>I never kill because I wouldn't know when to stop myself!
Why doesn't Batman just make his 'no kill' rule into 'I only kill if the person in question is personally responsible for over a hundred deaths'
Seems pretty cut and dry that he wouldn't go too far then, and only scum like the Joker, Zsasz and big threats get killed
>hey this guy killed 99 people, if he kills one more, I'll have to kill him anyway
And then it becomes 98, and so on and so forth. It's retarded, sure, but I think that's the logic here.
Because it's wrong to kill people
Not inherently.
It's ok to kill in self defence.
It's ok to kill to protect people.
Violence used to protect others from violence is perfectly acceptable
Batman has already killed multiple people in continuity for being too evil.
They have all come back.
OP? More like FC for Fucking Casual.
How many more of these threads are there going to be today? We get it, some of you do not like the idea of hero not killing and others enjoy the idea of a regime in which people are shot for jaywalking.
Cool. Post something else for the next two to three hours. Sheesh.
Such a lame topic in an attempt to bait people. kek
Because Batman is as insane as the scum he fights. He just directs it differently.
>>I never kill because I know I won't stop
>>Why doesn't Batman kill just these people and stop
Did you get fired from the glue eating factory and the paint sniffing plant isn't hiring OP?
How is his shitty rule stopping him from killing already if he's that weak willed?
It isn't. See
And then people who haven't killed anyone but tried, and then people who didn't try to kill anyone but are total assholes, and then people who are just kind of a general drain on society, and so on.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
>Because Batman is as insane as the scum he fights. He just directs it differently.
Also this. He doesn't have a super clear goal, so it's hard to craft a coherent set of rules to achieve it.
who has batman killed?
I can't think of anything besides Darkseid and animals, and neither of those would be murder. Darkseid is a concept, and animals are whatever.
He killed Raj, and Darkseid is as much a "concept" as any other villain or hero. He's a guy, he just gets to possess people through his motherbox or whatever.
Batman doesn't kill because his Rogues are super popular. That's pretty much it. They worked into the character and now you get a bunch of retarded casuals giving Batman shit for not killing. Back in the day he use to kill all the time and it was Superman that was looked as the one with the NO kill rule. Honestly they should just drop it. People don't give a shit if Batman kills and it was never part of his concept in the first place. Just make Batman a little shittier at his job and the his enemies just get away and or look to be dead.
Confirmed for not knowing shit about Fourth World.
That's like saying a former addict is weak-willed because they quite cold turkey and can't just casually use the drugs they were once addicted to.
>Back in the day he use to kill all the time
I wish casuals would stop saying this.
Kills lotsa people.
...
I just want you to know you are casual scum.
Batman used to kill.
He also used to live in New York City.
Superman used to live in Cleveland.
Batman also used to be the first Robin, creating the costumed identity as a boy and then forcing Robin to wear it.
Alfred was just some guy who showed up at Batman & Robin's house one day and butted into their lives.
Not everything is automatically better because it's in the "original" version of a story, but I can see how it'd be hard to know that if your only knowledge comes from articles written by edgelords who saw some panels of Batman with a gun on pinterest and decided that must be what all the comics were like until the 60s if they're somewhat knowledgeable, and to this day if they're totally retarded.
It's Sup Forums, they were pissed that Spider-Man doesn't kill in the new game for some dumb reason, so now it's infecting here.
>Not everything is automatically better because it's in the "original" version of a story, but
Never said this at all. Just said that you can have Batman kill and it wouldn't change the concept of his character at all.
Not that user, but the two instances I posted above were in the 80s and 70s, respectively, *long* after Editorial had issued the "Batman doesn't kill" edict. And there's more where those came from.
> if the person in question is personally responsible for over a hundred deaths
That's more people than you'd think. Depending on how you consider responsibility, it might be more than a hundred in a single year. For the World's Greatest Detective, it could be anybody from the guy whose dangerous driving resulted in multiple major road incidents, to a guy who brought down a tower, to an unusually bad surgeon.
So at the end of the first year, Crazy Bruce kills himself. And that's even assuming he doesn't go after medical professionals and others whose interventions are calculated risks to people they're actually trying to help.
Besides, why 100? Because you only know how to count in base10?
>Violence used to protect others from violence is perfectly acceptable
If that were true nobody would ever object to being defended by vigilantes and thugs. Violence used to protect others from immediate violence which causes later, predictable but unforeseen violence (or other consequences, such as homelessness), is clearly not acceptable. For some people, violence in their own name is to be avoided at all costs - even if that means death or injury to themselves or others. That isn't an inherently cowardly position, either - it's a moral judgement and sticking to it takes courage.
But violence isn't always defensible even in self-defense or the defense of otherwise defenseless others (killing is not accepted except where no other possible outcome was reasonable in most of the US, for example, and not accepted where federal jurisdiction applies); there are strict rules one when and where it can be done, and there is still the matter of due process, to the perpetrator and their victim, to be carried out by the relevant authorities.
Nowhere is it simplified to "well you seem like a decent kind of murderer, so I guess we'll just not even bother investigating", because that is how you end up with serial killers going unnoticed for years.
>He also used to live in New York City.
