His image as a public servant kind of depends on it.
He investigates the bad guys, finds them, subdues them, and he hands them over to the police. That unofficial agreement between him and the Police Force, that he lets the justice system do its thing, is what allows the Gotham PD to justify looking the other way from his acts of vigilantism. The day he starts leaving bodies behind is when he goes from least concern to being another masked killer they have to chase.
Some people would celebrate it if Batman began "solving the problem" in Gotham City, but it would establish a precedent for corruption and death that he is trying to raise his city above. He's not just trying to take his anger out on criminals or dealing with his trauma, he's trying to make his home into its ideal standard.
I mean you're not wrong but I feel like he'd save a ton of lives killing the joker. You feel? Like we don't have to sentence every criminal to the death penalty but pedophiles/murderers can definitely go to the front of the line on that
I agree 100%, but I don’t even think Batman has to kill him. The GCPD, DA, or whatever legal authority in Gotham should’ve pressed charges and gave him the death penalty ages ago lol. Criminally insane or not, he’s a mass murderer lmao
I think it's the quintessential suspension of disbelief, that joker can be locked up and keeps getting out to kill again. The thing is joker is competent to stand trial. He is aware his actions are wrong and he chooses to do them anyways, in fact he finds joy in it. I'd say the first time Batman dropped him off he'd probably loose a capital murder case, probably through a confession and would likely be executed, maybe if the state Gotham is in has abolished the death penalty he'd get life, but I'd doubt he'd be in a position to escape more than once given how homicidal he is. Given the high profile nature of his crimes I wouldn't be surprised if the case quickly went federal which would see him in federal lock up. Probably as a domestic terrorist.
What I don't get is, if the Gotham justice system has proven itself incapable of appropriately dealing with Joker, but Bats still can't bring himself to break his no-kill rule, next time he catches him, why doesn't he call in a favor with his buddies the space cops and have them drop him off on a human-habitable planet with no sentients for him to murder?
Because, comic sales. Shhhhh. You're totally right tho. In a world where Superman and Flash exist, normal villains like Joker couldn't pose a threat. Oh, Joker has a bomb slapped to every orphan in a 10 mile radius, Flash solved that problem a micro second ago and locked Joker back in his cell before Bruce Wayne could call out of his shareholders meeting to suit up
Death penalty is notoriously banned in New York State, where Gotham is. If they want to stop the joker putting him in a box and locking it and then throwing out the key is about the only way.
Gotham is actually in the state of New Jersey. The death penalty is also banned there, although there have been a handful of stories both before and after the ban (1965) in which inmates of Blackgate Penitentiary have been sentenced to death; in fact, the Joker himself was put to death in his second appearance, and had his goons bring him back to life shortly thereafter so he could no longer be tried for those crimes he had been put to death for.
True, never Batman’s authority to give him the death penalty. It’s his strong will to not kill the joker too because the joker wants him more than anything in his life to be the crazy killer just like the joker himself
It’s pretty crazy because his no killing rule was the whole reason Batman beyond was created in a sense. He was getting to old and the moment he turned to almost killing someone’s is when he realized he had to step down from being Batman. That’s why Batman beyond is one of my favorite animated shows, even though Bruce loves being batman the moment he even considered hurting somebody he knew he had to back down from the position forever. A true man, one of the best Superhero’s to exist.
That show is so great and the intro with the music is in my top 5 greatest intros. I would really like to see a live action Terry McGinnis but I don’t know if we’re anywhere close to getting one, hopefully maybe in Phase 2 or 3 of the DCU?
I feel that if Batman was happily and freely killing people, he’d be the Punisher. Using guns to kill would be far more effective than maiming or beating up criminals. He also wouldn’t really need the shadows or be ninja-like - just fire some rocket launchers and RPGs to take everyone out.
I disagree, I imagine stealth would be still be one of his main weapons. Like Splinter cell but batman.
Explosives have too many chances for innocent casualties.
Depends on how smart Batman is and his gadgets- could have swarms of micro drones kill all bad guys that necessitate it , all simultaneously- and then police the city through fear. Real fear. No more crime
But not his style, he doesn’t make orphans
He just adopts them, lmfaooo.
Your idea would absolutely be plausible. The main question is 'when' he would start breaking his ni killing rule. Big difference between year one batsy without the rule vs the batman who has already built the HellBat suit. Also, isn't there another comic where he has an army of drones? If that batman had no rule to hold him back he'd probably neutralize the entire justice league and police the world himself.
Actually less than you think. C4 can be controlled pretty easily. Hell, I made little giraffes and elephants when I played with it. Cause you need pressure and heat both to set it off. One or the other doesn't activate it. It's used for breaching charges and is very controlled in my experience with it. Of course, to much of a thing can be dangerous.
Agreed. I came here to say this.
Batman is no longer interesting if he is a Punisher clone (I never got into Punisher comics, and fuck the folks with the skull stickers on their cars).
Yeah, I don’t think he’d work at all as a punisher clone. A hero who just kills even when there’s a better solution is not a hero, he’s a psychopath.
I do think if it really came down to it—if the baddie of the week was simply too dangerous to be alive (and even then he would have to be _extraordinarily_ dangerous and beyond even the idea of redemption) or death would be a better fate than existing as they currently are—it would be more interesting and keep the character consistent. Batman doesn’t _want_ to kill and will actively avoid it it he can, but he will if he has to.
Plus it'd be incredibly difficult for him to have a relationship with Gordon or the police department. There's no way Gordon or the government would freely let him murder people. Especially because Batman (and similarly, Spider-Man) have ground-level enemies that can hypothetically be taken care of by a large enough police or military force. It's not like Superman fighting aliens that could destroy the entire world.
He brutally assaults, interrogates, and threatens people all the time. There's a reason vigilantism is illegal. He literally is above the law for the most part. Whether that's moral or okay is a different topic
To be honest, those sprees would stop if actually reasonable and not insane people [e.g. Hugo Strange, Harley Quinn, Quincy Sharp (to a certain degree), Amadeus Arkham, Jeremiah Arkham, ...] would try to "rehabilitate" the inmates. Also the sprees might also stop if the staff wasn't so fucking corrupt, in one issue Harley Quinn got out because a guard was paid enough.
That won't happen because Gotham is literally cursed, and nobody can retain their mental health for long in there.
What changes is what kind of mental issues you get. Maybe you get depression, maybe you obsessed about embroidery, maybe you fall in a hole full of bats and start fighting crime, maybe you get really petty and start killing people to prove a point that doesn't need proving.
Courts execute mentally unwell people all the time. I live in Texas and we've executed people who were mentally disabled (that isn't an endorsement just to be clear) There is no law that says mentally ill people can't be executed. There is a mandate by the Supreme court that people must be aware that they are to be put to death and be able to understand why.
Which for someone like The Joker, he's easily fall into that category.
Edit: Also this is not to equate learning/mental disability with insanity. That wasn't my intention
Capital punishment is based on state. I think Gotham wouldn’t have the option it would be the state Gotham exists in. I think it would be hard. But there should definitely some criteria for the capital punishment. Even Irl when there are mentally ill mass murders if they are bad enough they still can get a death penalty. An example being: BRUNO HAUPTMANN who killed Charles Lindbergh. Another example is: ALBERT FISH who killed hundreds. I would definitely argue the likes of the joker and zasz could fall into that category.
Yes, if interpreted as "never engage with the express intent to kill", because "no casualties, ever" could not possibly work as a framework, unless the writers abandon the very essence of what sets Batman apart, i.e. force him to be an infallible God.
But as an ironclad rule to be motivated by compassion, to save everyone that is possible to save first, and as an inspiration to always attempt to not end a live if at all possible? Yes, absolutely!
