SHOULD Batman ever kill?

[Red_Knight]

When R.I.P. was still ongoing, many of us speculated that the "fate worse than death" that awaited Bruce would involve him crossing the line and killing, or realizing that he had killed in the past. Some thought he'd be force to kill the Joker to save Jezebel. Others thought that Morrison would re-establish the character's original original portrayal as canonical and reveal that Batman started his career as a gun-wielding Punisher in tights.

Back then, these ideas excited me. I was rooting for one of them to be accurate, certain that such a reveal would not only serve as a shocking conclusion to R.I.P., but also provide us with story material for years to come.

Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I still think the instant gratification would be off the charts, but I'm not sure whether the character would be able to handle the fall-out without resorting to some cop-out excuse. I think the problem is that, if Batman ever crossed the line, he should not be able to "recover" from it. It wouldn't be in line with his character.

Even if he killed "only" the Joker, it would still make Batman a murderer, -- in the eyes of the law, and certainly in his own. I simply can't picture Bruce Wayne as we've come to know him walking away from something like that, even if he could. He would despise himself, and he would definitely end up turning himself in. IMO, that's the only way this particular story could logically end, taking into account everything we've learnt about Bruce Wayne and his moral standards. Of course, that would end the story of Bruce Wayne as Batman entirely.

So, in retrospect, I'm glad our theories weren't true. Thoughts? Counterpoints?

[joint venture]

Batman is human. He can be killed.

He who lives by the sword...

Most of his cast is human too. So no killings, or everyone becomes a target, or a Jason Todd.

[ZT4]

I like the notion the DCAU raised that Bruce's inner circle would probably kill, but Bats won't be driven to that

[davepaton]

I think it's interesting now that more and more heroes on tv are more like anti-heroes. For example there's Jack Bauer, James Bond, Jason Bourne - all of which kill. Even jedi kill but all the character's are still heroic.

I think Batman could kill in certain circumstances e.g. X is definitely going to kill A+B+C+D etc therefore it is ok to kill X to save the others. However I would only say that Batman could kill in extreme circumstances as anything else would destroy the essence of the character.

An argument against Batman killing is that he is a vigilante and would be acting as judge, jury and executioner without any legal authority. In the above examples Bauer, Bond and Jedi's all at least have some legal authority to do what they do. Bourne on the other hand arguably only kills in self-defence and out of necessity.

[Pól Rua]

An argument against Batman killing is that he is a vigilante and would be acting as judge, jury and executioner without any legal authority.

The other argument is that the single defining point of his entire life was a murder... and that every murder creates victims beyond the one being murdered.
No. Batman should never kill.

[Lester C.]

It's central to the character that he doesn't kill even though it makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it.

[Pól Rua]

It's central to the character that he doesn't kill even though it makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it.

About as much as a guy in a leather batsuit and a boy acrobat fighting an evil clown.

[The Zapper]

No. Bats should never kill. Not every hero needs to be a killer.

[Kiryu]

No killing or pseudo-killing like in Batman Begins with the whole Ra's train fiasco. As dark a character as Batman is, that tiny line of "No killing" is what keeps him from descending into just being a Bat-theme psycho. That Batman, despite the horrors he's endured, would never cross the line and kill and would even go as far as saving his rogues from certain death, contributes to what a great character is.

We all had theories and ideas about what would happen if in RIP Batman killed anyone and the repercussions it would have is more then enough to show how important that aspect of the character is.

[DarKye]

Batman should never kill. People have already stated the why pretty good through this thread.

The proper authorities, however... I dunno what they are waiting for to pull that capital punishment thing.

[Vidocq]

I don't mind him killing as long as it's previously stablished that he would. I was OK with him killing in the movies, Golden Age and in Elseworlds. But I would be pissed if the DCAU Bats killed or in the DCU.

I would preffer though if he had a rule to Kill only when it's absolutely necessary to save someone or something like that, but his training has always gived him another choice. It's not that way now, but I would like it to be so.

[Vidocq]

No killing or pseudo-killing like in Batman Begins with the whole Ra's train fiasco.

