How do you feel about Batman's no killing rule?

subpar spatula · Nov 30, 2019

J_ToSaveTheDay said:
A Batman that kills is literally just a very wealthy, resourceful man playing judge, jury, and executioner and that's frightening. It's just a rich white dude really flexing his power and resources, and he feels like he has to wear a bat suit to do it..........

fucking get outta here with that garbage

It is far more compelling and morally sound to me that he doesn't kill as a rule.

He goes out and beats up people on hunches.

Yeah, not judge, jury, and executioner. Heck, he just nabs the bad guy and the police take it as A-OK and not interference. Like, imagine if you're a criminal and some dude in a costume beats you up, hands you to the police, and the police throw you in prison. The police, jury, and judges, etc are taking the word of an anonymous criminal and they throw you away for life.

Yeah.

Sound.

Hours Left · Nov 30, 2019

It's dumb and meaningless.

He's maiming people left and right, which some would say is worse than death, he's leaving foes in fatal situations even if he doesn't "kill" them himself, and his failure to stop the most ruthless villains for good, those which he knows have no hope of rehabilitation, has lead to the death of many innocent people.

J_ToSaveTheDay · Nov 30, 2019

subpar spatula said:
He goes out and beats up people on hunches.

Yeah, not judge, jury, and executioner. Heck, he just nabs the bad guy and the police take it as A-OK and not interference. Like, imagine if you're a criminal and some dude in a costume beats you up, hands you to the police, and the police throw you in prison. The police, jury, and judges, etc are taking the word of an anonymous criminal and they throw you away for life.

Yeah.

Sound.

I do agree with you that it's still really ethically dubious. It's not an either/or situation for me. I just think it's more compelling that he doesn't kill. At the very least, in this scenario you've pointed out, it gives the person a chance to defend themselves when they're still alive and maybe point out that the institution of law allowed a bat-dressed vigilante break his arm and hand him to the authorities without a sound investigation, rather than being offed on the street by said above-the-law-type and never getting a chance to make their case.

but, alas, Batman stories are typically framed in a way where we as the reader or viewer tend to know the various details on why Batman actually exists -- i.e. institutions too corrupt to be trusted to enact any real justice, Bruce Wayne's damaged psyche, etc... But if we were just denizens of Gotham, all of these questions would absolute be where I'd keep my head space.

Amiablepercy · Nov 30, 2019

I loved when he broke "his rule" and used a multiverse sourced super gun to try and kill Darkseid and it sort-of-kind-of backfired but in true Batman fashion he still came off a bad ass OG even in failure. I don't care about the haters Grant Morrison is my favorite comic writer of all time. Hands down.

subpar spatula · Nov 30, 2019

J_ToSaveTheDay said:
I do agree with you that it's still really ethically dubious. It's not an either/or situation for me. I just think it's more compelling that he doesn't kill. At the very least, in this scenario you've pointed out, it gives the person a chance to defend themselves when they're still alive and maybe point out that the institution of law allowed a bat-dressed vigilante break his arm and hand him to the authorities without a sound investigation, rather than being offed on the street by said above-the-law-type and never getting a chance to make their case.

but, alas, Batman stories are typically framed in a way where we as the reader or viewer tend to know the various details on why Batman actually exists -- i.e. institutions too corrupt to be trusted to enact any real justice, Bruce Wayne's damaged psyche, etc... But if we were just denizens of Gotham, all of these questions would absolute be where I'd keep my head space.

It's not more compelling if he doesn't kill. It just makes it very shallow because it basically overrides any talk about him actually physically harming, maiming, or impairing an individual.

Hypemaster · Nov 30, 2019

coward

John Frost · Nov 30, 2019

Kyra said:
It's one of his weaknesses thus integral to the character. Id find himi incredibly boring without it. Some of the best bits is when he struggles with his moral compass.

Bingo.

Pau · Nov 30, 2019

Buckle said:
Batman at his best wants to stop violent encounters but also rehabilitate criminals as well, not hunt and murder them.

The classic 90s cartoon is probably one of the best depictions of the character ever for that reason.

Feel the same way. Wish we didn't have this obsession with making things more violent and gritty.

Rodney McKay · Nov 30, 2019

Back when Arrow season 1 was new I found it refreshing that he killed a lot of the villains.