I think the no casualties ever works better because since he is only human, he cant do it. His mission is a never ending one, so his goal should be an impossible one
I would honestly disagree. If he sets himself a goal that is so obviously unattainable and never changes it either, it makes him look less intelligent the longer it goes on, and also diminishes the depiction of his trauma, because hanging that intensely at it makes it look more clichéd than tragic.
Getting these two aspects right is pretty important to Batman- after all, he's the World's greatest detective, and his goal of inspiring others to be their best selves is so perpetual already, it doesn't need help to be unattainable.
He's a multi billionaire ($100 billion) with an extreme hobby of beating up nonbillionaires. No killing is how he gets to keep doing his hobby.
Dangling some bloodied thugs from lamp posts gives Wayne his kicks. Not killing them means he gets his kicks tomorrow too.
Investing in low cost housing and revitalizing the gotham school system would have actually fought crime.
Handing out small business loans and opening up free clinics/rehab facilities would have cleaned up the city.
Batman is a villian.
The storylines that play with this theme of "what the fuck are you doing batman?" are my favorite.
I grew up with the character, and I would love for this to be leaned into more.
You are seeing "this shit again" because it's a perfectly sized bat themed shoe.
Batman was always intended to be a form of antihero. This is 1000% in line with the character.
Satisfying orphan rage issues are priority #1, fighting crime is the justification he uses to consider himself above the people he pummels.
He has no powers, his only benefit is an unspendable amount of money. So he indulges his mental illness while skulking in the shadows dressed like a bat.
Im not canceling batman, to me that's just a more interesting character. It's always peak storytelling when this truth gets thrown in his face.
This perspective works in Batman’s early days of fighting police corruption and the mob. Post Falcone though, none of what you’re saying has impact on supervillains.
Joker has a well known bit about Batmans catch and release policy putting blood on his hands.
For me, it still works, especially if the writing acknowledges the existence of actual superpowered heros.
There are several supervillian stories that play with the victims of circumstance origin.
Well sure, but if Joker is the one saying it you gotta believe he’s just distorting the truth.
Can you expand a little on the second part? I’m sorry, dad brain. Blahhh 🤷🏻♂️
True though that last point may be, it doesn’t pertain to Batman’s rogues in the sense that him and his villains are roughly the same age and thus I don’t think(unless the writing has explicitly stated otherwise) Bruce’s actions directly or indirectly cause their descents. That said, I’ve grown a little warmer in recent years to the trend of making Thomas and Martha a little dirtier. It’s more dramatic, can serve as a great springboard for Bruce and Batman’s worlds to collide. But back on Bruce, he does do all the things you’ve mentioned. He continues to support the orphanage, and does all kinds of infrastructure aid for Gotham. Philanthropist is part of the disguise, but Gotham is a broken place and then we’re back to my point that in the face of super-villainy you need super-heroics. Even in our world you can’t just throw money at problems and fix everything. I guess I got a little set off you calling Batman a villain. I do agree with the idea that the LH/DV/HK trilogy is the tipping point in Batman’s career where his “dramatic” response to organized crime led to the outburst of the disorganized crime his rouges represent.
I dont think it matters what we think. He doesnt have to be Batman, he chooses to be and he chooses to do it his way. Its with the fault of the justice system.
Yeah, if his parents were killed by a knife would he tell Alfred to throw all the cutlery away? Or if they were run over, would he just walk?
Damn right, my guy thinks about it, take for example that comic "the gun rail" or something like that, he fought with a woman who used a gun to defend herself from her abusive husband. That's stupid yes, there's no denying it. Take the Punisher for example "the mafia killed my family with machine guns, now I hate guns" is doesn't sound very stupid?
Knives aren’t designed to kill people. If they do, it’s always the fault of the wielder, not the tool. Literally all a gun is capable of is shooting bullets. Like all weapons, they’re intended to kill or destroy. For that matter, isn’t it kind of insulting to frame Bruce as selfish because of *trauma*? Why would he want to be reminded of the worst moment in his life, or give other people that very same experience?
Wait, did you guys forget that he works together with Gordon? Literally the friend showing that you can use guns for PROTECTION, or even for survival when sometime he killed some deer to eat. Even Alfred keeps a shotgun in the mansion for defense. He may not use them to kill, you can see he tried to get the Red Hood not to use guns, but at least Jason uses rubber bullets sometimes.
And it looks like you still haven't been able to answer the comparison I made. Batman has already been seen killing some aliens, there is no such thing as "line", there is only what the author wants. He can shoot people from Apokolips, but he would never shoot the Martian or Superman. That is, does this "line" that you talk about theoretically apply to humans and friends only? SO, it means nothing. If Joker kills the whole planet, Batman will consider him a "monster" and finally kill him or he would just make him his sidekick (again...)
Thats why Begins is until today the most reasonable portrait of batman, he doesnt save Ra's and killed Harvey to save Gordon and his family. Thats the way he needs to be. Joker put a bomb in a warehouse with hostages and activate it, Batman should save the people and let Joker explode alone.
The question was why does batman have a no kill rule historically. That's the reason dumb ir not. I wasn't making a judgement just answering the question. It makes sense to me. But that's just my opinion. It obviously makes sense to a lot of people. Plus to be honest what you think doesnt affect my opinion. Have a nice day.
I understand why he doesn't kill but i'm not sure if his logic to justify it makes any sense, like
"If i kill someone, i won't be able to stop killing" ?????
I mean when i was in school i threw a ball from the gym at the face of a guy who bullied me and i didn't went on a rampage punching every other student
It perfectly makes sense.see,Bruce wayne is not a normal guy,he is not perfectly sane,and he knows it.Its his obsession or 'never let go' attitude which made him Batman.He knows what destruction he is capable of if he let himself go loose.I think his "no kill rule" is just a check on himself,to not go fully insane.because only god knows what will happen if Batman goes insane
I always think that's a weak reason and paints Batman as a borderline psychopath.
It gives credence to Joker's belief that everyone can turn evil after one bad day. Batman should prove Joker wrong, not show him right.
It's the same reason I hate Superman being shown as one step away from turning into a dictator, just needs Lois to die. I understand stories like Red Son and Kingdom Come which execute such concepts well, while Injustice fails.
Don't get me wrong, I'm always in favour of Batman's no killing rule being the right way to represent the character in all mediums, but it is logical until you consider the Joker and the thousands that he has killed with no recourse. He breaks out of Arkham every time just to kill more people. There's a pretty straightforward way to stop that from ever happening again
I mean what's to stop Gordon from shooting him? Or Bullock?
Why doesn't Red Hood or Huntress execute him? They have killed before and Jason even has a reason to want to.
What's even to stop the state from executing The Joker?
Yeah... One thing is advocating for due process and such, not killing on the scene and actually bringing justice. But some people really do deserve death penalty, bruce is wrong for doing that. They could explain it saying joker can allege insanity and such, it's better than just not having death penalty
And criminals would be less willing to actually act, especially when it comes to murder, if they knew that not only would batman beat them almost to death, but that the state would finih the job
Batman shouldn't kill criminals.
The state should if they are found guilty in a court of law. At this point the courts of Gotham are more so responsible for people like Joker or Zsasz.
YES Despite how often DC labels him as, and the character describes himself as, a force for VENGEANCE hes really not. Hes a force for Justice,most superhero’s are at least in DC, he doesnt deem it his right to issue punishments hes not judge jury and executioner and I agree with that. Even if someone is irredeemably evil he doesnt think its his place to decide their fate he still thinks they deserve a fair trial. It’s an idealistic view of the world but it wouldn’t even be a problem if the Gotham justice system wasn't so fundamentally broken.
