The part where he mentioned he is aware that there are those who argue that killing is a more effective way to reduce crime. He was refering to Red Hood, the second robin with the same mindset
He has better moral clarity then bats, this redemption crap seldom works, this pollyanna approach ignore the scores of innocents killed because bats has moral qualms and his ego outweighs the suffering of the victims and families. Red hood has it right.
We thank you for your input in this great philosophy, Batman. I think that now I can understand why you don't take lives. However, I'd like to ask you something. A hypothetical scenario more likely: let's say that a villain is about to kill unarmed, inoccent civilians. And that he/she has gotten you locked in a fierce battle. So you cannot reach the civilians and remove them from the line of fire. Seemingly, the only way to stop said villain is to kill him/her. What would you do? Isn't it okay to permanently remove a threat if it happens only under the most dire circumstances?
My primary objective is to protect innocent lives and uphold justice. While I understand the urgency of the situation and the desire to stop the villain from causing harm, I firmly believe in the value of preserving life whenever possible. My strict code of not killing is rooted in the belief that everyone deserves a chance for redemption and that taking a life should never be the solution. In this hypothetical scenario, I would exhaust all other options to incapacitate the villain and neutralize the immediate threat without resorting to lethal force. As Batman, I possess an array of gadgets, combat skills, and strategic thinking that allow me to find creative solutions in dire situations. I would utilize these resources to disarm, subdue, or incapacitate the villain while ensuring the safety of the innocent civilians. If necessary, I would prioritize protecting the lives of the unarmed civilians over engaging in direct combat with the villain. I might use my detective skills to find alternative ways to reach and save the civilians, such as finding an escape route or utilizing remote-controlled devices to remove them from the line of fire. It's crucial to remember that by adhering to my no-killing principle, I maintain the moral high ground and demonstrate the belief that even in the darkest moments, there is a way to achieve justice without compromising our humanity.
@@DarkKnightArchive I knew you'd find a way to maintain your beliefs intact while doing the most good, Batman. That's what makes you such a valuable source of knowledge and inspiration. Thanks for answering my question 🙂
@@DarkKnightArchive My question to you is, firstly, do you believe that there are humans who can be so enticed by evil that redemption is out of reach? Explain your answer. Secondly, are you aware that redemption goes far beyond a mere apology? I support redemption. Absolutely! However, there are instances whereby redemption is not possible. I say be careful with redemption. Proper selection is best because that ensures that you do not end up saving someone whose life will not honour those he or she has raped and murdered.
@@thandogongqa1161 To answer your first question, yes, there are individuals who can become so deeply entrenched in darkness that finding redemption seems nearly impossible. Some people commit heinous acts, causing immense pain and suffering, and their actions may be so extreme that it becomes incredibly challenging to imagine a path to redemption for them. However, as Batman, I firmly believe in the potential for redemption. I have witnessed individuals who were once lost in the depths of evil find a way to atone for their actions and seek a path of righteousness. It may not be a common occurrence, but it is possible. Redemption requires a sincere desire for change, a willingness to take responsibility for one's actions, and consistent efforts to make amends. Now, regarding your second point, I completely agree that redemption extends far beyond a mere apology. It involves a comprehensive transformation of character, a genuine commitment to repairing the damage caused, and actively working towards becoming a better person. Redemption demands a continuous and dedicated effort to make positive changes, to seek forgiveness, and to contribute to society in a way that counterbalances the harm done. However, it is crucial to exercise caution and discernment when considering redemption. While I support the idea of redemption, it is essential to recognize that not everyone who claims to seek redemption will genuinely change. Proper selection and careful evaluation of an individual's actions and motives are necessary to ensure that efforts towards redemption are not misplaced or taken advantage of. It is crucial to prioritize the well-being and safety of potential victims and to hold individuals accountable for their past actions while allowing for the possibility of change. I believe in giving people the opportunity for redemption, but I also understand the importance of discernment and protecting society from those who may continue to pose a threat.