Then season 2 IMMEDIATELY changed him to a Batman style no-killing philosophy. Thankfully he would make exceptions on occasion, but it was still disappointing.

I know in comics it's the cliche that no one ever dies or stays in prison, so I think his "no-kill" rule works in that medium since even if he did kill they would just be back for whatever reason.
But in movies it doesn't really work all that well IMO so for me it's OK when Batman "doesn't save" Ras al Ghul, or blows up a henchman, or runs someone over.

Soj · Nov 30, 2019

People seem to constantly approach this from a logic standpoint, when it's all about the psychology of the character.

Bruce Wayne is a person totally incapable of processing loss in a healthy way and not killing is all part of that. He never wants what happened to him to happen to anyone else and certainly doesn't want to feel personally responsible for causing it. From his point of view, if he kills, he's just as bad as the criminals he fights. It's not a very realistic mindset, almost childish in fact, but it's what motivates his actions.

I'm reminded of a scene from Batman #455 in which a masked shooter is indiscriminately killing bystanders. Batman incapacitates the shooter, hitting them with all his force. It's then revealed that the shooter is an elderly woman, now severely injured. A police officer tells Batman not to blame himself because he couldn't have known. Batman replies that he doesn't... he didn't shoot anybody.

Einherjer · Nov 30, 2019

Well 3 pages in and no one has posted it so here we go:

Joni · Nov 30, 2019

Rodney McKay said:
Back when Arrow season 1 was new I found it refreshing that he killed a lot of the villains.

Then season 2 IMMEDIATELY changed him to a Batman style no-killing philosophy. Thankfully he would make exceptions on occasion, but it was still disappointing.

I know in comics it's the cliche that no one ever dies or stays in prison, so I think his "no-kill" rule works in that medium since even if he did kill they would just be back for whatever reason.
But in movies it doesn't really work all that well IMO so for me it's OK when Batman "doesn't save" Ras al Ghul, or blows up a henchman, or runs someone over.

But that had two redeeming parts. He does break his rule when it comes to dangerous supervillains and people tend to stay in prison.

Turin · Nov 30, 2019

Pau said:
Feel the same way. Wish we didn't have this obsession with making things more violent and gritty.

Admittedly, I probably prefer a darker Batman than you do but I've always hated the idea some have of basically turning him into Dirty Harry(which is basically what the BvS version was).

ArkhamFantasy · Nov 30, 2019

If Batman killed all the villains we wouldn't have much Batman material would we?

But a more serious take

1.Batman is suppose to be the perfect human, physically, mentally, financially, morally, etc. The villains are villains because they murder, he's suppose to be better than that.

2.It's not Batman's job to murder people, if the government is insistent that homocidal geniuses (some with super human powers) should be put in a asylum that they consistently break out of then that's on them, not on Batman

Qikz · Nov 30, 2019

The very fact batman leaves villains alive indirectly causes thousands of innocent people to die.

RDreamer · Nov 30, 2019

I think it's dumb if only for the fact that once you start beating the shit out of people to the point they're knocked out or incapacitated in crazy ways someone is going to die by your hands eventually anyway. Maybe not right there while he's looking but afterwards due to complications or something. You can't just beat people like that and pretend it will never ever kill someone.

Htown · Nov 30, 2019

These threads are always weird, because you get a bunch of people arguing that literal murder is the reasonable, morally correct thing to do.

Laser Man · Nov 30, 2019

I can't understand why he doesn't eat his enemies and captures their souls, when he goes out in a costume to beat people up, the line is already crossed, might as well go full on cenobite at that point!

Galkinator · Nov 30, 2019

Htown said:
These threads are always weird, because you get a bunch of people arguing that literal murder is the reasonable, morally correct thing to do.

Yes because only punching a mass murderer that has caused literally thousands of deaths, putting him in jail only for him to break free every now and then is obviously the best course of action.

This "no killing" rule is dumb and always was. Some villains in the Batman verse are beyond salvation and if he truly cares about saving peoples' lives he should either kill those psychotic fucks or paralyze them for life/lock them in a solitary cage deep underground in some hole in his batcave forever.

Vampirolol · Nov 30, 2019

It's the most important rule of them all.

Deleted member 543 · Nov 30, 2019

I'm pro not killing people. I think this is one of Batman's better rules, and he could probably benefit with coming up with a few more.