This is an example of what would have pissed me off. Is just so hypocritical. ''I wont kill you, I will just leave you in a death trap that I set by blowing up a bridge that will kill you''.

[mcgaffer]

There's only one person Bats would kill and that's himself. If it came down to him and someone else, he would always choose himself for the chop.

[Lew Moxon]

I guess it boils down to what you would define as killing.

Batman could have messed up sometime in his early career, and his actions could have resulted in death, unintentionally of course.

But I can't see him having murdered anyone.

[Lew Moxon]

Batman should never kill. People have already stated the why pretty good through this thread.

The proper authorities, however... I dunno what they are waiting for to pull that capital punishment thing.

Yeah, "Devils Advocate" while a good story confused me.

They finally convict the Joker, they send him to death row.

Then it turns out he didn't do it, and he gets sent back to arkham.

Why wouldn't the DA just wait until Joker killed someone again, present the same case for him to be excuted, and then convict him again.

Once the precedence has been set that the Joker can be convicted, it seems odd the DA wouldn't take immediate advantage.

[Crowforge]

The Joker? Yes!

[Sean Whitmore]

I guess it boils down to what you would define as killing.

Whenever the question comes up, I read "kill" as "murder", because that's what's really being asked and answered.

Most people would probably forgive a heat of battle, him-or-me situation. In fact, it's the defense I see most often given to the end of Batman Begins.

But if we expand the definition to include anyone who's died, one way or another, as a result of Batman's actions, the numbers go WAY up and the question becomes almost meaningless.


SEAN

[GRANT!]

No way. He should just let Robin and Alfred do the dirty work.

[Kiryu]

This is an example of what would have pissed me off. Is just so hypocritical. ''I wont kill you, I will just leave you in a death trap that I set by blowing up a bridge that will kill you''.

Seriously, that scene should have ended with Batman just giving Qui-Gon the finger as he Bat-flew the hell out of that murder scene.

[GHalecki]

Batman's no-killing rule is pretty much up there right alongside with the post-war Captain America. You don't kill. You don't allow anyone to die if it is at all possible, no matter the cost. Period. The end.

Cap had to cross that line once.

There was a terrorist with a machine gun firing at a crowd of people. Cap was accross the room and saw no other way to save the crowd of people than to shoot and kill the terrorist.

Was it right? Yeah. Was it an easy choice? Nope.

What would Batman do in that particular situation? I think that he would shoot the terrorist, and then go to bed that night and sleep soundly. Someone was going to die that day no matter what he did, he just made sure that it wasn't the innocents that died.

Didn't Batman beat the KGBeast by bassically walling him up in a tunnel somewhere and leaving him to die? It has been years since I read it, but I think that if I am remembering it correctly, then that is pretty much as good as killing him outright.

[Karl O'Neill]

No, No, NO, NO NO!

Batman is easily one of the most loved and important comic book characters in fiction ever, his no kill rule helps booster that status.

[Utility Belt]

I remember back when the Batman Returns movie came out, that I was bothered that the Batmobile was equipped with machine guns. I was all "What the...?? Batman doesn't use guns because he doesn't kill!".
So no, Batman should not kill.

[Karl O'Neill]

I remember back when the Batman Returns movie came out, that I was bothered that the Batmobile was equipped with machine guns. I was all "What the...?? Batman doesn't use guns because he doesn't kill!".
So no, Batman should not kill.

sure, the machine guns could be used for shooting through warehouses or villain strongholds.

[Lester C.]

I always thought of Batman as a solider in the war on crime and found the fact that he didn’t kill illogical as wars, very sadly, involve the loss of life and property in order to be won or lost. Then I thought about it and realized that Batman isn’t a solider inasmuch as he’s a police officer. His job isn’t about winning a war but rather about keeping people and to a lesser extent property safe. And like all police officers killing is a very big no no which in the real world means an automatic internal affairs investigation whereas when a solder kills it rarely reported let alone investigated because that is his or her duty the taking of life whereas a cop must preserve it.