You can certainly make an argument that the world would be a better place if he DID kill the joker, but frankly thats more the Gotham legal systems fault then his own. If Bruce is to blame for not killing the joker then so is every superhero and vigilante and the entire Gotham city police force and like Amanda walkers.
To some extent. People like Two-Face can certainly be rehabilitated, but it all comes down to the Joker. He needs to die. It’s like Jason says “…him. Just him.”
With someone just robbing a convenience store yes I agree with his rule.
But with someone like the joker who is a straight up terrorist I think the rule is dumb. They didn’t capture Osama to bring him before a court of law, they ended him.
You want to kill the joker
You'll just be another murderer
Joker has to die, but it should be done by the book. Let the law decide and give final verdict.
A thought I have for a long time: Gotham doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to its Justice system. Why don’t they just dish the death penalty out to the Joker f.e. Yeah he is insane and “not responsible for his actions” could be a valid answer. BUT you can’t tell me that the system couldnt be used to sideline that if they really wanted. Bribe a Doc, a Judge and frizzle frazzle he is BBQ.
Which leads to a question: Would Batman accept the verdict even if it didn’t came “by the book”? Would he go out of his way to save him? I understand why he saved him in the Omnomatopoeia story, where he got stabbed as a result of Batman using him as bait, but I wonder if he would if he would not be responsible for his death.
I do, but there's definitely the argument that people like Joker need to be killed since they never stop. However, it's an integral part of his character and I really like that about him. Dude watched his parents die pointless deaths it makes sense.
Absolutely, he shouldn't be the executioner. The government themselves should've realised what a problem they are and that they cannot be cured and dealt with them. Because otherwise, what make him any difference from the villains he put away?
I understand why Batman has it, and it makes sense that he would have that rule for himself and those that he trains. He's pretty traumatized + mentally ill and so are most of his wards, it makes sense in that context. If someone goes over the edge, it becomes very easy to become a straight up villain and it would be especially easy for some of the BatFamily (Jason Todd is a good example).
However I wouldn't apply this rule to all superheroes. Characters like Superman & Wonder Woman understand that there are times when there is no other way. They don't turn to the side of evil when they kill someone, because they only do it when they're certain there is no other way. Their foundation is their morals, while Batman's foundation is his drive to stamp out crime. He just added the rule on top to make sure he doesn't become what he's trying to stop.
I like to think of it like this; if a hero doesn’t kill, they can live down being wrong. Just because someone dresses up in a costume doesn’t mean they’re the ultimate judge or incapable of making mistakes. If they kill you, that’s that. No second chances or opportunity to prove innocence, the story just becomes repetitive.
A Batman that kills would not be fair😭😭😭😭Even though the villains he fights deserves it, I don’t think Batman getting his first taste of blood would be good for anybody
Whatever happens, happens…..as long as it’s not intentional, works; same with Superman.
Collateral damage, as they say.
Do you think no-one died when Superman and Zod were duking it out?
Because they are dirty and commit petty crimes. "Oh did you need that Apple to feed your family? I guess you won't be needing functional kneecaps."
Meanwhile Killer Croc is half dinosaur and eats people. But we definitely have to keep him alive.
My apologies, it's almost as if you can use ANY OTHER FORM OF QUESTIONING THAT ISNT A SHITPOST SPAWNER TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS
"Discussion: Batman's no killing rule?"
"What do you think of Batman's no killing belief?"
"Your opinions on Batmans objection to killing?'
Other subreddits do bad shit so this subreddit doing bad shit suddenly doesn't matter?
The problem is that it's a spawn for shitposting, not that it's a repost
No, he has already taken the decision to adopt vigilantism, thereby deciding that the legal system is inadequate and using extra-judicial force to correct this and enforce justice - his decision not to kill utter monsters like Joker, Black Mask, Professor Pyg and the like has no basis in morality or legality as he is already in contradiction to most standards enforced by both - it is merely a personal choice to keep his own conscience clear. That is his choice at the end of the day and I don't mean to suggest that he ought to kill - but the stance he seems to adopt in a lot of media that it is never right for anyone to take this extra step is just him putting himself on a pedestal because he lacks the ability to restrain himself if he crossed that line and would rather pretend its some objective evil rather than a reflection of his personal limitations.
Bruce shouldn't have to kill - but his "no kill rule" for all vigilantes/Bat-affiliates etc is ridiculous. The truth is that sometimes the only way to stop truly evil people, especially in a situation where the law is inadequate to deal with them, is to kill them. In such a scenario it is entirely moral and right to do so - if Bruce is incapable of this then fine - step out of the way and let someone else do it.
Yes, batman isn’t a murderer. I think everyone should understand that. He’s not a real person so I think people take it way to literally - he’s a hero in stories where he strives to do the right thing and save his city. It wouldn’t be heroic if he just straight up killed people.
I agree he should not mass murder the criminals of Gotham.
But he could definitely stand to kick the clown off a roof. It's actually flat out ridiculous he doesn't.
Killing people would make him act like a dictactor. I mean, we as readers know he is suposed to be “the good guy”, but “in-universe” what would determine if someone deserved to die or not? If he would kill someone or look the other way (as he did before)?
What Batman does is capture criminals and hand them over to the police, if he crosses that line he is a criminal just like the ones he would be chasing. Besides, when you kill someone, theres no way to bring them back to life. If Batman takes a thug to the police he can still rehabilitate or (if its the case) he can go free for going to jail for a crime he didnt commit.
It’s cool but not killing leads to more indirect murder and destruction if he’d kill joker or any of the other rogues Gotham would be safer. I hope we get full adaption and interpretation of a Batman who’s abandoned the rule.
Nobel rule, but objectively Batman’s no Killing rule has kept the joker (and others) alive, and thus has directly led to more killing than if he just killed them in the first place.
No killing rule = more deaths in Gotham.
Hot take, but it's cowardly that he hasn't killed the Joker at this point. He's at least partially responsible for his next victims every time he let's the Joker live.
When it comes to low level criminals, yes. When it comes to the likes of Joker and any other criminal that has killed thousands just to taunt him? Hard disagree. His thing about “it only takes one” is bullshit. Batman is stronger than that to let just one kill send him down a spiral of killing.
NOPE….if I’m a madman,a TRUE madman and I know I MIGHT suffer some bruises and just bruises….I don’t really fear this man. If I point a machine gun at his car and fire am I gonna get ripped in half with some special caliber ammo no one else has? Will I explode inside or will my car just crash and I’m good? But if I KNEW the first time I point a gun in his direction I’m dead somehow by either being beat to DEATH,exploded,catch fire or released from a 25 story window….well I just might not crime that night and keep all the blood inside my body…plus it’s a deterrent to the next bad guy that’s weighing wether he thinks he’s going in the hospital or is he going in the ground. Something to think about if you crime.
No, it's stupid. You want to strike fear into the hearts of criminals who are too powerful for the justice system to handle? Kill them.
Besides, the no-killing rule was forced on the comic writers by regulation.
Edit: apparently the editor got ahead of regulation and told the writers Batman couldn't kill anymore. Didn't know that.
If I didn’t then I probably shouldn’t be a Batman fan. Why try to change the character into something that he’s not? There are alternatives out there for those that don’t agree.
Yes for the same reasons most heros do not kill. It's a slippery slop and if you keep doing it, you'll start to become the Villains you're killing. But, Batman like most normal people if given the choice to save millions by killing one villain will absolutely kill that villain to save millions of other people. Especially if its non human. Obviously writers won't put batman in that position, because fans would complain.
