Yeeep that's what most are doing, thinking this is not a debate when they do not decide that. Although some people are writing "fuck you" or "YOU ARE NOT A FAN OF BATMAN" "-if you think he should" Dat's (part of) the internet for ya.
Todd Meeker Maybe he would use his influence to make sure this kind of decision is not easily enforced except in the most extreme cases or that the decision to make it a possible punishment is made as democraticaly as possible with clear heads, in any case if they ever make such a story the ending should be like the answer to the debate, uncertain.
I more think it would more be a failure of the legal system that batman would have to kill at all. Like if he can bring a mass murderer in to the authorities, even once, and the courts decide to put them in arkham rather than give the death penalty, then it's on the courts head that they would escape and start killing again, not on batmans. So I feel like the only opportunity where it would be acceptable for batman to kill would be when there is no opportunity to bring someone in and put them at the mercy of the law, which is a pretty rare thing when you primarily work in a city and putting someone at the mercy of the law often just means a 20minute drive to the police station.
So far, my opinion is almost a compromise of the two views. I believe that it is essential to Batman's character that he does not execute criminals. However, I am okay it Batman killing someone in a story if it is addressed as the exception, rather than the norm, and is treated with great gravity. One example of that would be Batman killing Harvey Dent in Nolan's "The Dark Night." At that point, it was the only way an injured Batman could save Gordon's son, and when he crossed the line, the story used that to symbolize a victory for the Joker over Batman's moral code. So the story made good use of it and did not gloss over it, like Tim Burton or Zack Snyder did in "Batman Returns" and "Batman v Superman." For something like BvS, I actually would not have minded Batman killing if the DCEU illustrated that this was the result of Batman not being in his right mind, and showed us what made Batman snap (like in "The Dark Knight Returns," where we see Batman becoming more brutal and turning away from his moral code, which is one factor that makes Superman, his most trusted ally, actually oppose him this time).
Batman: "Every decision you made has resulted in death and suffering. I lock you up, you just break out and do it again." Joker "Think of it as a running gag."
Imagine the "under the red hood" storyline in current DCEU. The main point of that story was Jason being pissed off that Bruce didn't kill the Joker. Now their conversations would probably go something like: Jason: I'm going to murder the fuck out of that clown and you can't stop me! Bruce: Sure, go ahead. Jason: What? Bruce: I kinda stopped caring about the "non-killing" shit since the last movie, in fact, you need some help murdering the fuck out of that clown? And then they held hands and went on a joyful murdering adventure while the adventure time theme plays in the background.
I think the Red Hood story would be more interesting in the DCEU continuity. Instead of Batman hanging onto a cliché, he'd have to redeem himself as well as Jason.
It's not that hard of a workaround, in fact, they've already done something similar in Batman Forever. Robin wanted to kill Two-Face, and Batman stopped him, and told him it would just consume him, because he knows what that's like, cause he's killed before.
"Batman Forever" was playing off what happened in "Batman" and "Batman Returns". Keaton's Batman killed people in both movies, and in Returns, he tried to convince Catwoman to give up her quest for revenge just like he tried to convince Robin in Forever. Point is, it's not a ridiculous way to explore this theme. Forever kind of fumbled it, but the DCEU could give us a more thorough exploration.
Didn't Joker even kill like a million people in one story arch??If killing a million people doesn't earn you a bullet from Batman to your head....NOTHING WILL...EVER!!
The Emperor Joker storyline where Joker had Bat-Mite's powers. And killed Batman over and over again. And Batman was pretty well helpless in that situation.
I think Batman not killing is also an editorial guard; If allowed to kill, some writers would take it way over the top, until all the things that made him unique would be gone forever.
yes, yes he should...and, in fact, has on several occasions. He's actually pretty flexible on his "one rule". Still, no telling how many thousands of lives he could have saved by killing the joker the first time they met.
clericofchaos1 Logically he should yes. But him not killing as a character is what sets him apart from characters like The Punisher. It shows his internal struggle and makes it more impactful when he does kill as a last resort. It also shows why he is better than the villains within a story. Just to reiterate, that doesn't means it's the most logical in terms of real life. But he's a superhero.
What about normal criminals would he kill them too, what about the supervillains that are just burglars, think about Batman War on Crime, Batman doesn't just fight supervillains he fights normal people that are trying to get by, he fights dumb kids in gangs, he fights for justice for all he can't just be grand executioner, while he still finds problems with the law he still wants to respect it at the end of the day. He still wants to help the supervillains that are just unfortunate people like Two-Face, Clayface, and Mr. Freeze and imagine a Batman that killed guys like Killer Moth or Condiment King. Any jackass with a gun and enough practice can be a killer, but no jackass with a gun can be Batman. If Batman killed it would be like giving up hope for the future and the ideals that this guy can get better. Batman wants to be better than all the bad things around him, he wants change, and becoming a brutal symbol of death isn't change in Gotham, it's an exception.
Ya...except the Joker and I think 1 and 2 other Gotham villains have beaten Superman, Joker even Joker toxicen-ed him to fight Batman once(I think even the whole Justice League too). Batman may never "finish the job for good" but he definitely is the best one to do the jobs for Gotham and some specif cases beyond Gotham, like most heros in the Justice League at least. ...Also I see you stem from the Superman>Batman in the first place, to me a delusion to many but that's not the argument here.
+Giga Phoenix - Superman can travel at the speed of light, he can clean up all crime in an instant, the stories where he gets toxin used on him etc.. are convoluted due to his powers. If you look at raw "facts" about him, he can solve all problems instantly. +CJ Phoenix - Gotham is part of the world, and one of the worst parts of it (by crime/super-villain rates) by ignoring the rampant crime in Gotham, Superman is essentially actively encouraging crime to breed there, knowing full well batman can't actually stop it. Always remember Batman can only fight crime, he can't stop it. Superman could (if he chose to stop it)
Lol-ok man, how am I supposed to take your "raw facts" when you dismiss others just because their convoluted, "extremely complex and difficult to follow" is not a comeback, if anything it complements those stories. Which by the way you did not dispute in the slightest, just sated one thing that Superman can do that Flash and maybe even *SONIC the Hedgehog* makes a joke out of, and neither of them nor Batman is weak to an incredibly common glowing *rock*. Besides even if Superman was faster than that (and even I think he is) that is still not "instantly" either. Even Flash's speed still can't handle everything either of course. Btw Superman "Choseing to stop crime" as you say, is exactly what happens in the Injustice comic series, Superman becomes a dictator who abuses the powers you fans take pride in, and essentially gives Joker his biggest win and last laugh ever (in non-cannon history anyway). Then he becomes the one Batman has to beat over and over again which he does, with a lot of difficulty and help of course.
Rob won this one without saying as much. No one is saying that Batman needs to kill random muggers or even villains like Penguin, but when you're a villain who's massacred thousands of innocent victims like the Joker, at some point it becomes Batman's vault? Marvel has done a better job dealing with a no killing rule with Spider-Man. Spider-man tries not to kill but if he feels he has no choice, he will. He once tried to kill Otto Octavius cause he figured Doc Ock has killed and threatened so many people that if he had the power to stop him then it was his responsibility to do so. Batman can have a no killing rule, but don't act like it makes him a hero. Those victims wouldn't see it that way.
Linklex7 Did Rob win, or do you just agree with him? I don't really care which side you take, but I don't think they did a good job arguing either point.
Batman doesn’t have the ability to make judgement calls like that and he knows it…he knows he wouldn’t know where to draw the line, and eventually he would put a bullet in someone’s skull for something as little as missing the trashcan and accidentally littering. That’s why he doesn’t kill. It’s because he knows that if he’s insane enough to dress in a mammal-fetish suit and put his life on the line every single night for the rest of his life, he’s not sane enough to determine which criminals should live and which criminals should die…he knows he doesn’t have the best judgement when it comes to things like this
I think Batman choosing not to kill, and going out of his way not to, is another layer of his willpower. And Batman's sheer will is what makes him interesting.
Batman killed in the golden age. Not killing wasn't the point of his character until they changed it. The original point of his character was vengeance.
you know characters change and evolve, batman was pretty boring in those incarnations, i mean superman could not fly, batman not killing its what makes him interesting.
I think one of the main reasons batman got into the justice league was because he helped pay for everything, set up their tech, and helped give the JLA the right connections and legal assistance. Like, I'd almost say there wouldn't be a JLA without batman, same as how there wouldn't be a military if it only consisted of people who fired rocket launchers. It really takes a village to be able to keep things running smoothly, so it makes Batman all the more valuable for having near limitless resources, being able to do the work of like a hundred people (so way less people to risk exposing super-secrets too), and on top of it, do it all very discreetly. Like, even if batman had no combat ability whatsoever, he'd still probably be a basically priceless and irreplaceable asset to the JLA simply because nobody else has the same level of resources and drive as he does.
"Batman killed in the Golden Age" You mean Batman killed in his first year. For the whole rest of the Golden Age up to today, he's remained the "violent pacifist" that he is known for. That same first year the character was called "The Bat-Man" with a hyphen. He operated in the real life New York City instead of the fictional Gotham City. He chain smoked. His secret base was in the cellar of an abandoned barn instead of the Batcave. He never heard of Alfred. He also worked with District Attorney Harvey KENT. The character was still a work on progress. He began as a ripoff of The Shadow and perhaps a dash of Hugh Hefner, and did not come onto his own yet. That Bat-Man killed, because he was not yet Batman.
No it wouldn't. Batman has caused the deaths of thousands by letting those he takes out like Joker and such without lethal force. If he killed them he'd be saving lives and there's no negative to that. He's doing it for a greater cause seeing as that's his biggest flaws.
DavidProducts Yes wipe a few criminals off the streets and then watch as the streets get tougher and chaos in gotham increases because batman is a jackass lunatic slaughtering people. It's the same reason why the punisher doesn't work. No one is to decide who dies and who lives. It wouldn't make batman any different from a serial killer. Yeah he kills for what he calls "good" but then again, he's killing. It's like being an atheist and believing in God. You can't do both.
It's Over 9000 Productions Ok, so explain to thousands of innocent people Joker and Harley have killed over the years. That's Batman's fault since he created them.
This is the problem. we don't need the Joker. He's fun to have around but he's a rut. He's the exact same concept every times he's brought back and batman seems to deal with him mostly the same way. They need to expand. Bring in new villains. bigger badder compact villains for gotham that batman can fight. newer, interesting stories that can be written. Expand and bring in different views. Batman needs to be able to decide that killing is for the greater good and it can't corrupt him because he's doing what he has to do in order to save the foreseen thousands that will die because he chooses to throw those villains into an asylum that doesn't rehabilitate them. No, he doesn't have to kill petty thieves or desperate people trying to get by. Those people can be given a fair chance at life. Something bruce wayne can produce for them so that they don't have to go back to that life. But those so twisted and turned that they would kill indiscriminately need to die. *Batman not killing these mass murderers doesn't make him a hero with a set of values. It makes him incompetent and an enabler.* He's allowing them to kill over and over again. That's what you call a failure. Edit: My answer which I left out was Should batman kill? Yes and no. HE should when it's neccessary. When he has no other option but to end someone who cannot be changed and will continue to kill regardless of batman stopping them. Killing to save a life will not change your character. It sets your limits. " This is how far I have to be pushed to kill. To kill one to save thousands. to set asside my pride and personal struggle to save an innocent bystander caught up in my mess. I vowed to protect Gotham. What am I willing to do to save a life? Will I let them die to save myself from confronting whether killing is the right thing to do? Or will I put aside my selfishness and give my all to protect those who need to be protected and stop them from being harmed? " If batman wants to be a hero He needs to kill those who are a MASSIVE threat. He needs to know his limits. Is his pride and morals so fragile that killing would break him? He's no better than those who kill by letting innocents die by not doing everything in his power to stop them. He can take out petty thugs without killing them. When someone will kill without prejudice to mess with you it's time for them to die.
DavidProducts Its simple, if Batman cleans up the big threatening criminals permenantly, then it would give the cops an easy job to protect Gotham. This would make Batman obsolete and he would himself become a target for the cops because Batman is a criminal.
Joker hasn't been "the exact same". You've had versions where he was basically a practical jokester (the 1960s Batman series exemplified this), the former gang member/leader turned maniac (1989's Batman for example), agent of chaos (Dark Knight trilogy), and unpredictable psychopath (most recent incarnation). Oh, and on Gotham, a circus kid that didn't like his mom banging a clown. So he killed his mom (seriously, check this guy out, very good version).