"Gotham" is a nickname for New York City that has only relatively recently fallen out of use.
>Superman used to live in Cleveland.
Why would you move from Kansas to Ohio?
>If that were true
What do you mean "if"?
What, no? Darkseid was possessing Turpin in Final Crisis, but he usually has a body of his own.
>reposting panels from an old farticle
Oh boy, it's EXACTLY like I said! Fuckers who don't read comic books repeating shit other fuckers who don't read comic books say. He even left the article name in the filename!
Mike Barr's Batman didn't murder as often as he allowed tactical manslaughter in certain situations, usually not saving crooks from each others' friendly fire. He did prefer his Batman edgier than most, with a looser idea of his no-killing rule, but that was one particular writer, and most of his work is either non-canonical or has had those continuity "wrinkles" smoothed out after so many reboots.
I don't see how this is a death, unless you assume he knocked the guy out, which the text doesn't say, and at that point, you could list every time he KOs a thug with "this guy probably died from massive cranial trauma later".
>he usually has a body of his own.
What I meant with "he's a guy".
>Never said this at all. Just said that you can have Batman kill and it wouldn't change the concept of his character at all.
Well, that depends on what your concept of his character is. If you think it's just "a creepy guy in a Dracula suit beats up other guys", then yeah, I guess, but if you're NOT a shallow mall-goth fucking Tim Burton troll doll wannabe, you know that the character, and the concept, were both developed fairly rapidly into a father figure hero for children, his target audience, and a symbol of heroism and all that good shit.
If you just want a cool guy who dresses in black and kills motherfuckers, well, if you're a pleb there are plenty of edgy Batman knockoffs to choose from, and if you're a patrician, there're plenty of stories about The Shadow to enjoy.
Those aren't kills. As in, we have to stretch our imaginations, but these people aren't "murdered" for the same reason that batman can get punched in the face so much without getting brain damage.
maybe he just doesn't want to kill anybody
there's a lot of people that just don't want to
in that panel it said he evacuated the vagrants. Why are you saying that's a murder panel when it goes out of it's way (in a pretty nonsensical manner) to make sure nobody died?
This wasn't a problem till the last two decades. No one asks why say Spider-man doesn't just snap most of his rouges because they are mostly Bank robbers and power players short of a very few nut jobs that tend to either kill themselves or escape before Spidey deals with them. But Bat-mans rouges went full psychopath during the crank to 11 edge phase of the 80s and 90s thus suddenly it gave serious pause to why Batman would let Joker, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, and many others live when they have killed (and in Jokers case rape as well) so many people that Batman or Gotham not ending them seems insane and for some breaks the suspension of disbelief. Sadly there is no way to fix this because people love the dark edgy Batman world where monsters kill all the time and Batman just plays principle and puts them in detention till they have their next killing spree.
former cop here...
Investigate yes, trial probably, but a citizen can and will get away with killing someone when a jury can be convinced that person is *within a reasonable doubt* about to kill someone else.
That's absolutely acceptable in the US legal system.
That's clearly Batman blowing up a horde of zombies made from actual dirt, and the text clearly specifies Batman even went out of his way to evacuate vagrants from the building before detonating it.
Sorry not sorry for actually reading comics.
And Batman decidedly shoots Danseid in the shoulder when he confronts him, so that the radion bullet will poison Darkseid, but won't mortally wound his host, whom Wonder Woman saves later with her lasso.
So killing's wrong, but severe brain damage is fine?
Remember that time batman through joker of a mountain in the vain belief he would die only for him to come back semi immortal and cause even more damage?Why do newfags think death can somehow stop super villians in the DC universe,fuck it jason todd showed up killing black mask then an even WORSE black mask showed up instantaneously
The problem with killing criminals as a vigilante is that it is hard to draw that line at where killing is ok. Sure some cases are obvious like Joker and Zsasz as they are both horrendously evil. What about Deadshot? He is a murderer for hire with more bodies under his belt than most criminals. Sure most of those bodies were other criminals but he is still a murderer. If you make an exception for him what about others.
Its hard to determine the point at which someone needs to be killed. Its also hard not to have that line change over the years. What if you see a guy that is obviously sociopathic and shows tendencies that line up with those of a serial killer? Do you kill him when he has committed no crimes? Do you kill him after he has murdered one person? Does one murder now mean instant death penalty? If not than how many bodies until he crosses that line.
What if its a serial rapist? Or a pedophile? Or maybe even a dirty cop? All of these cause horrible pain directly or indirectly to others. Is a quick painless death from a bullet to the back of the head worse or better than raping someone and letting them live?
No one really has the right to decide these things. Batman knows that if he makes an exception once he will do it again. Sure he may be able to keep his moral compass straight but think of it this way.
If he kills zero criminals than he knows that anything that happens might be his fault. If he kills a few criminals than the crimes of those he lets live are DEFINITELY his fault.
You're talking about a man who decided to dress up like a bat, make bat-themed weapons and vehicles, adopted several children only to train them to become vigilantes, and has sex with a thief while in-costume on rooftops
>he's a guy.
4 U
it's a fucking comic book, stop with this stupid shit
>just your opinion
>what is basic ethics