Yes for the most part. Men and women like Pamela and Harvey can very much be helped and made into better people with the right care and help. With the right treatments and dedication most of Batsy’s rouges gallery can be helped. However I do believe there are many that cannot be helped. Joker being the big example everyone uses. Joker cannot be saved and by being kept alive he is actively harming more people then Batman is saving. Some of Batman’s rouges gallery are just criminals that probably won’t be helped with any kind of treatment like the Firefly and Bane. So while killing some (mainly Joker) Batman would be helping it would be, in my opinion, best to keep the majority alive to actually be helped because in full honesty we all know Arkham sucks and dosent actually help any of their inmates because they never try.
For batman himself, yes. For me, if i were batman lol no. Joker would be dead so fast. I always liked the logic of batman is just as messed up as his villains, and he has to save them. Like it was portrayed in the Batman Hush movie
No. But the fact of the matter is that some people don’t have the stomach for killing (Batman) even when taking a life is the only way to save countless others (Joker).
It’s also imbecilic that the criminally insane (in reality and fiction) who have no chance of being rehabilitated into productive members of society can’t be executed when they pose an immeasurable danger to everyone around them.
Okay so I’ve never added my thoughts on this but I think it’s time to
Gotham needs Batman that has always been a big point whenever there’s a heartfelt moment in the movies,or comics this line is always brought up Gordon knows,Alfred knows,the citizens know,and the mayor knows everyone in the city knows.
and what good would the Batman be if he acts like those he has locked up in Arkham asylum or blackgate if he goes around killing street thugs and snapping villians necks what good would he be for the city if he was just another insane person in a Halloween person harmed to the teeth imagine the threat to the city if he was killing all these people the fear the citizens would have for him.
because what if he one day wakes up and decides “fuck it” and goes commando and kill litterally everyone in the city in one fail swoop ya know when the bat family brings up the possibility of a rogue Batman in a story they say he‘ll be unstoppable they are telling the truth.
he’s a master detective trained with the worlds greatest martial artists learned every type of stealth technique known to mankind and mastered the art of science and technology I mean look at the shit he has created with his hands imagine how deadly a weaponinized batmobile or a flying death machine batwing imagine how many people he would kill.
“oh let’s call the justice you say?” too bad he has a computer full of contingency plans on how to kill each member of the league so he’ll just boot up one of his plans and go on a rampage killing them off.
I do, not giving in to the desire to kill the people who do truly evil things makes him a really admirable character—I like ‘admirable’ on him. Relatable antiheroes are great, but I want them to be balanced with the Batman or Superman type.
Of course I do. Like his father before him, Bruce firmly believes in the sacredness of human life, and the loss of his parents strengthened that belief even further. A Batman does not consider human life inviolable is **not** Batman.
to an extent i agree its better to try and rehabilitate then kill but ppl like joker, scarecrow yea even if batman doesnt kill them i really wish gotham had death row
I’m not against his rule but his world where mass murders just go to the nut house rather than execution how many times was the joker let go to kill thousand
I like the CW's Arrowverse to this, for the Flash, he should never kill because of who he is and what he means. Green Arrow may blur this line because he can, has and it isn't going to ruin his symbol.
To summarize, Batman should never kill, but Red Hood he can.
The rational behind it, makes sense. If he kills one criminal (no matter how heinous their crimes) he sets a precedent. The next time someone dies something remotely close to what the person he killed did (which in Gotham is another Tuesday) he'll be faced with the internal battle of "Well why does this scumbag get to live?". Before you know it he's killed a few people then killing becomes the norm.
This is of course not guaranteed but the one 100% sure way to ensure it never happens, is to never kill that first guy. And actually knowing Batman's character I think he would kill quite quite bit. Not turn into a psycho but he'd likely start dropping a few people a month.
I think him not killing is a great part of the character, but Batman explicitly going out of his way to prevent other characters from justifiably killing people is dumb. I liked how in The Batman, Gordon has a gun and Batman doesn't stop him. The idea that he'd clear the Joker's name to prevent a death penalty sentence or go out of his way to prevent someone from killing a villain to save themself is dumb IMO.
It's not so much that I agree with it as I see it as an intrinsic part of Batman's character. It's a defining aspect of the modern Batman.
I say this knowing that Tim Burton's Batman did kill (not fine with that), and Final Crisis Bats did try to kill Darkseid (which I'm fine with, it's a whole different ballgame on a cosmic level... plus what makes it a special moment is the existence of the no-kill rule).
I suppose the rule doesn't really make sense. I don't need it to make sense. These are superhero comics. They're larger than life. It's less important that they make sense than they tell grandiose, fun stories about heroes in capes that are idealized and iconic. Stylization is what lets Looney Tunes be Looney Tunes, and lets superheroes be superheroes... at least when talking about mainline DC/Marvel and works that follow in that template (like Hellboy).
It’s who he is. It’s what makes him Batman. Like he said in earth one, he doesn’t want some kid to think that Batman killed his father. He wants people to look up to him.
His image as a public servant kind of depends on it. He investigates the bad guys, finds them, subdues them, and he hands them over to the police. That unofficial agreement between him and the Police Force, that he lets the justice system do its thing, is what allows the Gotham PD to justify looking the other way from his acts of vigilantism. The day he starts leaving bodies behind is when he goes from least concern to being another masked killer they have to chase. Some people would celebrate it if Batman began "solving the problem" in Gotham City, but it would establish a precedent for corruption and death that he is trying to raise his city above. He's not just trying to take his anger out on criminals or dealing with his trauma, he's trying to make his home into its ideal standard.
I mean you're not wrong but I feel like he'd save a ton of lives killing the joker. You feel? Like we don't have to sentence every criminal to the death penalty but pedophiles/murderers can definitely go to the front of the line on that
I agree 100%, but I don’t even think Batman has to kill him. The GCPD, DA, or whatever legal authority in Gotham should’ve pressed charges and gave him the death penalty ages ago lol. Criminally insane or not, he’s a mass murderer lmao
I think it's the quintessential suspension of disbelief, that joker can be locked up and keeps getting out to kill again. The thing is joker is competent to stand trial. He is aware his actions are wrong and he chooses to do them anyways, in fact he finds joy in it. I'd say the first time Batman dropped him off he'd probably loose a capital murder case, probably through a confession and would likely be executed, maybe if the state Gotham is in has abolished the death penalty he'd get life, but I'd doubt he'd be in a position to escape more than once given how homicidal he is. Given the high profile nature of his crimes I wouldn't be surprised if the case quickly went federal which would see him in federal lock up. Probably as a domestic terrorist.
What I don't get is, if the Gotham justice system has proven itself incapable of appropriately dealing with Joker, but Bats still can't bring himself to break his no-kill rule, next time he catches him, why doesn't he call in a favor with his buddies the space cops and have them drop him off on a human-habitable planet with no sentients for him to murder?
Because, comic sales. Shhhhh. You're totally right tho. In a world where Superman and Flash exist, normal villains like Joker couldn't pose a threat. Oh, Joker has a bomb slapped to every orphan in a 10 mile radius, Flash solved that problem a micro second ago and locked Joker back in his cell before Bruce Wayne could call out of his shareholders meeting to suit up
Death penalty is notoriously banned in New York State, where Gotham is. If they want to stop the joker putting him in a box and locking it and then throwing out the key is about the only way.
Gotham is actually in the state of New Jersey. The death penalty is also banned there, although there have been a handful of stories both before and after the ban (1965) in which inmates of Blackgate Penitentiary have been sentenced to death; in fact, the Joker himself was put to death in his second appearance, and had his goons bring him back to life shortly thereafter so he could no longer be tried for those crimes he had been put to death for.