Fionordequester What if Bruce Wayne is also a strong opponent of the death penalty and has blocked several attempts of the executions of these killers😆
I've always felt it depended on the setting more than anything. A lighter setting like the original Adam West series or most of the cartoons it's fine if he doesn't kill. It's basically implied in most of those settings that no one ever really dies, no matter how big the bombs or how many bullets are shot. Darker settings with a body count so high you can't believe any one still lives in Gotham brings up more questions however. If not kill Batman should do something to help the justice system along being rich and connected as he is. Why Bruce Wayne hasn't improved the jails, asylums etc that all the criminals go to. But the problem is Comic books hate coming up with new material and anything that actually resolved a problem will always be ignored in favor of reusing the same villains.
You did a good job debating this. I really saw both sides. I think Walter proved his side best as soon he lifted The Punisher DVD up; that'd be basically Batman if he kills. Rob proved his side best when he said then Batman should constantly struggle with this...and he does a lot in the comics and in the Tim/Dini-verse, but mostly it is taken for granted now. Very meaningful.
The point of being good isn't necessarily to counter the bad. It's to be better. It's to be the bigger man/woman. If somebody repents their evil persona simply because of good deeds, then that's fine, but nobody should fluctuate their morals in order to appease the situation. That's not strength, that's hypocrisy.
Frog Redstar This. Literally this. I always look for people who use this argument whenever this kind of discussion starts. Guys like you know the character better than most.
I think Batman should only ever kill as a last resort where there are no other options. He should go out of his way to minimize deaths, but at the same time, he understands that accidental deaths are inevitable. For those who don't know, Daredevil has killed people in the comics on very rare occasions. I wouldn't mind Batman adopting a similar morality.
18:00 how a supervillain escaping from the system is Batman's fault? Because he doesn't kill them? What kind of reasoning is that? You see, this, right here, is THE problem I have when people complain about Batman not killing and argue he should kill. Because you're blaming him for the murders of someone else when it's not his fault. The system sucks, it's the system that keeps putting The Joker and everyone else in a fucking mental hospital instead of in a fucking prison. It's the system that even though it's been proven time and time again that Arkham DOESN'T FUCKING WORK, don't do anything to improve it. So how is that on Batman? Batman shouldn't kill... just like no other hero should kill, because he's a hero. That's the only reason there is, and that's the only reason you need. Batman not only needs to be a symbol that scares the living shit out of Gotham's criminals, but also a symbol of hope (kind of) for the regular folks that still live in Gotham. If anything, my only problem with Batman modus operandi is that he doesn't go after the crooked cops, judges and politicians that keep fucking the system up. But he shouldn't kill them either, rather expose them. The rules that should apply for superheroes are the same rules that apply to regular cops. Lethal force is allowed when there's no other choice. If there is an alternative (and 99% of the time there is) they shouldn't use lethal force.
if you kill joker you prove joker's point of view, you become something corrupted, you are no longer a hero, people don't trust you, the police won't let you operate anymore, it always starts at one dead (if batman killed joker what's stopping him to kill two-face), at this point what batman and joker are having is not a physical war, it's a philosophical war, the winner sets the state of how people will react, if joker's philosophy wins people will accept that joker's chaos is better than order and gotham will succumb to complete madness, if batman's philosophy wins people will know that there is another way. It's not as simple as "he's a killer, he should die" there is a lot more in this question.
You're just pulling what the Dark knight returns did many years ago. If this was Lex I would kinda of understand, but the Joker is a literal killer clown. He's not some fucking James Bond villain! Why is everyone titling Chaotic Natural under his picture? Because he fucking loves to spread pain and sorrow to everything, with the attention of keeping you alive. Saying the people would rather fall into his chaos is literally an understatement because they're already in hell! Who the fuck wants to keep him alive? Why should they keep the very person who literally slaughters millions if not more? Your argument holds no ground because I see no reason why Bruce, or Gotham at this matter, wishes to keep him alive. Two-face is gone. Fucking Penguin is just a money loving asshole!
The thing with the first episode of Batman Beyond is that it wasn't just that he used a gun. But it was that moment that he realized that BECAUSE he had to use a gun, he was no longer capable. He got his ass kicked by a thug. It's like, "I'm finally weak enough to where the only thing that can save me is a firearm. It's time for me to retire." Then the gun thing in general is just another kick in the ass.
Well maybe not Batman, but the fact no cop has just plugged the Joker is just dumb. The guy has killed enough people to be labeled a domestic terrorist
The Joker has been shot dozens of times by other characters. Jim Gordon blew out the Joker's kneecap in retaliation for him murdering Sarah Essen Gordon. Ironic due to what the clown did to his daughter. He later had to gall to attempt to sue Gordon over that, but since this was during the No Man's Land where Gotham was not under governance by any state entity, the lawsuit had had no leg to stand on. Maggie Sawyer unloaded her pistol through his chest during the "Soft Targets" arc of "Gotham Central." (A must read BTW, and seemingly a major influence on Nolan's The Dark Knight.) But he survived due to plot armor. In my head canon, the Joker is secretly immortal/invincible but hides his powers. Think of all the impossible escapes from death he has achived through the years. I know someone here will bring up the Three separate Jokers explanation from recent canon, which I don't really care for.
A cop named Josef Muller actually shot Joker point blank in the face one time... The Joker survived this for the same reason he keeps breaking out of the asylum. Because he's The Joker...
The thing is, if Batman didn't want to kill someone like the Joker, he could just break his neck and cripple him from the neck down. He does that very thing in The Dark Knight Returns.
Really the question isn't should Batman kill... its Who the FUCK in Gotham keeps getting the clearly criminal psychopaths with mountains of evidence on them off the hook or shipped back to Arkham. The joker might get to pull the excuse he's insane on maybe... a jury or two but by the third time, Its clear he's a danger to society and needs to be put down. He cannot be reformed 'hell he outright admtis he doesn't want to change multiple times... before killing his doctor at that moment!' Yes I know the actually answer is a Meta one. The Writers want The Villains survive cause their popular' and so they can be used in other stories. Joker sensibly being executed after his second massacre of people would ruin that.
The reason why Batman kills in the movies is the same reason Superman does, they stop being Super Heroes to become Action Heroes instead. A Super Hero can have a code vs killing but an Action Hero's destiny is to end the villain. It's Cowboy Justice, the TV Trope conclusion where the bad guy in the black hat is shot down by the hero wearing the white one. :/
Anyone who reads Batman comics, plays the Arkham Games, or watched any of the animated films knows that Batman will NEVER intentionally kill. (While some situations may involved accidentally manslaughter which Batman immediately regrets) Anyone who watches the movies should know that the Directors have no earthly idea how Batman should work if he is blowing people up with glee. Christ Nolan was the only person who understood why the No Guns No Killing rule was important to Batman, but at the same time understood that in the realistic approach to the Batman character, people would inevitable die. While still not intentionally murdering someone like Batfleck or Burtonman.
My default answer to this question is that since all superheroes started life as kids stories they shouldn't kill because despite the harsh truth of the matter we shouldn't act like killing is a soloution.
But you see, killing is the solution most of the time in cases of the joker, IDC about mental illness, not worth the burden on society, just put them down like a dog so us normal people don't have to worry that some "mentally ill" guy is going to come out and shoot me and the law will not do much cause he can't control his actions. Just kill him if rehab doesn't work, after the second capture, he should be killed. first time, rehab, if that doesn't work he dies
So what's wrong with society is we would let psychotic killers free after rehab has failed before, if it doesn't work the first time, then they should die, as they odviously don't care about who they hurt,kill, or whatever other sadistic act, I know if I wasn't in control of my actions due to mental insanity (if I was at gunpoint and forced to kill then I am not guilty) then I would want to be put down so I wouldn't hurt anyone else.
Right and (with no experience of actually being insane) I would say that's true of me as well but I think that before you need to see killing as being detestable before you see it as necessary.
How can Batman have the moral high-ground, have people look up to him and aspire to be like him, if he kills people? Besides, remember what he said in "Under The Red Hood"?: "If I do that, If I go down into that place....I'll never come back." Batman knows that there is a distinct chance that if he kills, even someone as horrible as the Joker, it'll be that much easier to kill the next person who crosses the line. I'm not saying the system in Gotham isn't broken and the revolving door of Arkham isn't a problem, but if killing was the answer to that problem we wouldn't have ended up with The Justice Lords.
Jason Todd: What? That your moral code just won't allow for that? It's too hard to cross that line? Batman: No! God Almighty, no. It'd be too damned easy. All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others, and then... end him. Batman: But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back.
What is wrong with a character who avoids killing when he can, but when it comes down to it they won't hesitate to kill the bad guys? That is why I loved the first season of Arrow, the hero there made sense and his code was respectable instead of some unrealistic extreme.
I agree. I just see a lot of heroes take the "under no circumstances can I kill bad guys". The world doesn't work that way is the thing and seeing characters have to decide where they draw that line is a big part of what makes them compelling to me. If it's just "I don't do this ever because it is bad" then you're giving an easy answer for a complicated situation. I'm not advocating for gunning down baddies left and right, merely seeing the possibility be one the hero has to fall to when there's little alternative.
Once again guys great debating your really getting good at this you've come a long way I'm very proud how well you both presented the arguments and best of all you kept it civil even when you couldn't see eye to eye well done.
Never. It just wouldn't make sense. 1. He would have no Rogues Gallery if he did. 2. Gordon wouldn't work with him if he did. 3. He wouldn't be as sympathetic and identifiable if he did. 4. You'd be gutting the most interesting part of the Batman/Joker relationship. 5. Alfred wouldn't respect him as much. 6. Dick Grayson and Tim Drake wouldn't respect him at all. Why are we even having this discussion?
Batman does not have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies.its the states job to keep the villains locked up or put them down permanently.every time a villain escapes and commits murder the blame is on the prison and the government for sucking at their job.
God Xenous Guys, I love Batman. I spent most of my childhood pretending to be him. But he is fiction. Created as an art, meaning it can be interpreted by the viewer/reader/etc. The way I interpret the character is a vigilante that believes that he should not kill. It's just my opinion. If you disagree, please tell me how you see the character.
Batman is all about gray areas and trying to find distinctions between himself, and his villains. If he kills, that gets rid of his character dynamics with several villains. His dynamic with Ra's Al Ghul, for example, would be ruined. How could he go up against him or the Red Hood, if he basically agrees with them? Him not killing is one of his main distinguishing features. If he doesn't hold himself to that standard, he loses a lot of what makes him interesting in the first place.
I think that, if there's a murderer who has no family or close friends, killing that murderer would probably be the best possible way to save more lives in general. After all, the Joker is deranged, and incapable of recovery. Joker has no friends or family, the closest is Harley and she's even better off without him. When it comes down to it, the amount of people Joker is GOING To murder, because yes Batman he WILL escape Arkham again you know he will, far outnumber AND out-value his single life. It really has to be cases like the Joker though, cases where it's clear there's no way to reform the villain, and no way to keep them locked up. Furthermore, if they have family, then THAT matches up to Batman's rule, he doesn't kill because he doesn't want to leave someone behind to feel the way he feels. Therefore, killing someone who's a villain for the sake of their family is a no-go, even if they're clearly deranged.
MrServantRider Joker actually has died before. Several times. He always comes back no matter how many times he meets his end. In the case of your argument, it isn't so much Batman perpetuating a cycle as much as The Joker REFUSES to stay dead.
I think is more of a case of "should he be able to kill" as in, if the situation becomes so big and the stakes become so high that he might have to kill, should he be able
Should Batman Kill? In the real world, the simple answer would be "FUCK YES!!!" at this point. But in the world of comics, Batman is supposed to be more than a man, he's a symbol, one who believes nobody is beyond redemption, whatever their crimes. So in trying to redeem a handful of people, he's allowing them to rack up hundreds, thousands, or even millions in death tolls, depending on the severity of their crimes.