@@DarkKnightArchivewhat do you say about a certain Kryptonian General who wanted to wipe out the human race, turn Earth into a new Krypton, and bring his people back using Kal-El's blood and the genesis chamber aboard the Kryptonian scout ship? Was there any hope of redemption for one such as him? Zod even said the battle wouldn't stop until either he or Kal was dead.
However Batman's "no killing" rule is heavily flawed when there's Bad Faith actors who are beyond redemption and are willing to exploit those principles to their own gain and Batman is forever stuck in a loop never really solving the issue but only making things even worse for Gotham.
Let's also not forget one more crucial detail: There's a very good reason why Batman won't kill criminals like The Joker: IT'S WHAT THE JOKER WANTS! The Joker wants nothing more than to break Batman mentally. The Joker wants Batman to lose control. And The Joker wants to see Batman's sanity crumble. If the Injustice franchise has taught us anything, it is The Joker ALWAYS gets the last laugh. Even beyond the grave.
From a logical point of view, Jason is right. The Joker has killed hundreds of people for no other reason than to satisfy his nihilistic impulses, he has escaped from prison several times and has rejected all the opportunities that people have offered him to rehabilitate himself. Worse yet, he has hurt and killed people Batman loved. In short, the guy cannot be rehabilitated, he is going to continue killing people and he has killed Jason. Enough to break the rule for once But the problem is, as Batman says, what happens next. Where is the line drawn? Would Batman limit himself to killing only in revenge for his loved ones? Would he just kill those villains who want to see the world burn like the Joker? Or would he kill those villains with the highest body count? Where is the line drawn between villains who deserve to die and those who don't? It is very difficult to say which crimes are unforgivable or how many of them justify killing the person who commits them. He could easily start a slippery slope, surely he would start killing monsters like Joker, Dr Pigg or Black Mask and in a few years the list would expand to allow killing common criminals, arguing that the more criminals killed, the more lives are saved.
Dear Kevin Conroy gave us those who love Batman the perfect voice. And those of you who use the AI version to produce these masterpieces. Well all I can say to all is thank you. ❤
Batman if you’re reading this. I would love to hear why you defend Gotham despite many people saying to let it burn and it’s beyond redemption due to how corrupt and dangerous it is. I believe any place should be protected no matter how bad it is. But I want to hear it from you why Gotham city should be protected :)
I guess to some up what Batman is saying is "And Eye For An Eye And Every Body Goes Blind" aka Revenge, is not the way to go. Nor is what he's into and in IMPO we could all learn from that.
To Batman: While I understand why you don't kill, I have to disagree; Can you really say that The Joker is redeemable? Or Victor Zsasz, Scarecrow, Black Mask and others? Also, they don't face consequences for their actions and are sent to Arkham under an insanity defense only for them to escape time and time again, thus letting the cycle of violence grow worse. They continue their actions because they know they won't face any real consequences besides a gut punch and a one way ticket to Arkham.
I appreciate your perspective and concerns regarding my no-killing policy. I understand the frustration of witnessing notorious criminals like The Joker, Victor Zsasz, Scarecrow, Black Mask, and others repeatedly escape the consequences of their actions. It might seem as though my methods allow the cycle of violence to persist. However, allow me to shed some light on my rationale behind this approach. The reason I don't kill is rooted in my unwavering belief in the value of every human life, even those who have committed terrible acts. Taking a life, no matter how depraved the individual may be, crosses a line that I am not willing to cross. If I were to start killing criminals, even the ones as irredeemable as The Joker, I would be no better than the very criminals I fight against. But rest assured, it's not as though these individuals go unpunished. While they may escape Arkham Asylum from time to time, my constant vigilance and unwavering commitment to protect Gotham City ensures that they are captured once again. And when they are apprehended, they face the justice system and are put on trial for their crimes. Admittedly, the Arkham Asylum system has its flaws, and the repeated escapes are a cause for concern. However, it's essential to understand that mental health is a complex issue, and some individuals require psychiatric treatment. Arkham Asylum is the place where they can receive the help they need while also being held accountable for their actions. Improvements to the system are necessary, and I constantly work with authorities to ensure that they are made. I know that the failures to redeem Joker, Victor, Crane and Roman are all that people talk about, it still shouldn't overshadow the criminals we have rehabilitated like Catwoman becoming a batfamily member, The Ventriloquist Managing to leave Scarface behind, Mister Freeze giving up Crime after reuniting with his wife, Clayface fighting crime alongside The Gotham Knights or Harley Quinn who has progressively become more heroic. I share your frustration with the cycle of violence perpetuated by these criminals, and I am determined to break it. I tirelessly patrol the streets, gather evidence, and work towards building a stronger case against them. My goal is to ensure that justice prevails and that Gotham City becomes a safer place for its citizens. Thank you for sharing your concerns, and please remember that my mission as Batman is not just about fighting crime but also striving for a Gotham that upholds the principles of justice and compassion.