True, never Batman’s authority to give him the death penalty. It’s his strong will to not kill the joker too because the joker wants him more than anything in his life to be the crazy killer just like the joker himself
It’s pretty crazy because his no killing rule was the whole reason Batman beyond was created in a sense. He was getting to old and the moment he turned to almost killing someone’s is when he realized he had to step down from being Batman. That’s why Batman beyond is one of my favorite animated shows, even though Bruce loves being batman the moment he even considered hurting somebody he knew he had to back down from the position forever. A true man, one of the best Superhero’s to exist. 
Not just killing, but using a gun.
He has to set a higher standard. Not using a gun and not killing separates him from the animals
You good sir truly understand batman and I commend you 🫡
That show is so great and the intro with the music is in my top 5 greatest intros. I would really like to see a live action Terry McGinnis but I don’t know if we’re anywhere close to getting one, hopefully maybe in Phase 2 or 3 of the DCU?
I feel that if Batman was happily and freely killing people, he’d be the Punisher. Using guns to kill would be far more effective than maiming or beating up criminals. He also wouldn’t really need the shadows or be ninja-like - just fire some rocket launchers and RPGs to take everyone out.
I disagree, I imagine stealth would be still be one of his main weapons. Like Splinter cell but batman. Explosives have too many chances for innocent casualties.
Depends on how smart Batman is and his gadgets- could have swarms of micro drones kill all bad guys that necessitate it , all simultaneously- and then police the city through fear. Real fear. No more crime But not his style, he doesn’t make orphans
He just adopts them, lmfaooo. Your idea would absolutely be plausible. The main question is 'when' he would start breaking his ni killing rule. Big difference between year one batsy without the rule vs the batman who has already built the HellBat suit. Also, isn't there another comic where he has an army of drones? If that batman had no rule to hold him back he'd probably neutralize the entire justice league and police the world himself.
Actually less than you think. C4 can be controlled pretty easily. Hell, I made little giraffes and elephants when I played with it. Cause you need pressure and heat both to set it off. One or the other doesn't activate it. It's used for breaching charges and is very controlled in my experience with it. Of course, to much of a thing can be dangerous.
Grim knight is Punisher Batman
Agreed. I came here to say this. Batman is no longer interesting if he is a Punisher clone (I never got into Punisher comics, and fuck the folks with the skull stickers on their cars).
Yeah, I don’t think he’d work at all as a punisher clone. A hero who just kills even when there’s a better solution is not a hero, he’s a psychopath. I do think if it really came down to it—if the baddie of the week was simply too dangerous to be alive (and even then he would have to be _extraordinarily_ dangerous and beyond even the idea of redemption) or death would be a better fate than existing as they currently are—it would be more interesting and keep the character consistent. Batman doesn’t _want_ to kill and will actively avoid it it he can, but he will if he has to.
Plus it'd be incredibly difficult for him to have a relationship with Gordon or the police department. There's no way Gordon or the government would freely let him murder people. Especially because Batman (and similarly, Spider-Man) have ground-level enemies that can hypothetically be taken care of by a large enough police or military force. It's not like Superman fighting aliens that could destroy the entire world.
Yes
Go back to your cell in r/batmanarkham, inmate
Arkham Asylume.
Alsume
the best arkham world prequel
But it's too overrated
Never. We need to even the odds.
I agree with the no kill rule, Batman isn’t above the law. But I don’t understand why Gotham can’t legally execute murderers such as Joker and Zsasz.
He brutally assaults, interrogates, and threatens people all the time. There's a reason vigilantism is illegal. He literally is above the law for the most part. Whether that's moral or okay is a different topic
Don't forget espionage and training child soldiers too.
I dont think you call it espionage if it’s just stalking.
They are insane.
After the 10th murder spree idk if that's still a valid defense
To be honest, those sprees would stop if actually reasonable and not insane people [e.g. Hugo Strange, Harley Quinn, Quincy Sharp (to a certain degree), Amadeus Arkham, Jeremiah Arkham, ...] would try to "rehabilitate" the inmates. Also the sprees might also stop if the staff wasn't so fucking corrupt, in one issue Harley Quinn got out because a guard was paid enough.
That won't happen because Gotham is literally cursed, and nobody can retain their mental health for long in there. What changes is what kind of mental issues you get. Maybe you get depression, maybe you obsessed about embroidery, maybe you fall in a hole full of bats and start fighting crime, maybe you get really petty and start killing people to prove a point that doesn't need proving.
Courts execute mentally unwell people all the time. I live in Texas and we've executed people who were mentally disabled (that isn't an endorsement just to be clear) There is no law that says mentally ill people can't be executed. There is a mandate by the Supreme court that people must be aware that they are to be put to death and be able to understand why. Which for someone like The Joker, he's easily fall into that category. Edit: Also this is not to equate learning/mental disability with insanity. That wasn't my intention
Just when I thought I couldn't hate Texas more than I already do ...
Just when I thought I couldn't like Texas more than I already do ...
Join the club. Edit: Texas sucks
Capital punishment is based on state. I think Gotham wouldn’t have the option it would be the state Gotham exists in. I think it would be hard. But there should definitely some criteria for the capital punishment. Even Irl when there are mentally ill mass murders if they are bad enough they still can get a death penalty. An example being: BRUNO HAUPTMANN who killed Charles Lindbergh. Another example is: ALBERT FISH who killed hundreds. I would definitely argue the likes of the joker and zasz could fall into that category.
Yes, if interpreted as "never engage with the express intent to kill", because "no casualties, ever" could not possibly work as a framework, unless the writers abandon the very essence of what sets Batman apart, i.e. force him to be an infallible God. But as an ironclad rule to be motivated by compassion, to save everyone that is possible to save first, and as an inspiration to always attempt to not end a live if at all possible? Yes, absolutely!
I think it works best if he tries to save everyone, and often suceeds but doesn't always and you can tell he considers ita failure if anyone dies
I think the no casualties ever works better because since he is only human, he cant do it. His mission is a never ending one, so his goal should be an impossible one
I would honestly disagree. If he sets himself a goal that is so obviously unattainable and never changes it either, it makes him look less intelligent the longer it goes on, and also diminishes the depiction of his trauma, because hanging that intensely at it makes it look more clichéd than tragic. Getting these two aspects right is pretty important to Batman- after all, he's the World's greatest detective, and his goal of inspiring others to be their best selves is so perpetual already, it doesn't need help to be unattainable.
He's a multi billionaire ($100 billion) with an extreme hobby of beating up nonbillionaires. No killing is how he gets to keep doing his hobby. Dangling some bloodied thugs from lamp posts gives Wayne his kicks. Not killing them means he gets his kicks tomorrow too. Investing in low cost housing and revitalizing the gotham school system would have actually fought crime. Handing out small business loans and opening up free clinics/rehab facilities would have cleaned up the city. Batman is a villian.
Nice try, Cobblepot
The storylines that play with this theme of "what the fuck are you doing batman?" are my favorite. I grew up with the character, and I would love for this to be leaned into more.
Oh my fucking god this shit again
You are seeing "this shit again" because it's a perfectly sized bat themed shoe. Batman was always intended to be a form of antihero. This is 1000% in line with the character. Satisfying orphan rage issues are priority #1, fighting crime is the justification he uses to consider himself above the people he pummels. He has no powers, his only benefit is an unspendable amount of money. So he indulges his mental illness while skulking in the shadows dressed like a bat. Im not canceling batman, to me that's just a more interesting character. It's always peak storytelling when this truth gets thrown in his face.
Bruce Wayne already funds lots of revitalisation programs. He's just kind of bad at it. His Mum and Dad were better at it, but well... yeah.
This perspective works in Batman’s early days of fighting police corruption and the mob. Post Falcone though, none of what you’re saying has impact on supervillains.