Do I think Batman should kill? Definitely, In the line of work that Batman does, Sometimes it's just the answer to protect the greater good - But Walter brought up a great point about how it humanizes him, It's not easy for any person to kill. I mean he watched his parents get shot in front of him and I'm sure the thought of killing returns him to that memory. I love this debate for how conflicted it made me feel on the matter, I actually don't know where I sit anymore
Walter doesn't seem to understand, that Robs initial statement was not: "Batman should kill every crook and gangster". It was : "When you know for a fact, that mass-murderous villains have a chance, however small, to escape from confinement AGAIN after doing so repeatedly, it would be amoral not to kill them. Or do you think the lives of Jokers victims are worth less than the life of an antisocial, murderous psychopath who can't or won't be reformed? And I always find it kind of strange, that in this universe, I'm supposed to believe in Superstrength and Mutants, but capital punishment doesn't exist? The only reason not to kill the villains is, that you might not have a long-running comic book franchise if you kill off all the villains.
I'm a fan of Batman and I think he should kill. Thinking he should kill doesn't make you less of a fan of Batman. Are you suggesting Bob Kane and Bill Finger weren't fans of Batman?
+Rayn Wolfsbane If you want a superhero who kills, go enjoy Wolverine or Punisher. Killing would just ruin the whole point of Batman. He wouldn't have a Rogues Gallery, it would mess up his relationships with Gordon and Dick and Tim, it would ruin the relationships with Joker and Jason, and it would take away the identifiable aspect of him.
Personally, I don't see how his "I won't kill" stance makes him MORE human. It makes him less so, to me. Because he's perfectly willing to let people like the Joker and other psychopaths run around murdering HUNDREDS of people, yet he won't put a stop to them once and for all. He just beats them up and tosses them into a "prison" that they break out of on a regular basis. He comes across as more of a programmed robot than a human being, by constantly sticking with this code that, in all honesty, makes no sense given the psychopaths he deals with. He claims he wants to make Gotham "safe", but he turns his back on people who are being murdered left and right, when he COULD have simply ended the killing. The Joker's bodycount in various media is in the thousands. They just won't make Bats kill him because they need him as a recurring villain. But looking at it objectively? Of course he should kill the guy. It's insane not to.
He has before, in various incarnations. Golden Age Batman, Killing Joke (tosses a midget into a pit of spikes), Batman and Batman Returns (Michael Keaton films), Flash Point, Gods and Monsters, and of course Batfleck. Not sure why so many people are getting their panties in wads over this. Not exactly a new concept.
fromolwyoming Golden Age Batman killed for only a year, and isn't canon, Killing Joke only had Batman kill in the animation, Batman and Batman Returns are good movies in their own right, but I want to see more faithful adaptations, Flashpoint and Gods and Monsters were alternate universes where Bruce Wayne wasn't Batman, and Batfleck's murder spree was the final nail in that movie's coffin for me. I think people, like myself, are just a little miffed that outside the animated movies, we haven't had a faithful adaptation of the main canonical timeline Batman.
I'm honestly okay with some incarnations of Batman killing people. Even full on Batfleck/Punisher mode. But the mainstream Batman should not kill, though I agree with Rob on how it needs to be explored further. Also, the bigger issue with the letting super villains go into a cardboard prison is the justice system. Batman has delivered these mass murderers to the court with ample evidence of their crimes time and time again, yet they have never simply executed them. Why has Gotham not passed a law letting them use the death sentence even on insane criminals?
I think it’s funny it took Batman until 2022 to finally have a movie where he doesn’t kill someone… Pattinson is the first Non-lethal movie Batman. …also, Batman doesn’t kill because he knows he doesn’t have the willpower or the judgement to decide who lives and who dies. That’s why Red Hood is such a good member of the bat-family. Because unlike Bruce, he *can* make those judgement calls, he knows what needs to be done, and he has no hesitation to do so…
Dennis Reynolds ...Do you even know what was going on in that movie? That was an alternate timeline where Bruce Wayne (the man we know as Batman) died, driving his parents insane, causing his mother to become the Joker, and his father to be a darker version of Batman that used guns and relied on drugs to fight crime.
Yeah, why not? He's already killed the Joker twice in my lifetime. The entire 'no killing' thing is a completely arbitrary after school cartoon fabrication. No offense to Conroy and Hamill and company, but none of that existed before then.
Should he. No. *Should* he. Yes. It makes sense. That's why it's a conflict. The fact that so many fans are on the fence about this is part of why it's such a good trait to have - stubborn even in the face of reason, giving us something to debate about. I think one thing that makes it awesome is how sometimes the villains help the heroes, even indirectly. -Who finished off Alexander Luthor? Joker. -In *The Batman* (I know it's not the most popular series, but this is still a cool example) when 'The Joining' was attacking Gotham, all the villains were on board to fight them back and it even had both Gordon and Freeze save each other's asses and nod mutually. -Dent during the "Hush" series (to an extent) -Clayface during/post "Rebirth" So on and so forth. I like when these situations happen, where the villains become heroes. That's part of why I like Suicide Squad (not really the new movie that much) - ideas that would be hard if Batman was thinning the roster. I think the biggest reason he doesn't do it, the exploration that needs some exposition I guess, is because if you look at his villain roster as they are now, they are almost all tragic villains. Even though Batman took a different path, he absolutely relates to having been driven over the edge by tragedy. Deep down, he wants to help them, perhaps even turn their experiences into something productive. There wouldn't be anything more fulfilling for someone like him.
That was a criticism that often surrounded Tim Burton's take on Batman, that Batman was portrayed as killing bad guys when he's just a mere bringer of justice.
let's look at this in a realistic view, if batman kills joker then he would prevent thousands of deaths from happening. if batman locks joker up, eventually joker will escape and kill more people and that's just a cycle of deaths that batman could've prevented with one bullet.
Max Its not realistic, we are talking about Batman. You have to have characters have their own characteristics and not all be the same. Batman not killing is his, so if you don't like that that's perfectly fine, of course. But that is the character.
Yes he should, i get that he wouldnt come back from it and to be fair i dont care about Batman in the first place for just this reason. His issue with not killing the villains whom will continually break out and kill again makes me just not care about him. Its not a thing to me of his character because i am not involved in his character, to me it is simply the logic and morals of saving the most people possible, and to do that batmans villains should die. If he has to be the one to do so, so be it.
The biggest problem with Batman is "The Fear". He uses the Bat Persona to instill fear to his enemies. To be honest, the previous Batman films didn't give that feeling at all. BvS does. Can you imagine being a criminal and being branded by Batman and finding out that it's a death sentence once you go to prison? Even I don't want the Batman to do that to me. It's terrifying.
I think the most important aspect of Batman that a lot of people are forgetting is his compassion. He's not Batman because he likes beating people up or simply because he hates crime. He does it because he wants to prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. He won't kill because he knows that even the worst villains have people who care about them and he doesn't want the families of those villains to go through something like that. And even though he beats up his villains, he understands how one bad day can ruin someone's life. So he's always trying to help them get better so they could redeem themselves.
What I enjoy about batman most from what I know of him is that he is a rather intelligent man who is both "street smart" and possesses this incredible understanding of both himself and the people he encounters. He has trained himself to become a weapon and has honed the tools in his possession to remain creative to such an extent as to be a genuine threat in nearly every circumstance. To me, the beauty of such a character is that knowledge of potential and the definitive struggle against pushing the boundary too far. The idea of contingency upon contingency to deal with threats without resorting to the final measure of death because that is what it is: a final measure. I think that what Batman realizes is that death isn't a real solution for anything because the implications and consequences will ultimately lead to more problems. I still remember this episode I saw only once of him meeting a team of ex-heroes who provided him a direct representation of the most likely possibility to result from even a single deliberate death. The image of how haunted these people were from such an incident is still prominent in my memory despite years having passed since I saw it. It served as a painful reminder that, no matter how capable or depended upon he is, Batman and even all of the other heroes are still human or at least highly in tune with the idea of humanity. Even one life can be emotionally taxing and to constantly care for hundreds every minute is a huge burden on a hero. For a deliberate choice to be made to end even a single life can break the very fabric of what holds these heroes and Batman himself in check. And while it may not always be shown on camera or in a picture, the weight of the crimes Joker and the other villains commit is a taxing burden on Batman too. But since he knows just how close he walks beside the people he fights against, he has to acknowledge the question of which decision would create a better outcome. To kill a moral code has the potential to shatter an entire personality. It could cripple him, as it did for that team of heroes, such as to never involve himself in the fight again. Or, with his experience of the unsavory side of the world and just how awful humans have the capacity to become, he could transform into an even greater threat than his greatest foe. In addition, were such a twist to be made, Batman would have no obsession, no focus to center his destructive capability. He'd be that chemical cloud of poison that just drifts where the wind takes it, snuffing lives without so much as a thought. Or he could rely on his intelligence alone to disintegrate the already rotten roots of humanity and society in the most damaging way conceivable. This is the gamble and dilemma he has to face. More than an action-fighting hero, I consider Batman as more of a detective, the one who actually puts the pieces together without being completely strung along by the villain unlike most superheroes I can think of to name. But like the great detectives we know from media, Batman treads a fine balance between understanding his adversary and becoming a villain himself. To help maintain himself on the track he believes is right, he holds himself to a strict set of rules with the most important being not to kill. Without that measure, there would be no more Batman to speak of. Only the monster he could transform to be. For that reason, I believe that Batman should not - and arguably cannot - kill.
By not killing, Batman is very bit as morally guilty as the "villains" he has stopped. He is more than aware that these same individuals will be back on the streets in only a short time later. At some point, the writers ought to have new antagonists for Batman to face off against that still allows him to explore various conflicts. This means that Batman ought to either kill or establish a secure facility...otherwise the body count of all the villains are also Batman's body count.
I gotta say this is such a fascinating conversation to have about the character, and to my knowledge, I don't think I've seen such an in depth conversation of whether or not Batman should kill (or can kill, as Rob said). My feeling on Batman killing is that it should be an ultimate, last resort for him. Like Rob said, it's not his go to response with how to deal with every criminal, like The Punisher does, but it should be on the table when dealing with a super villain like The Joker. There's that wonderful line in The Dark Knight Returns, both comic and animated film, where in the middle of fighting The Joker for the last time, Batman exclaims, "No more! All of the people I've murdered, by letting you live!" He feels the guilt tremendously by not acting when he should have in the past. Sure, he didn't kill those people that Joker killed, but his inaction/strict moral code proved to be his down fall. He was unable to save thousands or millions of innocent civilian lives because he just couldn't take a life, or that he felt that The Joker could be rehabilitated and wouldn't be forced to kill. What Rob brought up in the beginning with Arkham Asylum was interesting because it's partly their fault that Batman would have to even consider killing The Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow, etc. If their building and staff weren't most likely so incompetent to perform their own jobs (in the Batman: TAS episode "Joker's Wild", The Joker just sneaks out one of the side doors), and they did do their best to rehabilitate these super criminals, then we wouldn't have to have this discussion on Batman killing or not. The Batman: TAS episode, "Lock-Up", brings up a valid point too, in that the criminals brought there are more coddled than anything, and it's kind of like a vacation home for them. Everything should be done in Arkham's power to either rehabilitate them to assimilate into society, or if they're so mentally unstable, keep them locked up there until they die. Do your job, Arkham Asylum! LOL And from a comic writing standpoint, I do think there's a way of having a good deal of the rogue's gallery alive for Batman to fight, while also not making the asylum to be a revolving door and so eagerly preying on our suspension of disbelief. You just have to be smart and creative about it! So to summarize, Batman should not kill, unless he absolutely has too, and in which case, it's Arkham Asylum's fault! Hahaha!
Part of Batman's mythos that has recently been added was that Bruce, around the time his parents died, tried to kill himself. But when he failed, he decided that he was going to sacrifice and give up his life to protecting everyone and upholding his idealistic mission. I don't believe, like most, that Bruce Wayne is a mask and batman is his real self. I believe that Bruce is the real him but that his ideals hasn't aged with his body. He was too busy collecting the building blocks that make up batman, that he hasn't had or given the time to cultivate Bruce Wayne's ideals. Because the Bruce Wayne that he's known doesn't exist past the point when he decided that he was giving his life up to change the world. The world he is trying to make is a perfect world where his parents were never killed, where no ones parents are killed. That's a very unrealistic world, a CHILDISH world. This is the reason Batman doesn't kill. Because to kill someone would be to detract from the ideal world he is trying to make.
What I think would be interesting was if Batman didn't kill but Bruce Wayne was a strong supporter of capital punishment. If Bruce Wayne played politics and got it so that people like the Joker could get the death penalty regardless of mental state.
I agree with Rob. Batman's default setting shouldn't be 'kill everyone,' but having the idea that he 'can' kill if a situation is dire enough makes for great storytelling with the act and its consequences.