Galkinator said:
Yes because only punching a mass murderer that has caused literally thousands of deaths, putting him in jail only for him to break free every now and then is obviously the best course of action.

This "no killing" rule is dumb and always was. Some villains in the Batman verse are beyond salvation and if he truly cares about saving peoples' lives he should either kill those psychotic fucks or paralyze them for life/lock them in a solitary cage deep underground in some hole in his batcave forever.

This is an argument for Gotham introducing the death penalty, not for whether or not one man should have the power to decide who lives and dies.

Fliesen · Nov 30, 2019

Galkinator said:
Yes because only punching a mass murderer that has caused literally thousands of deaths, putting him in jail only for him to break free every now and then is obviously the best course of action.

But herein lies the fallacy, though. It's completely absurd how easy it is for these kinds of villains to break out of prisons.
Batman shouldn't kill, ultra high security prisons should be fucking able to keep their prisoners locked up.

StallionDan · Nov 30, 2019

Is no way with all the beat downs and car crashes etc he causes that Batman has not killed anyone.

shaneo632 · Nov 30, 2019

I don't really care for it because it doesn't make sense in anything close to the real world. I kinda like how Man of Steel made no-kill policies look silly with the whole Zod thing. There is always going to be a situation where you have to choose, and not killing someone will cause more deaths.

Also I remember playing one of the Arkham games where I "disabled" an enemy and he fell off a boat into the water. Y'all trying to tell me that guy didn't drown? lmao

DanteMenethil · Nov 30, 2019

It's dumb and I hate how he squirmed out of Jason's ultimatum in the red hood movie

Alastor3 · Nov 30, 2019

Gundam said:
It's not very realistic, and it's pretty silly in the more self serious interpretations of the character that try to highlight him as not a paragon of good.
It works in the DCAU and with Adam West, though. It's been a while since I've read the comics, so I'm mostly talking about on screen stuff.

Makes way more sense for Superman.

how does it make more sense with superman?? It's even less realistic with him! He's so powerful that accident must happen all the time with him

zon · Nov 30, 2019

I think it should be viewed as a mostly selfish decision by Batman. The biggest reason for the no killing rule isn't because he thinks it's morally wrong. He doesn't want to turn into the monsters he's fighting.

Kinggroin · Nov 30, 2019

Gravity Insanity said:
It gave us the BEST Batman movie ever.

Lol no. And that scene was intensely stupid

Flipyap · Nov 30, 2019

I like it when it's not a "rule", when he can't force himself to kill a person, no matter how much he'd like to snap Joker's stupid neck.

Treating it as a deep-rooted psychological flaw is a million times more interesting than simply giving him a Comics Code approved moral code.

Baccus · Nov 30, 2019

Flipyap said:
I like it when it's not a "rule", when he can't force himself to kill a person, no matter how much he'd like to snap Joker's stupid neck.

Treating it as a deep-rooted psychological flaw is a million times more interesting than simply giving him a Comics Code approved moral code.

This.

Jegriva · Nov 30, 2019

That's what makes him an hero. Fuck Snyder.

Jegriva · Nov 30, 2019

modoversus said:
So it's been part of the character since 1940.

Wasn't Ellsworth's father gunned down in the 1920s, too? Or am I thinking of another early DC writer/executive?

Nostremitus · Nov 30, 2019

I feel it was something invented for Saturday morning cartoons and childrens' comics, but the rule never really applied in any other medium.

There have been plenty of time Batman has killed people, usually henchmen and the like, but he always spared the big bad guys. I think it's speaks more to his fractured psyche that he'd never end his greatest villains because he WANTS them to do terrible things in order to justify his own behaviors.

Voytek · Nov 30, 2019

I think it adds more to the character. Even if you view it as a flaw.

Baccus · Nov 30, 2019

subpar spatula said:
Either way, Batman is a sociopathic 1%er who funnels cash towards private military projects to help make himself more a god when he beats down street criminals. That never changes if he doesn't kill or not

Damn you really don't get Batman

Maffis · Nov 30, 2019

Rodney McKay said:
Back when Arrow season 1 was new I found it refreshing that he killed a lot of the villains.

Then season 2 IMMEDIATELY changed him to a Batman style no-killing philosophy. Thankfully he would make exceptions on occasion, but it was still disappointing.