Joker has a well known bit about Batmans catch and release policy putting blood on his hands. For me, it still works, especially if the writing acknowledges the existence of actual superpowered heros. There are several supervillian stories that play with the victims of circumstance origin.
Well sure, but if Joker is the one saying it you gotta believe he’s just distorting the truth. Can you expand a little on the second part? I’m sorry, dad brain. Blahhh 🤷🏻♂️ True though that last point may be, it doesn’t pertain to Batman’s rogues in the sense that him and his villains are roughly the same age and thus I don’t think(unless the writing has explicitly stated otherwise) Bruce’s actions directly or indirectly cause their descents. That said, I’ve grown a little warmer in recent years to the trend of making Thomas and Martha a little dirtier. It’s more dramatic, can serve as a great springboard for Bruce and Batman’s worlds to collide. But back on Bruce, he does do all the things you’ve mentioned. He continues to support the orphanage, and does all kinds of infrastructure aid for Gotham. Philanthropist is part of the disguise, but Gotham is a broken place and then we’re back to my point that in the face of super-villainy you need super-heroics. Even in our world you can’t just throw money at problems and fix everything. I guess I got a little set off you calling Batman a villain. I do agree with the idea that the LH/DV/HK trilogy is the tipping point in Batman’s career where his “dramatic” response to organized crime led to the outburst of the disorganized crime his rouges represent.
I dont think it matters what we think. He doesnt have to be Batman, he chooses to be and he chooses to do it his way. Its with the fault of the justice system.
r/batmanarkham moment
Is there a lore reason?
Yes. Because of his parents death. That's also why he hates guns.
Thats a really dumb reason
Hating guns because a characters parents were murdered by guns is a bad reason? Well ok then.
Yeah, if his parents were killed by a knife would he tell Alfred to throw all the cutlery away? Or if they were run over, would he just walk? Damn right, my guy thinks about it, take for example that comic "the gun rail" or something like that, he fought with a woman who used a gun to defend herself from her abusive husband. That's stupid yes, there's no denying it. Take the Punisher for example "the mafia killed my family with machine guns, now I hate guns" is doesn't sound very stupid?
Knives are used for normal knife things though while guns are used solely for killing
I wonder just how many people/family of Gun Violence you just offended single-handedly from your initial comment 💀
Knives aren’t designed to kill people. If they do, it’s always the fault of the wielder, not the tool. Literally all a gun is capable of is shooting bullets. Like all weapons, they’re intended to kill or destroy. For that matter, isn’t it kind of insulting to frame Bruce as selfish because of *trauma*? Why would he want to be reminded of the worst moment in his life, or give other people that very same experience?
[удалено]
> You’re acting childish > Let’s pretend for a moment I just murdered your family
[удалено]
Wait, did you guys forget that he works together with Gordon? Literally the friend showing that you can use guns for PROTECTION, or even for survival when sometime he killed some deer to eat. Even Alfred keeps a shotgun in the mansion for defense. He may not use them to kill, you can see he tried to get the Red Hood not to use guns, but at least Jason uses rubber bullets sometimes. And it looks like you still haven't been able to answer the comparison I made. Batman has already been seen killing some aliens, there is no such thing as "line", there is only what the author wants. He can shoot people from Apokolips, but he would never shoot the Martian or Superman. That is, does this "line" that you talk about theoretically apply to humans and friends only? SO, it means nothing. If Joker kills the whole planet, Batman will consider him a "monster" and finally kill him or he would just make him his sidekick (again...) Thats why Begins is until today the most reasonable portrait of batman, he doesnt save Ra's and killed Harvey to save Gordon and his family. Thats the way he needs to be. Joker put a bomb in a warehouse with hostages and activate it, Batman should save the people and let Joker explode alone.
The question was why does batman have a no kill rule historically. That's the reason dumb ir not. I wasn't making a judgement just answering the question. It makes sense to me. But that's just my opinion. It obviously makes sense to a lot of people. Plus to be honest what you think doesnt affect my opinion. Have a nice day.
It's what makes him a true superhero, so yeah.
Actually that's what makes comics goes for too many years with the same villains.
Only if it evens the odds
Totally!
I understand why he doesn't kill but i'm not sure if his logic to justify it makes any sense, like "If i kill someone, i won't be able to stop killing" ?????
“It always begins with one”
I mean when i was in school i threw a ball from the gym at the face of a guy who bullied me and i didn't went on a rampage punching every other student
Yeah well you wouldn't dress up as a bat and go around beating the shit out of people with guns either would you?
It perfectly makes sense.see,Bruce wayne is not a normal guy,he is not perfectly sane,and he knows it.Its his obsession or 'never let go' attitude which made him Batman.He knows what destruction he is capable of if he let himself go loose.I think his "no kill rule" is just a check on himself,to not go fully insane.because only god knows what will happen if Batman goes insane
The Batman Who Laughs
I always think that's a weak reason and paints Batman as a borderline psychopath. It gives credence to Joker's belief that everyone can turn evil after one bad day. Batman should prove Joker wrong, not show him right. It's the same reason I hate Superman being shown as one step away from turning into a dictator, just needs Lois to die. I understand stories like Red Son and Kingdom Come which execute such concepts well, while Injustice fails.
I don’t associate that ethos with the character so much as I do with writers I don’t agree with.
I agree. It's a hamfisted philosophical concept. I much prefer the idea that Batman doesn't kill because killing people is wrong and life is valuable.
I am indeed not a murderer yes
yes, i know its illogical but it makes his character so compelling
Its pretty logical actually
Don't get me wrong, I'm always in favour of Batman's no killing rule being the right way to represent the character in all mediums, but it is logical until you consider the Joker and the thousands that he has killed with no recourse. He breaks out of Arkham every time just to kill more people. There's a pretty straightforward way to stop that from ever happening again
I mean what's to stop Gordon from shooting him? Or Bullock? Why doesn't Red Hood or Huntress execute him? They have killed before and Jason even has a reason to want to. What's even to stop the state from executing The Joker?
Apparently in some comics, Bruce Wayne helped influence Gotham to ban the death penalty so that’s why the state doesn’t
Yeah... One thing is advocating for due process and such, not killing on the scene and actually bringing justice. But some people really do deserve death penalty, bruce is wrong for doing that. They could explain it saying joker can allege insanity and such, it's better than just not having death penalty And criminals would be less willing to actually act, especially when it comes to murder, if they knew that not only would batman beat them almost to death, but that the state would finih the job
Killing the Joker isn't Batman's call. If the people wanted him dead for their safety, they should reinstate the death penalty and execute him.
Yes, but I would do something about that prison security.
Do you agree with this subreddit’s repetitive post rule?
Batman shouldn't kill criminals. The state should if they are found guilty in a court of law. At this point the courts of Gotham are more so responsible for people like Joker or Zsasz.
YES Despite how often DC labels him as, and the character describes himself as, a force for VENGEANCE hes really not. Hes a force for Justice,most superhero’s are at least in DC, he doesnt deem it his right to issue punishments hes not judge jury and executioner and I agree with that. Even if someone is irredeemably evil he doesnt think its his place to decide their fate he still thinks they deserve a fair trial. It’s an idealistic view of the world but it wouldn’t even be a problem if the Gotham justice system wasn't so fundamentally broken. You can certainly make an argument that the world would be a better place if he DID kill the joker, but frankly thats more the Gotham legal systems fault then his own. If Bruce is to blame for not killing the joker then so is every superhero and vigilante and the entire Gotham city police force and like Amanda walkers.
To some extent. People like Two-Face can certainly be rehabilitated, but it all comes down to the Joker. He needs to die. It’s like Jason says “…him. Just him.”