Batman not killing has more to do with it keeping him apart from the villains since taking down criminals without the authority of the law is a crime it's self. He certainly can kill and may cause more than a few deaths from mishaps but he does not go out to kill expressly its more character coloring then operating guidelines really.
Batman should just paralyze the joker so he never can do anything ever again, doesn't kill, gets rid of the problem, done and done, and I think it is kinda stupid it is against the law to stop a criminal if you are not a police if the person is clearly a threat to society. If it was some random guy with little to no evidence to prove him guilty, yes, but if you clearly saw him shoot someone, you should be able to stop them (even kill them if they threaten you or a loved one)
I mean, it's different if the Batmobile rams a car and kills someone unintentionally as opposed to Batman disarming someone and then deciding to slit their throat. But overall, it should be like what happened in MoS: doesn't want to kill, but when you're going to be responsible for killing others, you should kill the immediate threat.
His no-kill rule pretty much defines Batman's code at this point. Exploring the idea of a killer human superhero/anti-hero is what the Punisher, Moon Knight, Rorschach, Red Hood and Azrael (among others) are for. If he killed, Batman would lose a good part of his entire identity as a comic book entity
I remember in one animated movie (can't remember the name, but it's the one where Robin dies and comes back to life to try and kill Joker) Batman admitted that he so badly did want to kill Joker but he had to keep to his morals. So at least in that particular universe he has the idea and the ability to snap, but he doesn't want to throw away his ideals. I like that kind of Batman honestly
My best argument. If Batman starts killing, then others might. If they don't start killing they might go after Batman. If Batman can't loose, then he kills the other heroes. If Others start killing, then sooner or later they might kill the innocent by mistake, then they become villains and are challenged by the World. In the end either only Batman remains a "Hero" or the World is conquered and the "Heroes" who slowly turn on each other.
If Batman does kill, it should only be because of how shit Gotham's prisons are. It's basically a choice between "let this villain come back next week and do the same thing" or "stop them permanently".
8bitdiedie Even with that standard, people fail to realize that Blackgate and Arkham (the prison and insane asylum), have some of the best security, they just contain some of the smartest people in the world, and that no level of security is above bribery.
If they really get to escape that often despite tip-top security, then just end them for the sake of stopping everyone's suffering. I'm not big on capital punishment myself but in Gotham's case it'd be for the best. The only major problem would be: A. Either the prisons are in charge of executing them which might be impeded by bribery. B. Or Batman is, which would definitely send the wrong message. I'd say Batman should kill them but in absolute secrecy.
I forget where I heard this, but it was a line about killing. The first murder can destroy you, most stop there, but it makes the second one easier, and the one after than, and the one after that, till your standards of killing as a solution, drop lower and lower. That is what I feel Batman fears, he does not trust himself to not go overboard. Ra's one of his mentors started out like Bruce, but he slowly became the villain instead of the hero, I feel Batman thinks he could just as easily become that.
I think it depends a little on what a given version of Batman is like. I think Batman's at his best when he's being a detective instead of a superhero, sort of a vigilante PI. And in such cases when he's limited in power to just being a smart investigator with some neat tech and lots of martial arts skill than the occasional death is acceptable (given the vic was posing a significant threat and there wasn't any less-lethal means of dealing with them). When he's being a big superhero, handling invasions and supervillains and impending cataclysms and the like then no, he shouldn't kill people. Because he shouldn't have to and being both untouchably powerful _and_ a killer just makes him a tyrannical murderer.
Big hard no His pathos and reasoning behind not killing is the most interesting thing about him. Struggling with trauma and the arguable selfishness and hypocrisy is what's so interesting to explore. Lego Batman while poking fun at him not killing to justify villains being brought back etc, it also has a great point that he needs these villains. In those relationships is part of where the drama comes from.
Some people say that Jason Todd is Batman's greatest failure. However, I say it is letting Joker live after the thousands the Clown Prince of Crime has murdered and the many more who suffer (Barbara Gordon and Jason Todd). Why? Because he values his own code more than his friends and those he swore to protect. That is the perfect definition of selfishness. Should Batman kill? Not indiscriminately.
The only two deaths, of the current movies, that one could defend Batman for Killing someone would be Harvey Dent and the one kidnapper who had a flamethrower in BvS, both of these Batman made a choice to save an innocent life over not killing someone. In anycase Batman, and most anyone, would save someone who is an innocent over trying to save the person putting them in harm's way (provided there is no possible outcome where he could do both). The dock scene in BvS though is a different animal altogether, and while it is a cool scene the whole thing was completely pointless. Batman placed a tracker on the trailer before it left, knowing this he could have followed it to where it would be delivered and avoided nearly 20+ people being killed (I am not 100% sure if it was over 20 but it was close to 20) during the chase. Even during the Martha rescue he could have used thermal scanning to locate the only person that was tied to the chair, thus keep the count very low there as well. The Ra's al Ghul death was not really Batman murdering him as Ra's could have escaped of his own accord but chose to die rather than keep fighting.
The fact that killing is easy IS the point. The moral choice is had and has consequences, but it's still the moral choice. That's why he's a hero and not Lockup or Jason Todd
There’s an Alternate Batman that kills (like The Batman Who Laugh which is pretty much a Fusion of Batman and The Joker, Owlman who is an Evil Counterpart from Earth-3 where The Heroes and The Villains switch Roles etc etc)
Batman never kills and always lets Joker (Penguin, Riddler, and others) get away again....and again....and again to commit murder. He also is a vigilante who apprehends criminals, which is against the law -- as someone pointed out in the comments earlier. What is the point of Batman again?
I mean he did kill the Joker in The Killing Joke, but it was because he felt like he tried everything he could to help him and killing him was the last resort. You could tell he was struggling with it and that he didn't want to do it. It was brilliant writing
When was it made cannon? (please have a link) Yes the ending was left to interpenetration, which means the audience could say what they wanted, and in my interpenetration Barman kills him. Grant Morrison said it best, "No one gets the end, because Batman kills The Joker. That’s why it’s called The Killing Joke. The Joker tells the ‘Killing Joke’ at the end, Batman reaches out and breaks his neck, and that’s why the laughter stops and the light goes out, ’cause that was the last chance at crossing that bridge. And Alan Moore wrote the ultimate Batman/Joker story… he finished it."
I for one, liked how Batfleck was introduced much, much, much more than any, ANY incarnation of Batman. That includes the animated series. Batman is a power fantasy for most people, which is great, but that's not what I look for in a character. I'm not looking for a character who will always find a way. That's fun, for a while, but that's not going to be the peak for me. I want to see the character evolve. With Batfleck, rather than being introduced to a Batman that doesn't kill, we are introduced to a Batman that's already past his prime. We don't have to be told that he's damaged, because it's clearly visible on the screen that he is. That he may have been someone great once, but that something's changed for him. And, knowing what Batman is like when he's damaged, that's where you should start. You should start with a Batman that is okay with collatoral damage and having broken his no-kill rule. We need to see him on his descent to the abyss right from the start to realize exactly how easy it would be for him to start slipping down again. From then on, have him rehabilitate himself with a Tim Drake stand-in. Have him evolve his way back into the Animated Batman persona. Because THEN and only THEN, you know that Batman is genuinely on the precipice of madness. You know that, at any moment, Batman knows that he could do things more efficiently if he'd just allow himself to kill. But, if he allowed himself to, that Batman specifically would have a relapse, as though it were an addiction. Which would be a great contrast to someone like Jason Todd; someone whose methods Batman has condoned in the comics. Batman, in the comics, acknowledges that Gotham needs someone like the Red Hood to clean up the criminals, but that that someone cannot be Batman. And I find it infinitely more fascinating if Batman cannot kill because he himself is just too psychotic. That a moral code is the only thing that's left between him and cutting a swathe through the criminal underworld, innocents and all. That he's dependent and reliant on the justice system to do the thing that he's become addicted to; killing. I find that much more fascinating. It's sad that we're not going to see that.
Batman shouldn't kill since it's not his place to be judge, jury, and executioner as a vigilante. But holy shit does Bruce need to do something about that revolving door in Arkham. You mean to tell me he can make a mecha that can take down the entire Justice League but he can't shell out a couple million to ensure that the Joker can't just waltz out the front door of the asylum every Tuesday?
Toeing the line by exploring the concept of Mercy killings Accidental Murder / Manslaughter Murder vs. Torture : Which is worse / more amoral than the other?
That's what makes it such an interesting concept to explore. Yes, as a species the majority of us are most likely stupid, egotistical, self-deluded pricks. That said: our trying to become better than we are as a species by building a moral compass cross-culturally isn't something I'm going to condemn the human race for. That's why I still have hope for us all & why I'm not suicidal.
**Clicks on the video, types "No" and leaves.**
No, he shouldn't!!!!!
The courts should legaly execute them._
Yeeep that's what most are doing, thinking this is not a debate when they do not decide that. Although some people are writing "fuck you" or "YOU ARE NOT A FAN OF BATMAN" "-if you think he should" Dat's (part of) the internet for ya.
Agree with rob 100% nothing more needs to be said
Todd Meeker Maybe he would use his influence to make sure this kind of decision is not easily enforced except in the most extreme cases or that the decision to make it a possible punishment is made as democraticaly as possible with clear heads, in any case if they ever make such a story the ending should be like the answer to the debate, uncertain.
*wrong*
Depends on the circumstance.
I mean, he doesn't have to go full-on Punisher or anything, but I think it might make sense if well-put into context.
Again, I'm not trying to pick sides on whether or not he should kill, in fact I can see _both_ sides of the argument.
I more think it would more be a failure of the legal system that batman would have to kill at all. Like if he can bring a mass murderer in to the authorities, even once, and the courts decide to put them in arkham rather than give the death penalty, then it's on the courts head that they would escape and start killing again, not on batmans.
So I feel like the only opportunity where it would be acceptable for batman to kill would be when there is no opportunity to bring someone in and put them at the mercy of the law, which is a pretty rare thing when you primarily work in a city and putting someone at the mercy of the law often just means a 20minute drive to the police station.
So far, my opinion is almost a compromise of the two views. I believe that it is essential to Batman's character that he does not execute criminals. However, I am okay it Batman killing someone in a story if it is addressed as the exception, rather than the norm, and is treated with great gravity.
One example of that would be Batman killing Harvey Dent in Nolan's "The Dark Night." At that point, it was the only way an injured Batman could save Gordon's son, and when he crossed the line, the story used that to symbolize a victory for the Joker over Batman's moral code. So the story made good use of it and did not gloss over it, like Tim Burton or Zack Snyder did in "Batman Returns" and "Batman v Superman."
For something like BvS, I actually would not have minded Batman killing if the DCEU illustrated that this was the result of Batman not being in his right mind, and showed us what made Batman snap (like in "The Dark Knight Returns," where we see Batman becoming more brutal and turning away from his moral code, which is one factor that makes Superman, his most trusted ally, actually oppose him this time).
Batman: "Every decision you made has resulted in death and suffering. I lock you up, you just break out and do it again."
Joker "Think of it as a running gag."
They already have a batman that kills people, it's called the punisher.
Wouldn't Red Hood be closer?
I don't know jack shit superheroes, forgive me.
Or, Batman from Gods and Monsters.
Midnighter, you mean. Awesome gay killer Batman.
Red Hood is a whiny little bitch. Punisher is closer to the spirit of Batman.
Imagine the "under the red hood" storyline in current DCEU.
The main point of that story was Jason being pissed off that Bruce didn't kill the Joker.
Now their conversations would probably go something like:
Jason: I'm going to murder the fuck out of that clown and you can't stop me!
Bruce: Sure, go ahead.
Jason: What?
Bruce: I kinda stopped caring about the "non-killing" shit since the last movie, in fact, you need some help murdering the fuck out of that clown?
And then they held hands and went on a joyful murdering adventure while the adventure time theme plays in the background.
THEN, it turns into a musical! NA NA BATMAN! - Singin' in the Batcave.
I think the Red Hood story would be more interesting in the DCEU continuity. Instead of Batman hanging onto a cliché, he'd have to redeem himself as well as Jason.
It's not that hard of a workaround, in fact, they've already done something similar in Batman Forever. Robin wanted to kill Two-Face, and Batman stopped him, and told him it would just consume him, because he knows what that's like, cause he's killed before.