I know in comics it's the cliche that no one ever dies or stays in prison, so I think his "no-kill" rule works in that medium since even if he did kill they would just be back for whatever reason.
But in movies it doesn't really work all that well IMO so for me it's OK when Batman "doesn't save" Ras al Ghul, or blows up a henchman, or runs someone over.

It's even more funny in the show considering he is putting arrows in random goons' chests all the time.

SlickShoesRUCRazy · Nov 30, 2019

Never existed. He kills all the time. Lol

Deleted member 22750 · Nov 30, 2019

Gravity Insanity said:
It gave us the BEST Batman movie ever.

1989 shits all over that pretentious movie. But that's another topic.

Mazzo · Nov 30, 2019

To me it's a fundamental part of the character and one of the best things about him.

NoName999 · Nov 30, 2019

Baccus said:
Damn you really don't get Batman

He's rich enough to fund the entire Justice League with their own space station, but can't be assed to buy out the cops in Gotham so they won't be corrupt.

Face it, Batman is just a rich man living out a power fantasy.

caliph95 · Nov 30, 2019

R0b1n said:
I don't see why the argument about the rule comes from a place of utility. Batman doesn't avoid killing because he thinks doing so is better for society

Seriously

Batman doesn't refuse to kill because it's the most logical thing he does either because he's crazy and super dogmatic and/or refuses to not give villains a chance on Redemption

Daingurse · Nov 30, 2019

I've never respected Batman's code, because all it leads to is the loss of more innocent lives. But I can definitely acknowledge that it makes his character more interesting.

caliph95 · Nov 30, 2019

Spiderman has the same thing he's just not as well known for it

Like Batman he doesn't refuse because it's logical but because Spiderman is crazy and ball of guilt and angst

Also other heroes are not adverse to killing but it's more like they would shoot joker in seld defense or something they wouldn't execute him if they were able to capture him

Avengers arrest most of the mass murderers

Hirok2099 · Nov 30, 2019

I'm so confused right now..... Wasn't most of ERA against the death penalty?
yet almost everyone here seem to be ok with a billionare vigilante acting as cop/judge/executioner?
On Mentally ill people no less!

Bonefish · Nov 30, 2019

It's an idea best kept to the pages of the funnybooks. You can make the concept work on the page by stretching the rules of reality as far as you like. Trying to transcribe it to a real world interpretation is naive at best, and cowardly at worst.

The Adder · Nov 30, 2019

NoName999 said:
He's rich enough to fund the entire Justice League with their own space station, but can't be assed to buy out the cops in Gotham so they won't be corrupt.

To quote myself:

The Adder said:
Bruce's checkbook was basically responsible for keeping Gotham's schools and hospitals running, as well as rebuilding and revitalizing the city to a degree that most people thought was a waste of money (for example, every building that he invested in is Earthquake proof, which no one thought was necessary until an Earthquake hit Gotham and the only things left standing were places Bruce helped build). He counteracts crime from neighboring cities pouring into his city by investing in the redevelopment of those cities as well (see Bludhaven). He funds medical and pharmaceutical research that the fruits of which are made cheaply accessible.

Batman looks at the whole picture, but there are some problems that just need a good kick in the head.

Soupman Prime · Nov 30, 2019

If Punisher was in Gotham the people would be a lot safer imo. It's noble of Bats to have that code but at the end of the day he could've ended a ton of problems easily. It's on Gordon and the police too.

The Adder · Nov 30, 2019

Soupman Prime said:
If Punisher was in Gotham the people would be a lot safer imo

Punisher would be dead inside of a week if he were operating in Gotham.

caliph95 · Nov 30, 2019

The Adder said:
Punisher would be dead inside of a week if he were operating in Gotham.

People complain about Batman beating up poor people

Imagine Punisher killing people being desperate to pay rent

GungHo · Nov 30, 2019

I don't think he should go full Punisher, but I think there are some folks that he should oops into the river while they're tied up. Or "oh, well, he moved when I threw that batarang, Commish. I was totally aiming for his hand, not his jugular."

How do you feel about Batman's no killing rule?

Refuses to Wash his Ass

"This guy are sick" and Corrupted by Vengeance

Refuses to Wash his Ass

Self-Appointed Godmother of Bruce Wayne's Children

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Chicken Chaser

Weekend Planner

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Self-requested ban

Deleted member 22750

One Winged Slayer