it has no standing in law, with or without being prosecuted. You can certainly comment on feelings (as motivation, even), but you can't base your legal judgments on them, because when you have a system that respects stare decisis and statute equally, moralistic crusades are pretty worthless. Extrajudicial killing - even if it takes the form of manslaughter - won't fly.