Transfiguration And Batman Forever is a fantastic movie isn't it? #Sarcasm
"Batman Forever" was playing off what happened in "Batman" and "Batman Returns". Keaton's Batman killed people in both movies, and in Returns, he tried to convince Catwoman to give up her quest for revenge just like he tried to convince Robin in Forever. Point is, it's not a ridiculous way to explore this theme. Forever kind of fumbled it, but the DCEU could give us a more thorough exploration.
Didn't Joker even kill like a million people in one story arch??If killing a million people doesn't earn you a bullet from Batman to your head....NOTHING WILL...EVER!!
Except Darkseid bringing down the multiverse and Batman simply walked up to him and shot him.
The Emperor Joker storyline where Joker had Bat-Mite's powers. And killed Batman over and over again. And Batman was pretty well helpless in that situation.
Bruce, I forgive you for not saving me. But why, why on God's earth... IS HE STILL ALIVE?
That line was a tearjerker...
You're either talking about the Emperor Joker storyline or Injustice: Gods Among Us (the comic version is great).
I think Batman not killing is also an editorial guard; If allowed to kill, some writers would take it way over the top, until all the things that made him unique would be gone forever.
I've heard batman has literally done things in the comics that would have killed people.
yes, yes he should...and, in fact, has on several occasions. He's actually pretty flexible on his "one rule". Still, no telling how many thousands of lives he could have saved by killing the joker the first time they met.
clericofchaos1 Logically he should yes. But him not killing as a character is what sets him apart from characters like The Punisher. It shows his internal struggle and makes it more impactful when he does kill as a last resort. It also shows why he is better than the villains within a story. Just to reiterate, that doesn't means it's the most logical in terms of real life. But he's a superhero.
Your assuming Batman's choice is one born of reason and not simply a pathological hang-up.
but if the joker just escapes and repeats the process over and over again, how effective is he then
JOTARO KUJO That is the entire point. That's what makes his stories and relationships with the villains compelling.
What about normal criminals would he kill them too, what about the supervillains that are just burglars, think about Batman War on Crime, Batman doesn't just fight supervillains he fights normal people that are trying to get by, he fights dumb kids in gangs, he fights for justice for all he can't just be grand executioner, while he still finds problems with the law he still wants to respect it at the end of the day. He still wants to help the supervillains that are just unfortunate people like Two-Face, Clayface, and Mr. Freeze and imagine a Batman that killed guys like Killer Moth or Condiment King. Any jackass with a gun and enough practice can be a killer, but no jackass with a gun can be Batman. If Batman killed it would be like giving up hope for the future and the ideals that this guy can get better. Batman wants to be better than all the bad things around him, he wants change, and becoming a brutal symbol of death isn't change in Gotham, it's an exception.
Yes, 110% Yes.
Hurricanelive for what?
"Henchman are people too." Finally a voice for our cause.
Huzzah!!!
The real question is....why doesn't Superman clean up Gotham?...it would take him 5 mins.
Cleaning up Gotham would probably require killing about half the population.
+Terrell Williams..Ahhh so Batman IS in fact the source of all the crime in Gotham. :P
Ya...except the Joker and I think 1 and 2 other Gotham villains have beaten Superman, Joker even Joker toxicen-ed him to fight Batman once(I think even the whole Justice League too). Batman may never "finish the job for good" but he definitely is the best one to do the jobs for Gotham and some specif cases beyond Gotham, like most heros in the Justice League at least.
...Also I see you stem from the Superman>Batman in the first place, to me a delusion to many but that's not the argument here.
+Giga Phoenix - Superman can travel at the speed of light, he can clean up all crime in an instant, the stories where he gets toxin used on him etc.. are convoluted due to his powers. If you look at raw "facts" about him, he can solve all problems instantly.
+CJ Phoenix - Gotham is part of the world, and one of the worst parts of it (by crime/super-villain rates) by ignoring the rampant crime in Gotham, Superman is essentially actively encouraging crime to breed there, knowing full well batman can't actually stop it.
Always remember Batman can only fight crime, he can't stop it. Superman could (if he chose to stop it)
Lol-ok man, how am I supposed to take your "raw facts" when you dismiss others just because their convoluted, "extremely complex and difficult to follow" is not a comeback, if anything it complements those stories. Which by the way you did not dispute in the slightest, just sated one thing that Superman can do that Flash and maybe even *SONIC the Hedgehog* makes a joke out of, and neither of them nor Batman is weak to an incredibly common glowing *rock*. Besides even if Superman was faster than that (and even I think he is) that is still not "instantly" either. Even Flash's speed still can't handle everything either of course.
Btw Superman "Choseing to stop crime" as you say, is exactly what happens in the Injustice comic series, Superman becomes a dictator who abuses the powers you fans take pride in, and essentially gives Joker his biggest win and last laugh ever (in non-cannon history anyway). Then he becomes the one Batman has to beat over and over again which he does, with a lot of difficulty and help of course.
Rob won this one without saying as much. No one is saying that Batman needs to kill random muggers or even villains like Penguin, but when you're a villain who's massacred thousands of innocent victims like the Joker, at some point it becomes Batman's vault? Marvel has done a better job dealing with a no killing rule with Spider-Man. Spider-man tries not to kill but if he feels he has no choice, he will. He once tried to kill Otto Octavius cause he figured Doc Ock has killed and threatened so many people that if he had the power to stop him then it was his responsibility to do so. Batman can have a no killing rule, but don't act like it makes him a hero. Those victims wouldn't see it that way.
Linklex7 Did Rob win, or do you just agree with him? I don't really care which side you take, but I don't think they did a good job arguing either point.
well said
Batman doesn’t have the ability to make judgement calls like that and he knows it…he knows he wouldn’t know where to draw the line, and eventually he would put a bullet in someone’s skull for something as little as missing the trashcan and accidentally littering. That’s why he doesn’t kill. It’s because he knows that if he’s insane enough to dress in a mammal-fetish suit and put his life on the line every single night for the rest of his life, he’s not sane enough to determine which criminals should live and which criminals should die…he knows he doesn’t have the best judgement when it comes to things like this
Here's what Batman should do: Take Mr. Freeze's Gun. Freeze The Joker, and stick the frozen Joker Statue in the Arctic, problem solved
Then Joke will thou out in a hundred years and wreak havoc without Batman around.
But wouldn’t the cold ice kill him or give him frostbite?
@@wjzav1971 not his problem
@NotoriousBeast technically freezing someone for that long *will* kill them
I think Batman choosing not to kill, and going out of his way not to, is another layer of his willpower. And Batman's sheer will is what makes him interesting.
Batman killed in the golden age. Not killing wasn't the point of his character until they changed it. The original point of his character was vengeance.
you know characters change and evolve, batman was pretty boring in those incarnations, i mean superman could not fly, batman not killing its what makes him interesting.
And he is better now that he is about justice, not vengeance.
I think one of the main reasons batman got into the justice league was because he helped pay for everything, set up their tech, and helped give the JLA the right connections and legal assistance.
Like, I'd almost say there wouldn't be a JLA without batman, same as how there wouldn't be a military if it only consisted of people who fired rocket launchers.
It really takes a village to be able to keep things running smoothly, so it makes Batman all the more valuable for having near limitless resources, being able to do the work of like a hundred people (so way less people to risk exposing super-secrets too), and on top of it, do it all very discreetly.
Like, even if batman had no combat ability whatsoever, he'd still probably be a basically priceless and irreplaceable asset to the JLA simply because nobody else has the same level of resources and drive as he does.
"Batman killed in the Golden Age"
You mean Batman killed in his first year. For the whole rest of the Golden Age up to today, he's remained the "violent pacifist" that he is known for.
That same first year the character was called "The Bat-Man" with a hyphen. He operated in the real life New York City instead of the fictional Gotham City. He chain smoked. His secret base was in the cellar of an abandoned barn instead of the Batcave. He never heard of Alfred. He also worked with District Attorney Harvey KENT.
The character was still a work on progress. He began as a ripoff of The Shadow and perhaps a dash of Hugh Hefner, and did not come onto his own yet. That Bat-Man killed, because he was not yet Batman.
No. End of Discussion.
MrKiron12 If Batman started killing his foes, it would only go downhill from there.
No it wouldn't. Batman has caused the deaths of thousands by letting those he takes out like Joker and such without lethal force. If he killed them he'd be saving lives and there's no negative to that. He's doing it for a greater cause seeing as that's his biggest flaws.
DavidProducts Yes wipe a few criminals off the streets and then watch as the streets get tougher and chaos in gotham increases because batman is a jackass lunatic slaughtering people.
It's the same reason why the punisher doesn't work. No one is to decide who dies and who lives. It wouldn't make batman any different from a serial killer. Yeah he kills for what he calls "good" but then again, he's killing.
It's like being an atheist and believing in God. You can't do both.
Bobby Ok cool its not self defense when hes going out his way to be in danger
It's Over 9000 Productions Ok, so explain to thousands of innocent people Joker and Harley have killed over the years. That's Batman's fault since he created them.
Batman doesn't kill because the writers wanted to sell comics. The Comics Code Authority made nearly every comic change to a kid friendly version.
James Mooney No, Batman stopped killing a few years before the Comics Code Authority came into effect.
This is the problem. we don't need the Joker. He's fun to have around but he's a rut. He's the exact same concept every times he's brought back and batman seems to deal with him mostly the same way. They need to expand. Bring in new villains. bigger badder compact villains for gotham that batman can fight. newer, interesting stories that can be written. Expand and bring in different views. Batman needs to be able to decide that killing is for the greater good and it can't corrupt him because he's doing what he has to do in order to save the foreseen thousands that will die because he chooses to throw those villains into an asylum that doesn't rehabilitate them. No, he doesn't have to kill petty thieves or desperate people trying to get by. Those people can be given a fair chance at life. Something bruce wayne can produce for them so that they don't have to go back to that life. But those so twisted and turned that they would kill indiscriminately need to die. *Batman not killing these mass murderers doesn't make him a hero with a set of values. It makes him incompetent and an enabler.* He's allowing them to kill over and over again. That's what you call a failure.
Edit: My answer which I left out was Should batman kill? Yes and no. HE should when it's neccessary. When he has no other option but to end someone who cannot be changed and will continue to kill regardless of batman stopping them. Killing to save a life will not change your character. It sets your limits. " This is how far I have to be pushed to kill. To kill one to save thousands. to set asside my pride and personal struggle to save an innocent bystander caught up in my mess. I vowed to protect Gotham. What am I willing to do to save a life? Will I let them die to save myself from confronting whether killing is the right thing to do? Or will I put aside my selfishness and give my all to protect those who need to be protected and stop them from being harmed? " If batman wants to be a hero He needs to kill those who are a MASSIVE threat. He needs to know his limits. Is his pride and morals so fragile that killing would break him? He's no better than those who kill by letting innocents die by not doing everything in his power to stop them. He can take out petty thugs without killing them. When someone will kill without prejudice to mess with you it's time for them to die.
DavidProducts Its simple, if Batman cleans up the big threatening criminals permenantly, then it would give the cops an easy job to protect Gotham. This would make Batman obsolete and he would himself become a target for the cops because Batman is a criminal.
Joker hasn't been "the exact same". You've had versions where he was basically a practical jokester (the 1960s Batman series exemplified this), the former gang member/leader turned maniac (1989's Batman for example), agent of chaos (Dark Knight trilogy), and unpredictable psychopath (most recent incarnation). Oh, and on Gotham, a circus kid that didn't like his mom banging a clown. So he killed his mom (seriously, check this guy out, very good version).
DavidProducts word bro
Fionordequester What if Bruce Wayne is also a strong opponent of the death penalty and has blocked several attempts of the executions of these killers😆
I've always felt it depended on the setting more than anything. A lighter setting like the original Adam West series or most of the cartoons it's fine if he doesn't kill. It's basically implied in most of those settings that no one ever really dies, no matter how big the bombs or how many bullets are shot. Darker settings with a body count so high you can't believe any one still lives in Gotham brings up more questions however. If not kill Batman should do something to help the justice system along being rich and connected as he is. Why Bruce Wayne hasn't improved the jails, asylums etc that all the criminals go to. But the problem is Comic books hate coming up with new material and anything that actually resolved a problem will always be ignored in favor of reusing the same villains.
You did a good job debating this. I really saw both sides. I think Walter proved his side best as soon he lifted The Punisher DVD up; that'd be basically Batman if he kills. Rob proved his side best when he said then Batman should constantly struggle with this...and he does a lot in the comics and in the Tim/Dini-verse, but mostly it is taken for granted now. Very meaningful.