[Crowforge]

What put me over the edge was a story from a year (?) ago where joker is masquerading as a magician, he'd killed one or more assistants and it made me sick to my stomach(I know it's fiction, still). That batman wouldn't stop him by any means necessary because of a personal preference... I couldn't buy anymore issues of that.
And I'm against the death penalty, but Manson and Houdini had a Serpentor-like baby I'd shoot it.

[mgs]

No. Bats should never kill. Not every hero needs to be a killer.
Batman's never been a hero in my eyes. Sometimes he does the right thing, but he's mostly (the way he's written nowadays) a delusional control freak.

[ethan.extravaganza]

Batman to me is almost a commentary on crime, and the lengths some people go to stop it. It makes him a despicable character in my eyes when Frank Miller writes him, but a more rich character, and one I enjoy reading more. I think that when batman is a guy in tights that runs around punching bad guys he's shallow, boring and intended for kids. When he becomes a horrible person, to stop horrible people, a point is made.

[Maxwell Edison]

Only if it was absolutley neccesary to protect his life, an allies life, or a civilians life

[carabas]

He should kill. Not as a matter of course, but when faced with the choice of, say, killing the Joker or let him kill someone else, he ought to choose to kill the Joker.

Of course, in comic he never actually has to make that choice. When placed before that dilemma, Batman is always bailed out by the writers, be it through cheating, chance, whatever.

If push would actually ever come to shove, and Batman (or any superhero, really) would let innocents die because he wouldn't kill, then he'd stop being a hero. Then he'd just be the nut in the suit who just let someon die so he wouldn't feel bad about himself.

What often gets brought up is that killing is the difference between "us" and 'them", heroes and villains, but that's nonsens. Realistically, you'd be faced pretty soon with th choice of killing a villain and sacrificing some innocents.

And of course he should have taken care of th Joker ages ago. He knows by now that Joker will 100% certainly escape, and that he'll rack up a nice bodycount before he's stopped again. At this point, ever victim the Joker makes is one that could and should have been prevented.

[Lew Moxon]

The Joker is notoriously hard to kill anyway. I'm sure if Batman would have to cut off the man's head to be sure the clown was dead. Otherwise, in another week, the clown returns, and laughs to the Dark Knights face once more, only now much more so.

The Joker's survival is also somewhat dependent on the worse DA's office in the country.

I guess once Harvey went nuts the DA quit trying.

They got a conviction once, but it turned out the Joker hadn't actually committed the crimes.

Why didn't they just convict him again, the moment the Joker actually did kill again?

[carabas]

It's not really a Joker-specific point of view. I just used him as an example becaause he is the most blatant example of superheroes being culpable to deaths of a lot of innocents.

[Sub-Zero MKA]

I said no, but if he were to kill hopefully its the guy in my avy, because he should of died years ago

[J.R. LeMar]

Batman should never kill as a form of punishment. But he should be willing to kill if it were in self-defense, to protect an innocent person, or to stop a bad guy, and there were no other way for him to do it without killing.




Of course, being BATMAN, 99.99999999999999999999% of the time he would be able to figure out some other way to do it. Because that's what he does.

[Halexx]

Batman can't kill, as it would make him as bad as the villain who killed his father.

[nepenthes]

batman causes dudes deaths all the time. he just shrugs and pretends like it was an unfortunate accident and mouths-off some heartfelt epitaph only when Gordon is close enough to hear him. he's a real jerk

[carabas]

Batman can't kill, as it would make him as bad as the villain who killed his father.
Really? Killing a bad guy as a last resort, to save a bunch of innocents makes him as bad as a mugger/hired killer (depending on which version of the origin you're going by)?

This argument falls apart when you look at it closely. In Batman's line of work, he realistically should be choosing between killing or letting a bunch of civilians die all the time. Of course his writers protect him from this choice by providing handy excape clauses. Batman has not once in his decaeds long carreer been faced with that choice.

But if he had to face that choice, and he chose to let the Joker run wild and kill a fgew people, rather than killing him, then Batman would just be culpable to a bunch of murders he could have prevented. He'd have just let a bunch of people die so he wouldn't feel bad about himself.