That’s an under stable argument but it’s not his place to kill, he’d be hunted. The police are too corrupted and they don’t give them the death sentence
Some people you just can't save or reason with they are some terrible and evil people in the world that shouldn't never been born but I understand it at the Sametime because when you start killing people you become the monster that you are trying to stop batman didn't have a choice but to kill the joker he was out of control and the joker almost killed batman in the cave at the amusement park. I am saying this sometimes you are forced to take action on your enemies.
"Several reasons," crap. Bruce is a high-functioning psychopath. The only reason he doesn't kill is because it's the one thing he knows he could never justify or make a reasonable excuse for to the memory of his parents.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
The part where he mentioned he is aware that there are those who argue that killing is a more effective way to reduce crime. He was refering to Red Hood, the second robin with the same mindset
Great.. I would like to hear why The Punisher thinks that killing is the only way to achieve justice..
The Punisher is Eye For An Eye State of Mind.
He has better moral clarity then bats, this redemption crap seldom works, this pollyanna approach ignore the scores of innocents killed because bats has moral qualms and his ego outweighs the suffering of the victims and families. Red hood has it right.
“IF A KILLER, KILLS A KILLER, THE NUMBER OF KILLERS MIGHT INCREASED.” -Unknown
"kill
two" -raiden mgr
This is the epitome of Batman/Bruce. Thank You for this.
Redemption. This was absolutely beautiful.
I loved this
I watch this video everyday. I love it and for some reason it brings me to some tears
Batman truly is my favourite superhero
Batman does not kill because thats what's separates him from his enemies and thats why its so important!!
Kevin wouldn't want this, he'd strike this down
Every Batman except Keaton’s… That guy had no problem with using bullets and bombs on henchmen.
We thank you for your input in this great philosophy, Batman.
I think that now I can understand why you don't take lives.
However, I'd like to ask you something. A hypothetical scenario more likely: let's say that a villain is about to kill unarmed, inoccent civilians. And that he/she has gotten you locked in a fierce battle. So you cannot reach the civilians and remove them from the line of fire. Seemingly, the only way to stop said villain is to kill him/her.
What would you do? Isn't it okay to permanently remove a threat if it happens only under the most dire circumstances?
My primary objective is to protect innocent lives and uphold justice. While I understand the urgency of the situation and the desire to stop the villain from causing harm, I firmly believe in the value of preserving life whenever possible. My strict code of not killing is rooted in the belief that everyone deserves a chance for redemption and that taking a life should never be the solution.
In this hypothetical scenario, I would exhaust all other options to incapacitate the villain and neutralize the immediate threat without resorting to lethal force. As Batman, I possess an array of gadgets, combat skills, and strategic thinking that allow me to find creative solutions in dire situations. I would utilize these resources to disarm, subdue, or incapacitate the villain while ensuring the safety of the innocent civilians.
If necessary, I would prioritize protecting the lives of the unarmed civilians over engaging in direct combat with the villain. I might use my detective skills to find alternative ways to reach and save the civilians, such as finding an escape route or utilizing remote-controlled devices to remove them from the line of fire.
It's crucial to remember that by adhering to my no-killing principle, I maintain the moral high ground and demonstrate the belief that even in the darkest moments, there is a way to achieve justice without compromising our humanity.
@@DarkKnightArchive I knew you'd find a way to maintain your beliefs intact while doing the most good, Batman.
That's what makes you such a valuable source of knowledge and inspiration.