The point of being good isn't necessarily to counter the bad. It's to be better. It's to be the bigger man/woman. If somebody repents their evil persona simply because of good deeds, then that's fine, but nobody should fluctuate their morals in order to appease the situation. That's not strength, that's hypocrisy.
Frog Redstar I don't think he should kill guys like penguin or two face, but guys like Joker and Rash are better off dead
Frog Redstar This. Literally this. I always look for people who use this argument whenever this kind of discussion starts. Guys like you know the character better than most.
Adrijana Radosevic you put up a good point, so I guess it's up to your morality
Great job. Rob and Walter are the best talkers. Both very convincing arguments. There should be a sequel to this "Should superman kill?"
I think Batman should only ever kill as a last resort where there are no other options. He should go out of his way to minimize deaths, but at the same time, he understands that accidental deaths are inevitable. For those who don't know, Daredevil has killed people in the comics on very rare occasions. I wouldn't mind Batman adopting a similar morality.
18:00 how a supervillain escaping from the system is Batman's fault? Because he doesn't kill them? What kind of reasoning is that? You see, this, right here, is THE problem I have when people complain about Batman not killing and argue he should kill. Because you're blaming him for the murders of someone else when it's not his fault. The system sucks, it's the system that keeps putting The Joker and everyone else in a fucking mental hospital instead of in a fucking prison. It's the system that even though it's been proven time and time again that Arkham DOESN'T FUCKING WORK, don't do anything to improve it.
So how is that on Batman?
Batman shouldn't kill... just like no other hero should kill, because he's a hero. That's the only reason there is, and that's the only reason you need. Batman not only needs to be a symbol that scares the living shit out of Gotham's criminals, but also a symbol of hope (kind of) for the regular folks that still live in Gotham. If anything, my only problem with Batman modus operandi is that he doesn't go after the crooked cops, judges and politicians that keep fucking the system up. But he shouldn't kill them either, rather expose them.
The rules that should apply for superheroes are the same rules that apply to regular cops. Lethal force is allowed when there's no other choice. If there is an alternative (and 99% of the time there is) they shouldn't use lethal force.
no...
much better not killing
Oh it's much better not to kill accept the joker almost fucking killed Batgirl without her noticing. Yeah, it's a lot better! XD :)
if you kill joker you prove joker's point of view, you become something corrupted, you are no longer a hero, people don't trust you, the police won't let you operate anymore, it always starts at one dead (if batman killed joker what's stopping him to kill two-face), at this point what batman and joker are having is not a physical war, it's a philosophical war, the winner sets the state of how people will react, if joker's philosophy wins people will accept that joker's chaos is better than order and gotham will succumb to complete madness, if batman's philosophy wins people will know that there is another way.
It's not as simple as "he's a killer, he should die" there is a lot more in this question.
You're just pulling what the Dark knight returns did many years ago. If this was Lex I would kinda of understand, but the Joker is a literal killer clown. He's not some fucking James Bond villain! Why is everyone titling Chaotic Natural under his picture? Because he fucking loves to spread pain and sorrow to everything, with the attention of keeping you alive. Saying the people would rather fall into his chaos is literally an understatement because they're already in hell! Who the fuck wants to keep him alive? Why should they keep the very person who literally slaughters millions if not more? Your argument holds no ground because I see no reason why Bruce, or Gotham at this matter, wishes to keep him alive. Two-face is gone. Fucking Penguin is just a money loving asshole!
he should be killed, but not by batman. Its only if BATMAN kills him that his point is proven and people fall.
Why not? It's batman not Spider-Man
The thing with the first episode of Batman Beyond is that it wasn't just that he used a gun. But it was that moment that he realized that BECAUSE he had to use a gun, he was no longer capable. He got his ass kicked by a thug. It's like, "I'm finally weak enough to where the only thing that can save me is a firearm. It's time for me to retire." Then the gun thing in general is just another kick in the ass.
Well maybe not Batman, but the fact no cop has just plugged the Joker is just dumb. The guy has killed enough people to be labeled a domestic terrorist
They never catch him... And then they can't kill him because he's "mentally ill"
Afonso Lucas cops in America kill mentally ill every day, trust me it doesn't matter
Kevin McClintock Joker has died before. He just never stays dead.
The Joker has been shot dozens of times by other characters.
Jim Gordon blew out the Joker's kneecap in retaliation for him murdering Sarah Essen Gordon. Ironic due to what the clown did to his daughter. He later had to gall to attempt to sue Gordon over that, but since this was during the No Man's Land where Gotham was not under governance by any state entity, the lawsuit had had no leg to stand on.
Maggie Sawyer unloaded her pistol through his chest during the "Soft Targets" arc of "Gotham Central." (A must read BTW, and seemingly a major influence on Nolan's The Dark Knight.) But he survived due to plot armor.
In my head canon, the Joker is secretly immortal/invincible but hides his powers. Think of all the impossible escapes from death he has achived through the years.
I know someone here will bring up the Three separate Jokers explanation from recent canon, which I don't really care for.
A cop named Josef Muller actually shot Joker point blank in the face one time...
The Joker survived this for the same reason he keeps breaking out of the asylum. Because he's The Joker...
The guy saying he shouldn't doesn't seem to realize that he keeps proving how stupid it is that he doesn't kill.
Batman doesn't even _need_ to kill.
tell that to the jokers victims.
How is that Batmans fault?
The thing is, if Batman didn't want to kill someone like the Joker, he could just break his neck and cripple him from the neck down. He does that very thing in The Dark Knight Returns.
@@SolarDragon007 but Joker died from that didn’t he?
Really the question isn't should Batman kill... its Who the FUCK in Gotham keeps getting the clearly criminal psychopaths with mountains of evidence on them off the hook or shipped back to Arkham. The joker might get to pull the excuse he's insane on maybe... a jury or two but by the third time, Its clear he's a danger to society and needs to be put down. He cannot be reformed 'hell he outright admtis he doesn't want to change multiple times... before killing his doctor at that moment!'
Yes I know the actually answer is a Meta one. The Writers want The Villains survive cause their popular' and so they can be used in other stories. Joker sensibly being executed after his second massacre of people would ruin that.
The reason why Batman kills in the movies is the same reason Superman does, they stop being Super Heroes to become Action Heroes instead. A Super Hero can have a code vs killing but an Action Hero's destiny is to end the villain. It's Cowboy Justice, the TV Trope conclusion where the bad guy in the black hat is shot down by the hero wearing the white one. :/
but superman does not rly have a code against killing he vary rarely does but hes turned lex into barbecue and smiled about it
Anyone who reads Batman comics, plays the Arkham Games, or watched any of the animated films knows that Batman will NEVER intentionally kill. (While some situations may involved accidentally manslaughter which Batman immediately regrets)
Anyone who watches the movies should know that the Directors have no earthly idea how Batman should work if he is blowing people up with glee.
Christ Nolan was the only person who understood why the No Guns No Killing rule was important to Batman, but at the same time understood that in the realistic approach to the Batman character, people would inevitable die. While still not intentionally murdering someone like Batfleck or Burtonman.
The VGC Although Batman would leave Ra'as on a train, because he knows that wouldn't kill him.
My default answer to this question is that since all superheroes started life as kids stories they shouldn't kill because despite the harsh truth of the matter we shouldn't act like killing is a soloution.
But you see, killing is the solution most of the time in cases of the joker, IDC about mental illness, not worth the burden on society, just put them down like a dog so us normal people don't have to worry that some "mentally ill" guy is going to come out and shoot me and the law will not do much cause he can't control his actions. Just kill him if rehab doesn't work, after the second capture, he should be killed. first time, rehab, if that doesn't work he dies
Super Lazerman I feel like you are the highlight of everything wrong with everyone.
So what's wrong with society is we would let psychotic killers free after rehab has failed before, if it doesn't work the first time, then they should die, as they odviously don't care about who they hurt,kill, or whatever other sadistic act,
I know if I wasn't in control of my actions due to mental insanity (if I was at gunpoint and forced to kill then I am not guilty) then I would want to be put down so I wouldn't hurt anyone else.
Right and (with no experience of actually being insane) I would say that's true of me as well but I think that before you need to see killing as being detestable before you see it as necessary.
Spyro Fan was that a response to me? I was talking to a guy who like deleted their comment a minute ago.
How can Batman have the moral high-ground, have people look up to him and aspire to be like him, if he kills people? Besides, remember what he said in "Under The Red Hood"?: "If I do that, If I go down into that place....I'll never come back." Batman knows that there is a distinct chance that if he kills, even someone as horrible as the Joker, it'll be that much easier to kill the next person who crosses the line. I'm not saying the system in Gotham isn't broken and the revolving door of Arkham isn't a problem, but if killing was the answer to that problem we wouldn't have ended up with The Justice Lords.
Jason Todd: What? That your moral code just won't allow for that? It's too hard to cross that line?
Batman: No! God Almighty, no. It'd be too damned easy. All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others, and then... end him.
Batman: But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back.
Joker: Awwww, you do think of me!
What is wrong with a character who avoids killing when he can, but when it comes down to it they won't hesitate to kill the bad guys? That is why I loved the first season of Arrow, the hero there made sense and his code was respectable instead of some unrealistic extreme.
I agree. I just see a lot of heroes take the "under no circumstances can I kill bad guys". The world doesn't work that way is the thing and seeing characters have to decide where they draw that line is a big part of what makes them compelling to me. If it's just "I don't do this ever because it is bad" then you're giving an easy answer for a complicated situation. I'm not advocating for gunning down baddies left and right, merely seeing the possibility be one the hero has to fall to when there's little alternative.
The Burton batman was really fun. Keaton would kick butt.
I'd like to see a DC storyline where a Punisher/Deathstroke level merc goes around killing some of Gothams rogues, like Mr Zsaz and the Joker
Excuse me as I throw my favorite Marvel "hero" under the bus but we know what would happen if Batman kills, it's called Moon Knight
Once again guys great debating your really getting good at this you've come a long way I'm very proud how well you both presented the arguments and best of all you kept it civil even when you couldn't see eye to eye well done.
Never. It just wouldn't make sense.
1. He would have no Rogues Gallery if he did.
2. Gordon wouldn't work with him if he did.
3. He wouldn't be as sympathetic and identifiable if he did.
4. You'd be gutting the most interesting part of the Batman/Joker relationship.
5. Alfred wouldn't respect him as much.
6. Dick Grayson and Tim Drake wouldn't respect him at all.
Why are we even having this discussion?
megamovieman101 wouldn’t not having a rouges gallery be good? I mean less murders on the street
Jason Todd will
And his real son,( I don't n9w how to spell his name)
He should kill. Make Gotham great again
I'm with Rob here. Killing shouldn't be default and he shouldn't kill street thugs.
Bur for some individuals, the option should be on the table.
Agreed
Batman does not have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies.its the states job to keep the villains locked up or put them down permanently.every time a villain escapes and commits murder the blame is on the prison and the government for sucking at their job.
No. He should not.
Bobby Ok cool
Because I prefer the character when he doesn't.
I'm just speaking my opinion.
BeastBoy Fury Yeah so his enemies can kill more people.
God Xenous
Guys, I love Batman. I spent most of my childhood pretending to be him. But he is fiction.
Created as an art, meaning it can be interpreted by the viewer/reader/etc.
The way I interpret the character is a vigilante that believes that he should not kill.
It's just my opinion. If you disagree, please tell me how you see the character.
God Xenous That's literally the point and why his character and stories are interesting.
Batman is all about gray areas and trying to find distinctions between himself, and his villains. If he kills, that gets rid of his character dynamics with several villains. His dynamic with Ra's Al Ghul, for example, would be ruined. How could he go up against him or the Red Hood, if he basically agrees with them? Him not killing is one of his main distinguishing features. If he doesn't hold himself to that standard, he loses a lot of what makes him interesting in the first place.
I think that, if there's a murderer who has no family or close friends, killing that murderer would probably be the best possible way to save more lives in general. After all, the Joker is deranged, and incapable of recovery. Joker has no friends or family, the closest is Harley and she's even better off without him. When it comes down to it, the amount of people Joker is GOING To murder, because yes Batman he WILL escape Arkham again you know he will, far outnumber AND out-value his single life.