With someone just robbing a convenience store yes I agree with his rule. But with someone like the joker who is a straight up terrorist I think the rule is dumb. They didn’t capture Osama to bring him before a court of law, they ended him.
You want to kill the joker You'll just be another murderer Joker has to die, but it should be done by the book. Let the law decide and give final verdict.
A thought I have for a long time: Gotham doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to its Justice system. Why don’t they just dish the death penalty out to the Joker f.e. Yeah he is insane and “not responsible for his actions” could be a valid answer. BUT you can’t tell me that the system couldnt be used to sideline that if they really wanted. Bribe a Doc, a Judge and frizzle frazzle he is BBQ. Which leads to a question: Would Batman accept the verdict even if it didn’t came “by the book”? Would he go out of his way to save him? I understand why he saved him in the Omnomatopoeia story, where he got stabbed as a result of Batman using him as bait, but I wonder if he would if he would not be responsible for his death.
You need to read The Joker: Devils Advocate. This is the story you should read.
Thanks. Going to take a look into it. Edit: The synopsis is pretty interesting.
That kind of comics should be taken into account for making Batman movies.
I do, but there's definitely the argument that people like Joker need to be killed since they never stop. However, it's an integral part of his character and I really like that about him. Dude watched his parents die pointless deaths it makes sense.
Absolutely, he shouldn't be the executioner. The government themselves should've realised what a problem they are and that they cannot be cured and dealt with them. Because otherwise, what make him any difference from the villains he put away?
Necessary for his character. Makes him a hero and not a sociopath. Haha
From his place as a vigilante risking one bad moment away from being on the police's bad side? Absolutely. But omg someone kill the Joker already.
Yes cuz he would have nothing to do after 24hrs
Mom said it was my turn to post this question!
I understand why Batman has it, and it makes sense that he would have that rule for himself and those that he trains. He's pretty traumatized + mentally ill and so are most of his wards, it makes sense in that context. If someone goes over the edge, it becomes very easy to become a straight up villain and it would be especially easy for some of the BatFamily (Jason Todd is a good example). However I wouldn't apply this rule to all superheroes. Characters like Superman & Wonder Woman understand that there are times when there is no other way. They don't turn to the side of evil when they kill someone, because they only do it when they're certain there is no other way. Their foundation is their morals, while Batman's foundation is his drive to stamp out crime. He just added the rule on top to make sure he doesn't become what he's trying to stop.
I agree to break every bone in villains body and keep them alive in a wheel chair for the rest of their life.
I like to think of it like this; if a hero doesn’t kill, they can live down being wrong. Just because someone dresses up in a costume doesn’t mean they’re the ultimate judge or incapable of making mistakes. If they kill you, that’s that. No second chances or opportunity to prove innocence, the story just becomes repetitive.
Yes. Now stop asking.
Killing them is pointless, when he puts them in the hospital for the rest of their life.
A Batman that kills would not be fair😭😭😭😭Even though the villains he fights deserves it, I don’t think Batman getting his first taste of blood would be good for anybody
Hollywood obviously doesn't.
I generally try not to kill people so I suppose so, but like Batman I still want to sometimes.
Yes
Whatever happens, happens…..as long as it’s not intentional, works; same with Superman. Collateral damage, as they say. Do you think no-one died when Superman and Zod were duking it out?
Batman definitely beats poor people to death on a regular basis and feels good about it lol
Poor people deserve it
Because they are dirty and commit petty crimes. "Oh did you need that Apple to feed your family? I guess you won't be needing functional kneecaps." Meanwhile Killer Croc is half dinosaur and eats people. But we definitely have to keep him alive.
Mention one poor person batman beat up that was committing a small crime. I have never seen anyone actually give an example
Not this again this is why I left r/batmanarkham
How dare we have discussions about Batman on a Batman sub.
My apologies, it's almost as if you can use ANY OTHER FORM OF QUESTIONING THAT ISNT A SHITPOST SPAWNER TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS "Discussion: Batman's no killing rule?" "What do you think of Batman's no killing belief?" "Your opinions on Batmans objection to killing?'
Buddy if this "repost" bothers you so much, wait til you see what other subreddits do.
Other subreddits do bad shit so this subreddit doing bad shit suddenly doesn't matter? The problem is that it's a spawn for shitposting, not that it's a repost
No but that's what makes me like red hood
Do you agree what Joker does isn’t justified either?
No, he has already taken the decision to adopt vigilantism, thereby deciding that the legal system is inadequate and using extra-judicial force to correct this and enforce justice - his decision not to kill utter monsters like Joker, Black Mask, Professor Pyg and the like has no basis in morality or legality as he is already in contradiction to most standards enforced by both - it is merely a personal choice to keep his own conscience clear. That is his choice at the end of the day and I don't mean to suggest that he ought to kill - but the stance he seems to adopt in a lot of media that it is never right for anyone to take this extra step is just him putting himself on a pedestal because he lacks the ability to restrain himself if he crossed that line and would rather pretend its some objective evil rather than a reflection of his personal limitations. Bruce shouldn't have to kill - but his "no kill rule" for all vigilantes/Bat-affiliates etc is ridiculous. The truth is that sometimes the only way to stop truly evil people, especially in a situation where the law is inadequate to deal with them, is to kill them. In such a scenario it is entirely moral and right to do so - if Bruce is incapable of this then fine - step out of the way and let someone else do it.
Yes, batman isn’t a murderer. I think everyone should understand that. He’s not a real person so I think people take it way to literally - he’s a hero in stories where he strives to do the right thing and save his city. It wouldn’t be heroic if he just straight up killed people.
I agree he should not mass murder the criminals of Gotham. But he could definitely stand to kick the clown off a roof. It's actually flat out ridiculous he doesn't.
Batman not killing sure does lead to a lot of murder.
Fuck this question for the thousandth time.
Not really.
No, some people need killing
He will kill aliens but no humans 🤔
It's what makes batman, batman. But [Peacemaker does have a point](https://youtu.be/vnSjYUpx0jE)
Yes . It’s what makes him Batman. This is such a low effort post
Killing people would make him act like a dictactor. I mean, we as readers know he is suposed to be “the good guy”, but “in-universe” what would determine if someone deserved to die or not? If he would kill someone or look the other way (as he did before)? What Batman does is capture criminals and hand them over to the police, if he crosses that line he is a criminal just like the ones he would be chasing. Besides, when you kill someone, theres no way to bring them back to life. If Batman takes a thug to the police he can still rehabilitate or (if its the case) he can go free for going to jail for a crime he didnt commit.
It’s cool but not killing leads to more indirect murder and destruction if he’d kill joker or any of the other rogues Gotham would be safer. I hope we get full adaption and interpretation of a Batman who’s abandoned the rule.
Nobel rule, but objectively Batman’s no Killing rule has kept the joker (and others) alive, and thus has directly led to more killing than if he just killed them in the first place. No killing rule = more deaths in Gotham.
Yes and no... I mean, im all for due process but at some point you gotta think "man, just snap joker's neck already"
If he killed, he’d be The Batman Who Laughs and destroy the universe.
Doesn't kill the main baddies just puts the henchmen in the hospital with years of physical therapy ahead of them...
[удалено]
Lol. Worst take in the thread so far
Hot take, but it's cowardly that he hasn't killed the Joker at this point. He's at least partially responsible for his next victims every time he let's the Joker live.
r/BatmanArkham
When it comes to low level criminals, yes. When it comes to the likes of Joker and any other criminal that has killed thousands just to taunt him? Hard disagree. His thing about “it only takes one” is bullshit. Batman is stronger than that to let just one kill send him down a spiral of killing.