Thanks for answering my question 🙂
@@DarkKnightArchive My question to you is, firstly, do you believe that there are humans who can be so enticed by evil that redemption is out of reach? Explain your answer. Secondly, are you aware that redemption goes far beyond a mere apology? I support redemption. Absolutely! However, there are instances whereby redemption is not possible. I say be careful with redemption. Proper selection is best because that ensures that you do not end up saving someone whose life will not honour those he or she has raped and murdered.
@@thandogongqa1161 To answer your first question, yes, there are individuals who can become so deeply entrenched in darkness that finding redemption seems nearly impossible. Some people commit heinous acts, causing immense pain and suffering, and their actions may be so extreme that it becomes incredibly challenging to imagine a path to redemption for them.
However, as Batman, I firmly believe in the potential for redemption. I have witnessed individuals who were once lost in the depths of evil find a way to atone for their actions and seek a path of righteousness. It may not be a common occurrence, but it is possible. Redemption requires a sincere desire for change, a willingness to take responsibility for one's actions, and consistent efforts to make amends.
Now, regarding your second point, I completely agree that redemption extends far beyond a mere apology. It involves a comprehensive transformation of character, a genuine commitment to repairing the damage caused, and actively working towards becoming a better person. Redemption demands a continuous and dedicated effort to make positive changes, to seek forgiveness, and to contribute to society in a way that counterbalances the harm done.
However, it is crucial to exercise caution and discernment when considering redemption. While I support the idea of redemption, it is essential to recognize that not everyone who claims to seek redemption will genuinely change. Proper selection and careful evaluation of an individual's actions and motives are necessary to ensure that efforts towards redemption are not misplaced or taken advantage of. It is crucial to prioritize the well-being and safety of potential victims and to hold individuals accountable for their past actions while allowing for the possibility of change.
I believe in giving people the opportunity for redemption, but I also understand the importance of discernment and protecting society from those who may continue to pose a threat.
@@DarkKnightArchivewhat do you say about a certain Kryptonian General who wanted to wipe out the human race, turn Earth into a new Krypton, and bring his people back using Kal-El's blood and the genesis chamber aboard the Kryptonian scout ship? Was there any hope of redemption for one such as him? Zod even said the battle wouldn't stop until either he or Kal was dead.
No child is born a criminal
However Batman's "no killing" rule is heavily flawed when there's Bad Faith actors who are beyond redemption and are willing to exploit those principles to their own gain and Batman is forever stuck in a loop never really solving the issue but only making things even worse for Gotham.
Let's also not forget one more crucial detail: There's a very good reason why Batman won't kill criminals like The Joker: IT'S WHAT THE JOKER WANTS! The Joker wants nothing more than to break Batman mentally. The Joker wants Batman to lose control. And The Joker wants to see Batman's sanity crumble. If the Injustice franchise has taught us anything, it is The Joker ALWAYS gets the last laugh. Even beyond the grave.
No one in the Batman comics made a universe where the criminals are rehabilitated either going back to their normal lives or becoming super heroes.
From a logical point of view, Jason is right. The Joker has killed hundreds of people for no other reason than to satisfy his nihilistic impulses, he has escaped from prison several times and has rejected all the opportunities that people have offered him to rehabilitate himself. Worse yet, he has hurt and killed people Batman loved.
In short, the guy cannot be rehabilitated, he is going to continue killing people and he has killed Jason. Enough to break the rule for once
But the problem is, as Batman says, what happens next. Where is the line drawn? Would Batman limit himself to killing only in revenge for his loved ones? Would he just kill those villains who want to see the world burn like the Joker? Or would he kill those villains with the highest body count?
Where is the line drawn between villains who deserve to die and those who don't? It is very difficult to say which crimes are unforgivable or how many of them justify killing the person who commits them.
He could easily start a slippery slope, surely he would start killing monsters like Joker, Dr Pigg or Black Mask and in a few years the list would expand to allow killing common criminals, arguing that the more criminals killed, the more lives are saved.
Dear Kevin Conroy gave us those who love Batman the perfect voice.
And those of you who use the AI version to produce these masterpieces.