It really has to be cases like the Joker though, cases where it's clear there's no way to reform the villain, and no way to keep them locked up. Furthermore, if they have family, then THAT matches up to Batman's rule, he doesn't kill because he doesn't want to leave someone behind to feel the way he feels. Therefore, killing someone who's a villain for the sake of their family is a no-go, even if they're clearly deranged.
MrServantRider Joker actually has died before. Several times. He always comes back no matter how many times he meets his end. In the case of your argument, it isn't so much Batman perpetuating a cycle as much as The Joker REFUSES to stay dead.
I think is more of a case of "should he be able to kill" as in, if the situation becomes so big and the stakes become so high that he might have to kill, should he be able
no, but the government should
JOTARO KUJO Yeah but in the DC world, the government is quite inefficient. And the killers and keep on escaping.
Should Batman Kill?
In the real world, the simple answer would be "FUCK YES!!!" at this point. But in the world of comics, Batman is supposed to be more than a man, he's a symbol, one who believes nobody is beyond redemption, whatever their crimes. So in trying to redeem a handful of people, he's allowing them to rack up hundreds, thousands, or even millions in death tolls, depending on the severity of their crimes.
Do I think Batman should kill? Definitely, In the line of work that Batman does, Sometimes it's just the answer to protect the greater good - But Walter brought up a great point about how it humanizes him, It's not easy for any person to kill. I mean he watched his parents get shot in front of him and I'm sure the thought of killing returns him to that memory. I love this debate for how conflicted it made me feel on the matter, I actually don't know where I sit anymore
Walter doesn't seem to understand, that Robs initial statement was not: "Batman should kill every crook and gangster". It was : "When you know for a fact, that mass-murderous villains have a chance, however small, to escape from confinement AGAIN after doing so repeatedly, it would be amoral not to kill them. Or do you think the lives of Jokers victims are worth less than the life of an antisocial, murderous psychopath who can't or won't be reformed?
And I always find it kind of strange, that in this universe, I'm supposed to believe in Superstrength and Mutants, but capital punishment doesn't exist?
The only reason not to kill the villains is, that you might not have a long-running comic book franchise if you kill off all the villains.
sorry rob but batman should not kill
I know, honestly, I thought Rob was a fan of Batman.
I'm a fan of Batman and I think he should kill. Thinking he should kill doesn't make you less of a fan of Batman. Are you suggesting Bob Kane and Bill Finger weren't fans of Batman?
Collateral damage does not equal killing.
+Rayn Wolfsbane If you want a superhero who kills, go enjoy Wolverine or Punisher. Killing would just ruin the whole point of Batman. He wouldn't have a Rogues Gallery, it would mess up his relationships with Gordon and Dick and Tim, it would ruin the relationships with Joker and Jason, and it would take away the identifiable aspect of him.
megamovieman101 I have to agree with you there
Personally, I don't see how his "I won't kill" stance makes him MORE human. It makes him less so, to me. Because he's perfectly willing to let people like the Joker and other psychopaths run around murdering HUNDREDS of people, yet he won't put a stop to them once and for all. He just beats them up and tosses them into a "prison" that they break out of on a regular basis. He comes across as more of a programmed robot than a human being, by constantly sticking with this code that, in all honesty, makes no sense given the psychopaths he deals with. He claims he wants to make Gotham "safe", but he turns his back on people who are being murdered left and right, when he COULD have simply ended the killing. The Joker's bodycount in various media is in the thousands. They just won't make Bats kill him because they need him as a recurring villain. But looking at it objectively? Of course he should kill the guy. It's insane not to.
He has before, in various incarnations. Golden Age Batman, Killing Joke (tosses a midget into a pit of spikes), Batman and Batman Returns (Michael Keaton films), Flash Point, Gods and Monsters, and of course Batfleck.
Not sure why so many people are getting their panties in wads over this. Not exactly a new concept.
fromolwyoming Golden Age Batman killed for only a year, and isn't canon, Killing Joke only had Batman kill in the animation, Batman and Batman Returns are good movies in their own right, but I want to see more faithful adaptations, Flashpoint and Gods and Monsters were alternate universes where Bruce Wayne wasn't Batman, and Batfleck's murder spree was the final nail in that movie's coffin for me. I think people, like myself, are just a little miffed that outside the animated movies, we haven't had a faithful adaptation of the main canonical timeline Batman.
The question was, "Should Batman kill?" not, "Should Bruce Wayne kill?".
I'm honestly okay with some incarnations of Batman killing people. Even full on Batfleck/Punisher mode. But the mainstream Batman should not kill, though I agree with Rob on how it needs to be explored further.
Also, the bigger issue with the letting super villains go into a cardboard prison is the justice system. Batman has delivered these mass murderers to the court with ample evidence of their crimes time and time again, yet they have never simply executed them. Why has Gotham not passed a law letting them use the death sentence even on insane criminals?
The 4 people who disliked the video didn't see more than 20% of the video hefore disliking it.
Tabris Nagista fine, if that's your opinion.
I think it’s funny it took Batman until 2022 to finally have a movie where he doesn’t kill someone… Pattinson is the first Non-lethal movie Batman.
…also, Batman doesn’t kill because he knows he doesn’t have the willpower or the judgement to decide who lives and who dies. That’s why Red Hood is such a good member of the bat-family. Because unlike Bruce, he *can* make those judgement calls, he knows what needs to be done, and he has no hesitation to do so…
sure guys. Batman can kill in comics, animation and even in the Burton films
but it's only in Batman v Superman when people decide it's a no-no
Dennis Reynolds Not even close.
When did he kill in animation?
Flashpoint Paradox.
Batman used guns in that movie
Dennis Reynolds ...Do you even know what was going on in that movie? That was an alternate timeline where Bruce Wayne (the man we know as Batman) died, driving his parents insane, causing his mother to become the Joker, and his father to be a darker version of Batman that used guns and relied on drugs to fight crime.
I know all that. but despite alternate timelines, he's still Batman.
Can we just appreciate how cool that Batgirl jacket is?
Yeah, why not? He's already killed the Joker twice in my lifetime.
The entire 'no killing' thing is a completely arbitrary after school cartoon fabrication. No offense to Conroy and Hamill and company, but none of that existed before then.
HitchensImmortal Yes it did. It was created at least in the silver age, if not after a certain point in the golden age.
Citation needed.
HitchensImmortal For you and me. I'm not in the mood to look up citations, but I'll bring up the comics code for not killing in the Silver age.
Should he. No.
*Should* he. Yes.
It makes sense. That's why it's a conflict. The fact that so many fans are on the fence about this is part of why it's such a good trait to have - stubborn even in the face of reason, giving us something to debate about.
I think one thing that makes it awesome is how sometimes the villains help the heroes, even indirectly.
-Who finished off Alexander Luthor? Joker.
-In *The Batman* (I know it's not the most popular series, but this is still a cool example) when 'The Joining' was attacking Gotham, all the villains were on board to fight them back and it even had both Gordon and Freeze save each other's asses and nod mutually.
-Dent during the "Hush" series (to an extent)
-Clayface during/post "Rebirth"
So on and so forth. I like when these situations happen, where the villains become heroes. That's part of why I like Suicide Squad (not really the new movie that much) - ideas that would be hard if Batman was thinning the roster.
I think the biggest reason he doesn't do it, the exploration that needs some exposition I guess, is because if you look at his villain roster as they are now, they are almost all tragic villains. Even though Batman took a different path, he absolutely relates to having been driven over the edge by tragedy. Deep down, he wants to help them, perhaps even turn their experiences into something productive. There wouldn't be anything more fulfilling for someone like him.
Batman shouldn't kill from a character perspective.
Batman should kill from a logical/moral perspective.
So....
Jason was right...
love these debates about comics
Notification squad
Here's member 10,235 :P
448
So what? We like some sorta, notification squad?
Max J OH MY GOOOD....
That was a criticism that often surrounded Tim Burton's take on Batman, that Batman was portrayed as killing bad guys when he's just a mere bringer of justice.
If you think Batman should kill, then you just don't like Batman.
Josh Blanksby I don't like modern Batman. He's not a hero. He's responsible for thousands of innocent lives being taken.
let's look at this in a realistic view, if batman kills joker then he would prevent thousands of deaths from happening.
if batman locks joker up, eventually joker will escape and kill more people and that's just a cycle of deaths that batman could've prevented with one bullet.
Linklex7 In which stories? What context? Are you referring to modern comics batman? Post rebirth? TDK trilogy? Ben Afflecks batman?
Then there is no point in him being the Batman. Give up all those batarangs and shit, and take up guns.
Max Its not realistic, we are talking about Batman. You have to have characters have their own characteristics and not all be the same. Batman not killing is his, so if you don't like that that's perfectly fine, of course. But that is the character.
I like a line Batman said to Damien in the "Son of Batman" movie
"You don't fight crime by becoming a criminal"
I always hated the non-killing stupidity with Batman, it always bothered me that he would be so irrational.
Yes he should, i get that he wouldnt come back from it and to be fair i dont care about Batman in the first place for just this reason. His issue with not killing the villains whom will continually break out and kill again makes me just not care about him. Its not a thing to me of his character because i am not involved in his character, to me it is simply the logic and morals of saving the most people possible, and to do that batmans villains should die. If he has to be the one to do so, so be it.
The biggest problem with Batman is "The Fear". He uses the Bat Persona to instill fear to his enemies. To be honest, the previous Batman films didn't give that feeling at all. BvS does. Can you imagine being a criminal and being branded by Batman and finding out that it's a death sentence once you go to prison? Even I don't want the Batman to do that to me. It's terrifying.
I think the most important aspect of Batman that a lot of people are forgetting is his compassion. He's not Batman because he likes beating people up or simply because he hates crime. He does it because he wants to prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. He won't kill because he knows that even the worst villains have people who care about them and he doesn't want the families of those villains to go through something like that.
And even though he beats up his villains, he understands how one bad day can ruin someone's life. So he's always trying to help them get better so they could redeem themselves.
What I enjoy about batman most from what I know of him is that he is a rather intelligent man who is both "street smart" and possesses this incredible understanding of both himself and the people he encounters. He has trained himself to become a weapon and has honed the tools in his possession to remain creative to such an extent as to be a genuine threat in nearly every circumstance. To me, the beauty of such a character is that knowledge of potential and the definitive struggle against pushing the boundary too far. The idea of contingency upon contingency to deal with threats without resorting to the final measure of death because that is what it is: a final measure. I think that what Batman realizes is that death isn't a real solution for anything because the implications and consequences will ultimately lead to more problems. I still remember this episode I saw only once of him meeting a team of ex-heroes who provided him a direct representation of the most likely possibility to result from even a single deliberate death. The image of how haunted these people were from such an incident is still prominent in my memory despite years having passed since I saw it. It served as a painful reminder that, no matter how capable or depended upon he is, Batman and even all of the other heroes are still human or at least highly in tune with the idea of humanity. Even one life can be emotionally taxing and to constantly care for hundreds every minute is a huge burden on a hero. For a deliberate choice to be made to end even a single life can break the very fabric of what holds these heroes and Batman himself in check.
And while it may not always be shown on camera or in a picture, the weight of the crimes Joker and the other villains commit is a taxing burden on Batman too. But since he knows just how close he walks beside the people he fights against, he has to acknowledge the question of which decision would create a better outcome. To kill a moral code has the potential to shatter an entire personality. It could cripple him, as it did for that team of heroes, such as to never involve himself in the fight again. Or, with his experience of the unsavory side of the world and just how awful humans have the capacity to become, he could transform into an even greater threat than his greatest foe. In addition, were such a twist to be made, Batman would have no obsession, no focus to center his destructive capability. He'd be that chemical cloud of poison that just drifts where the wind takes it, snuffing lives without so much as a thought. Or he could rely on his intelligence alone to disintegrate the already rotten roots of humanity and society in the most damaging way conceivable. This is the gamble and dilemma he has to face.
More than an action-fighting hero, I consider Batman as more of a detective, the one who actually puts the pieces together without being completely strung along by the villain unlike most superheroes I can think of to name. But like the great detectives we know from media, Batman treads a fine balance between understanding his adversary and becoming a villain himself. To help maintain himself on the track he believes is right, he holds himself to a strict set of rules with the most important being not to kill. Without that measure, there would be no more Batman to speak of. Only the monster he could transform to be.
For that reason, I believe that Batman should not - and arguably cannot - kill.
By not killing, Batman is very bit as morally guilty as the "villains" he has stopped. He is more than aware that these same individuals will be back on the streets in only a short time later. At some point, the writers ought to have new antagonists for Batman to face off against that still allows him to explore various conflicts. This means that Batman ought to either kill or establish a secure facility...otherwise the body count of all the villains are also Batman's body count.