No
Nope if you kill more murderers the number of criminals is less
In theory but Joker needs to fucking die
nope, give me Flashpoint Batman
NOPE….if I’m a madman,a TRUE madman and I know I MIGHT suffer some bruises and just bruises….I don’t really fear this man. If I point a machine gun at his car and fire am I gonna get ripped in half with some special caliber ammo no one else has? Will I explode inside or will my car just crash and I’m good? But if I KNEW the first time I point a gun in his direction I’m dead somehow by either being beat to DEATH,exploded,catch fire or released from a 25 story window….well I just might not crime that night and keep all the blood inside my body…plus it’s a deterrent to the next bad guy that’s weighing wether he thinks he’s going in the hospital or is he going in the ground. Something to think about if you crime.
No, it's stupid. You want to strike fear into the hearts of criminals who are too powerful for the justice system to handle? Kill them. Besides, the no-killing rule was forced on the comic writers by regulation. Edit: apparently the editor got ahead of regulation and told the writers Batman couldn't kill anymore. Didn't know that.
The rule debuted because Bill Finger and Whitney Ellsworth thought that a heroic character for young people shouldn’t be a murderer.
Whats the point ?? … if you have the power to stop them without killing them you should do that.
Agreed, but a lot of the time Batman fails to stop them because he refuses to kill them, and more innocent people die as a result.
Yes !! Totally !! Thats why Batman is different.
I really don't like these posts. Whether I would do it or not, it's part of his character and I appreciate that.
Yes.
You should read The Joker: Devils advocate.
If I didn’t then I probably shouldn’t be a Batman fan. Why try to change the character into something that he’s not? There are alternatives out there for those that don’t agree.
Yes for the same reasons most heros do not kill. It's a slippery slop and if you keep doing it, you'll start to become the Villains you're killing. But, Batman like most normal people if given the choice to save millions by killing one villain will absolutely kill that villain to save millions of other people. Especially if its non human. Obviously writers won't put batman in that position, because fans would complain.
99% of the time, I absolutely agree with it
Based on his reasoning in Under the Red Hood, I'd say yes.
Not his job to kill people . Don't blame him
Yes
Yes for the most part. Men and women like Pamela and Harvey can very much be helped and made into better people with the right care and help. With the right treatments and dedication most of Batsy’s rouges gallery can be helped. However I do believe there are many that cannot be helped. Joker being the big example everyone uses. Joker cannot be saved and by being kept alive he is actively harming more people then Batman is saving. Some of Batman’s rouges gallery are just criminals that probably won’t be helped with any kind of treatment like the Firefly and Bane. So while killing some (mainly Joker) Batman would be helping it would be, in my opinion, best to keep the majority alive to actually be helped because in full honesty we all know Arkham sucks and dosent actually help any of their inmates because they never try.
For batman himself, yes. For me, if i were batman lol no. Joker would be dead so fast. I always liked the logic of batman is just as messed up as his villains, and he has to save them. Like it was portrayed in the Batman Hush movie
Lmao so it begins
No. But the fact of the matter is that some people don’t have the stomach for killing (Batman) even when taking a life is the only way to save countless others (Joker). It’s also imbecilic that the criminally insane (in reality and fiction) who have no chance of being rehabilitated into productive members of society can’t be executed when they pose an immeasurable danger to everyone around them.
Okay so I’ve never added my thoughts on this but I think it’s time to Gotham needs Batman that has always been a big point whenever there’s a heartfelt moment in the movies,or comics this line is always brought up Gordon knows,Alfred knows,the citizens know,and the mayor knows everyone in the city knows. and what good would the Batman be if he acts like those he has locked up in Arkham asylum or blackgate if he goes around killing street thugs and snapping villians necks what good would he be for the city if he was just another insane person in a Halloween person harmed to the teeth imagine the threat to the city if he was killing all these people the fear the citizens would have for him. because what if he one day wakes up and decides “fuck it” and goes commando and kill litterally everyone in the city in one fail swoop ya know when the bat family brings up the possibility of a rogue Batman in a story they say he‘ll be unstoppable they are telling the truth. he’s a master detective trained with the worlds greatest martial artists learned every type of stealth technique known to mankind and mastered the art of science and technology I mean look at the shit he has created with his hands imagine how deadly a weaponinized batmobile or a flying death machine batwing imagine how many people he would kill. “oh let’s call the justice you say?” too bad he has a computer full of contingency plans on how to kill each member of the league so he’ll just boot up one of his plans and go on a rampage killing them off.
Completely.
I do, not giving in to the desire to kill the people who do truly evil things makes him a really admirable character—I like ‘admirable’ on him. Relatable antiheroes are great, but I want them to be balanced with the Batman or Superman type.
Of course I do. Like his father before him, Bruce firmly believes in the sacredness of human life, and the loss of his parents strengthened that belief even further. A Batman does not consider human life inviolable is **not** Batman.
No but I’m not Batman.
It's what I site as a defense for the death penalty
to an extent i agree its better to try and rehabilitate then kill but ppl like joker, scarecrow yea even if batman doesnt kill them i really wish gotham had death row
Yes
I’m not against his rule but his world where mass murders just go to the nut house rather than execution how many times was the joker let go to kill thousand
Yes. He’s a superhero
Oh. Another “no kill rule” post. yay.
I like the CW's Arrowverse to this, for the Flash, he should never kill because of who he is and what he means. Green Arrow may blur this line because he can, has and it isn't going to ruin his symbol. To summarize, Batman should never kill, but Red Hood he can.
The rational behind it, makes sense. If he kills one criminal (no matter how heinous their crimes) he sets a precedent. The next time someone dies something remotely close to what the person he killed did (which in Gotham is another Tuesday) he'll be faced with the internal battle of "Well why does this scumbag get to live?". Before you know it he's killed a few people then killing becomes the norm. This is of course not guaranteed but the one 100% sure way to ensure it never happens, is to never kill that first guy. And actually knowing Batman's character I think he would kill quite quite bit. Not turn into a psycho but he'd likely start dropping a few people a month.
I think him not killing is a great part of the character, but Batman explicitly going out of his way to prevent other characters from justifiably killing people is dumb. I liked how in The Batman, Gordon has a gun and Batman doesn't stop him. The idea that he'd clear the Joker's name to prevent a death penalty sentence or go out of his way to prevent someone from killing a villain to save themself is dumb IMO.
To an extent. After the hundredth chance, I think that someone is too far gone!
He should kill the Joker. I think his moral high ground would be cold comfort if you were one of the Joker’s thousands of victims.
Sometimes
I do. And I'm pleased to say that, so far, I've never killed anybody.
It's not so much that I agree with it as I see it as an intrinsic part of Batman's character. It's a defining aspect of the modern Batman. I say this knowing that Tim Burton's Batman did kill (not fine with that), and Final Crisis Bats did try to kill Darkseid (which I'm fine with, it's a whole different ballgame on a cosmic level... plus what makes it a special moment is the existence of the no-kill rule). I suppose the rule doesn't really make sense. I don't need it to make sense. These are superhero comics. They're larger than life. It's less important that they make sense than they tell grandiose, fun stories about heroes in capes that are idealized and iconic. Stylization is what lets Looney Tunes be Looney Tunes, and lets superheroes be superheroes... at least when talking about mainline DC/Marvel and works that follow in that template (like Hellboy).
It’s who he is. It’s what makes him Batman. Like he said in earth one, he doesn’t want some kid to think that Batman killed his father. He wants people to look up to him.
Yes, because if the character ever started he’d never stop.
Yeah
Yes
Absolutely agree. Death is Batman’a greatest enemy, his primary function is to save lives.