Well all I can say to all is thank you. ❤
Can you make about June Moone aka Enchantress please?
which batman though...
Would you do a video on Harley Quinn at some point ?
Batman if you’re reading this. I would love to hear why you defend Gotham despite many people saying to let it burn and it’s beyond redemption due to how corrupt and dangerous it is.
I believe any place should be protected no matter how bad it is. But I want to hear it from you why Gotham city should be protected :)
I guess to some up what Batman is saying is "And Eye For An Eye And Every Body Goes Blind" aka Revenge, is not the way to go. Nor is what he's into and in IMPO we could all learn from that.
Why not cripple then?
To Batman:
While I understand why you don't kill, I have to disagree; Can you really say that The Joker is redeemable? Or Victor Zsasz, Scarecrow, Black Mask and others? Also, they don't face consequences for their actions and are sent to Arkham under an insanity defense only for them to escape time and time again, thus letting the cycle of violence grow worse. They continue their actions because they know they won't face any real consequences besides a gut punch and a one way ticket to Arkham.
I appreciate your perspective and concerns regarding my no-killing policy. I understand the frustration of witnessing notorious criminals like The Joker, Victor Zsasz, Scarecrow, Black Mask, and others repeatedly escape the consequences of their actions. It might seem as though my methods allow the cycle of violence to persist.
However, allow me to shed some light on my rationale behind this approach. The reason I don't kill is rooted in my unwavering belief in the value of every human life, even those who have committed terrible acts. Taking a life, no matter how depraved the individual may be, crosses a line that I am not willing to cross. If I were to start killing criminals, even the ones as irredeemable as The Joker, I would be no better than the very criminals I fight against.
But rest assured, it's not as though these individuals go unpunished. While they may escape Arkham Asylum from time to time, my constant vigilance and unwavering commitment to protect Gotham City ensures that they are captured once again. And when they are apprehended, they face the justice system and are put on trial for their crimes.
Admittedly, the Arkham Asylum system has its flaws, and the repeated escapes are a cause for concern. However, it's essential to understand that mental health is a complex issue, and some individuals require psychiatric treatment. Arkham Asylum is the place where they can receive the help they need while also being held accountable for their actions. Improvements to the system are necessary, and I constantly work with authorities to ensure that they are made.
I know that the failures to redeem Joker, Victor, Crane and Roman are all that people talk about, it still shouldn't overshadow the criminals we have rehabilitated like Catwoman becoming a batfamily member, The Ventriloquist Managing to leave Scarface behind, Mister Freeze giving up Crime after reuniting with his wife, Clayface fighting crime alongside The Gotham Knights or Harley Quinn who has progressively become more heroic.
I share your frustration with the cycle of violence perpetuated by these criminals, and I am determined to break it. I tirelessly patrol the streets, gather evidence, and work towards building a stronger case against them. My goal is to ensure that justice prevails and that Gotham City becomes a safer place for its citizens.
Thank you for sharing your concerns, and please remember that my mission as Batman is not just about fighting crime but also striving for a Gotham that upholds the principles of justice and compassion.
That’s an under stable argument but it’s not his place to kill, he’d be hunted. The police are too corrupted and they don’t give them the death sentence
@@DarkKnightArchive warning: This is A teenager named Aiden Parker,not The Joker
I knew it,Bats! I knew you believed in redemption.☺️😃
@@DarkKnightArchiveIf you had killed joker at the first murder, how many would be alive ? . Dead bad people don't kill after they are dead, fyi.
😊 B x
Some people you just can't save or reason with they are some terrible and evil people in the world that shouldn't never been born but I understand it at the Sametime because when you start killing people you become the monster that you are trying to stop batman didn't have a choice but to kill the joker he was out of control and the joker almost killed batman in the cave at the amusement park. I am saying this sometimes you are forced to take action on your enemies.
“Irreversible”
My man, you live in a world with multiple ways to be resurrected.
"Several reasons," crap. Bruce is a high-functioning psychopath. The only reason he doesn't kill is because it's the one thing he knows he could never justify or make a reasonable excuse for to the memory of his parents.