I gotta say this is such a fascinating conversation to have about the character, and to my knowledge, I don't think I've seen such an in depth conversation of whether or not Batman should kill (or can kill, as Rob said). My feeling on Batman killing is that it should be an ultimate, last resort for him. Like Rob said, it's not his go to response with how to deal with every criminal, like The Punisher does, but it should be on the table when dealing with a super villain like The Joker.
There's that wonderful line in The Dark Knight Returns, both comic and animated film, where in the middle of fighting The Joker for the last time, Batman exclaims, "No more! All of the people I've murdered, by letting you live!" He feels the guilt tremendously by not acting when he should have in the past. Sure, he didn't kill those people that Joker killed, but his inaction/strict moral code proved to be his down fall. He was unable to save thousands or millions of innocent civilian lives because he just couldn't take a life, or that he felt that The Joker could be rehabilitated and wouldn't be forced to kill.
What Rob brought up in the beginning with Arkham Asylum was interesting because it's partly their fault that Batman would have to even consider killing The Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow, etc. If their building and staff weren't most likely so incompetent to perform their own jobs (in the Batman: TAS episode "Joker's Wild", The Joker just sneaks out one of the side doors), and they did do their best to rehabilitate these super criminals, then we wouldn't have to have this discussion on Batman killing or not.
The Batman: TAS episode, "Lock-Up", brings up a valid point too, in that the criminals brought there are more coddled than anything, and it's kind of like a vacation home for them. Everything should be done in Arkham's power to either rehabilitate them to assimilate into society, or if they're so mentally unstable, keep them locked up there until they die. Do your job, Arkham Asylum! LOL And from a comic writing standpoint, I do think there's a way of having a good deal of the rogue's gallery alive for Batman to fight, while also not making the asylum to be a revolving door and so eagerly preying on our suspension of disbelief. You just have to be smart and creative about it!
So to summarize, Batman should not kill, unless he absolutely has too, and in which case, it's Arkham Asylum's fault! Hahaha!
"Go ahead make my day" -batman
You're right. "No killing" is more of a guide line than a rule
Part of Batman's mythos that has recently been added was that Bruce, around the time his parents died, tried to kill himself. But when he failed, he decided that he was going to sacrifice and give up his life to protecting everyone and upholding his idealistic mission. I don't believe, like most, that Bruce Wayne is a mask and batman is his real self. I believe that Bruce is the real him but that his ideals hasn't aged with his body. He was too busy collecting the building blocks that make up batman, that he hasn't had or given the time to cultivate Bruce Wayne's ideals. Because the Bruce Wayne that he's known doesn't exist past the point when he decided that he was giving his life up to change the world. The world he is trying to make is a perfect world where his parents were never killed, where no ones parents are killed. That's a very unrealistic world, a CHILDISH world. This is the reason Batman doesn't kill. Because to kill someone would be to detract from the ideal world he is trying to make.
What I think would be interesting was if Batman didn't kill but Bruce Wayne was a strong supporter of capital punishment. If Bruce Wayne played politics and got it so that people like the Joker could get the death penalty regardless of mental state.
I agree with Rob. Batman's default setting shouldn't be 'kill everyone,' but having the idea that he 'can' kill if a situation is dire enough makes for great storytelling with the act and its consequences.
Batman not killing has more to do with it keeping him apart from the villains since taking down criminals without the authority of the law is a crime it's self. He certainly can kill and may cause more than a few deaths from mishaps but he does not go out to kill expressly its more character coloring then operating guidelines really.
Batman should just paralyze the joker so he never can do anything ever again, doesn't kill, gets rid of the problem, done and done, and I think it is kinda stupid it is against the law to stop a criminal if you are not a police if the person is clearly a threat to society. If it was some random guy with little to no evidence to prove him guilty, yes, but if you clearly saw him shoot someone, you should be able to stop them (even kill them if they threaten you or a loved one)
I mean, it's different if the Batmobile rams a car and kills someone unintentionally as opposed to Batman disarming someone and then deciding to slit their throat. But overall, it should be like what happened in MoS: doesn't want to kill, but when you're going to be responsible for killing others, you should kill the immediate threat.
No.
Boom, just saved you 35 minutes.
:D
His no-kill rule pretty much defines Batman's code at this point. Exploring the idea of a killer human superhero/anti-hero is what the Punisher, Moon Knight, Rorschach, Red Hood and Azrael (among others) are for. If he killed, Batman would lose a good part of his entire identity as a comic book entity
I remember in one animated movie (can't remember the name, but it's the one where Robin dies and comes back to life to try and kill Joker) Batman admitted that he so badly did want to kill Joker but he had to keep to his morals. So at least in that particular universe he has the idea and the ability to snap, but he doesn't want to throw away his ideals. I like that kind of Batman honestly
I'll say yes but only in cases when his enemies can't be imprisoned or helped ( joker comes to mind.)
My best argument.
If Batman starts killing, then others might. If they don't start killing they might go after Batman. If Batman can't loose, then he kills the other heroes.
If Others start killing, then sooner or later they might kill the innocent by mistake, then they become villains and are challenged by the World. In the end either only Batman remains a "Hero" or the World is conquered and the "Heroes" who slowly turn on each other.
Oh yeah, as for the they always come back. What about the Government, they don't get rid of a single Murderer.
My opinion is if batman's going to remain dc's darkest hero, and remain being referred to as "The dark knight" then,yes.
If Batman does kill, it should only be because of how shit Gotham's prisons are. It's basically a choice between "let this villain come back next week and do the same thing" or "stop them permanently".
8bitdiedie Even with that standard, people fail to realize that Blackgate and Arkham (the prison and insane asylum), have some of the best security, they just contain some of the smartest people in the world, and that no level of security is above bribery.
If they really get to escape that often despite tip-top security, then just end them for the sake of stopping everyone's suffering. I'm not big on capital punishment myself but in Gotham's case it'd be for the best. The only major problem would be:
A. Either the prisons are in charge of executing them which might be impeded by bribery.
B. Or Batman is, which would definitely send the wrong message.
I'd say Batman should kill them but in absolute secrecy.
I forget where I heard this, but it was a line about killing. The first murder can destroy you, most stop there, but it makes the second one easier, and the one after than, and the one after that, till your standards of killing as a solution, drop lower and lower. That is what I feel Batman fears, he does not trust himself to not go overboard. Ra's one of his mentors started out like Bruce, but he slowly became the villain instead of the hero, I feel Batman thinks he could just as easily become that.
I think it depends a little on what a given version of Batman is like.
I think Batman's at his best when he's being a detective instead of a superhero, sort of a vigilante PI. And in such cases when he's limited in power to just being a smart investigator with some neat tech and lots of martial arts skill than the occasional death is acceptable (given the vic was posing a significant threat and there wasn't any less-lethal means of dealing with them).
When he's being a big superhero, handling invasions and supervillains and impending cataclysms and the like then no, he shouldn't kill people. Because he shouldn't have to and being both untouchably powerful _and_ a killer just makes him a tyrannical murderer.
Big hard no
His pathos and reasoning behind not killing is the most interesting thing about him. Struggling with trauma and the arguable selfishness and hypocrisy is what's so interesting to explore. Lego Batman while poking fun at him not killing to justify villains being brought back etc, it also has a great point that he needs these villains. In those relationships is part of where the drama comes from.
Some people say that Jason Todd is Batman's greatest failure. However, I say it is letting Joker live after the thousands the Clown Prince of Crime has murdered and the many more who suffer (Barbara Gordon and Jason Todd). Why? Because he values his own code more than his friends and those he swore to protect. That is the perfect definition of selfishness.
Should Batman kill? Not indiscriminately.
The only two deaths, of the current movies, that one could defend Batman for Killing someone would be Harvey Dent and the one kidnapper who had a flamethrower in BvS, both of these Batman made a choice to save an innocent life over not killing someone. In anycase Batman, and most anyone, would save someone who is an innocent over trying to save the person putting them in harm's way (provided there is no possible outcome where he could do both). The dock scene in BvS though is a different animal altogether, and while it is a cool scene the whole thing was completely pointless. Batman placed a tracker on the trailer before it left, knowing this he could have followed it to where it would be delivered and avoided nearly 20+ people being killed (I am not 100% sure if it was over 20 but it was close to 20) during the chase. Even during the Martha rescue he could have used thermal scanning to locate the only person that was tied to the chair, thus keep the count very low there as well. The Ra's al Ghul death was not really Batman murdering him as Ra's could have escaped of his own accord but chose to die rather than keep fighting.
The fact that killing is easy IS the point. The moral choice is had and has consequences, but it's still the moral choice. That's why he's a hero and not Lockup or Jason Todd
There’s an Alternate Batman that kills (like The Batman Who Laugh which is pretty much a Fusion of Batman and The Joker, Owlman who is an Evil Counterpart from Earth-3 where The Heroes and The Villains switch Roles etc etc)
Great debate, guys!
Batman never kills and always lets Joker (Penguin, Riddler, and others) get away again....and again....and again to commit murder. He also is a vigilante who apprehends criminals, which is against the law -- as someone pointed out in the comments earlier.
What is the point of Batman again?
I mean he did kill the Joker in The Killing Joke, but it was because he felt like he tried everything he could to help him and killing him was the last resort. You could tell he was struggling with it and that he didn't want to do it. It was brilliant writing
When was it made cannon? (please have a link)
Yes the ending was left to interpenetration, which means the audience could say what they wanted, and in my interpenetration Barman kills him.
Grant Morrison said it best, "No one gets the end, because Batman kills The Joker. That’s why it’s called The Killing Joke. The Joker tells the ‘Killing Joke’ at the end, Batman reaches out and breaks his neck, and that’s why the laughter stops and the light goes out, ’cause that was the last chance at crossing that bridge. And Alan Moore wrote the ultimate Batman/Joker story… he finished it."
I for one, liked how Batfleck was introduced much, much, much more than any, ANY incarnation of Batman. That includes the animated series.
Batman is a power fantasy for most people, which is great, but that's not what I look for in a character. I'm not looking for a character who will always find a way. That's fun, for a while, but that's not going to be the peak for me. I want to see the character evolve.
With Batfleck, rather than being introduced to a Batman that doesn't kill, we are introduced to a Batman that's already past his prime. We don't have to be told that he's damaged, because it's clearly visible on the screen that he is. That he may have been someone great once, but that something's changed for him.
And, knowing what Batman is like when he's damaged, that's where you should start. You should start with a Batman that is okay with collatoral damage and having broken his no-kill rule. We need to see him on his descent to the abyss right from the start to realize exactly how easy it would be for him to start slipping down again.
From then on, have him rehabilitate himself with a Tim Drake stand-in. Have him evolve his way back into the Animated Batman persona. Because THEN and only THEN, you know that Batman is genuinely on the precipice of madness. You know that, at any moment, Batman knows that he could do things more efficiently if he'd just allow himself to kill. But, if he allowed himself to, that Batman specifically would have a relapse, as though it were an addiction.
Which would be a great contrast to someone like Jason Todd; someone whose methods Batman has condoned in the comics. Batman, in the comics, acknowledges that Gotham needs someone like the Red Hood to clean up the criminals, but that that someone cannot be Batman. And I find it infinitely more fascinating if Batman cannot kill because he himself is just too psychotic. That a moral code is the only thing that's left between him and cutting a swathe through the criminal underworld, innocents and all. That he's dependent and reliant on the justice system to do the thing that he's become addicted to; killing.
I find that much more fascinating. It's sad that we're not going to see that.
Batman shouldn't kill since it's not his place to be judge, jury, and executioner as a vigilante.
But holy shit does Bruce need to do something about that revolving door in Arkham.
You mean to tell me he can make a mecha that can take down the entire Justice League but he can't shell out a couple million to ensure that the Joker can't just waltz out the front door of the asylum every Tuesday?
Toeing the line by exploring the concept of Mercy killings
Accidental Murder / Manslaughter
Murder vs. Torture : Which is worse / more amoral than the other?
That's what makes it such an interesting concept to explore. Yes, as a species the majority of us are most likely stupid, egotistical, self-deluded pricks. That said: our trying to become better than we are as a species by building a moral compass cross-culturally isn't something I'm going to condemn the human race for. That's why I still have hope for us all & why I'm not suicidal.