Why does Batman's no kill rule trigger normies so much?

Why does Batman's no kill rule trigger normies so much?

Because no kill rules are extremely dangerous to society in imagined world where psychopaths escape from jail every month. If maximum jailtime was 1 month IRL, close to 100% of population would be for death penalty.

Because most of us of know at least one person who would improve the world greatly by leaving it, feet first.

Because, in their minds, a "hero that kills" means "realistic and serious", and "realistic and serious" means "good story". Since they don't read the stories, they don't know how wrong they can be.

>because normies want ''batman punisher 2.0''

Because most writers believe Batman's no kill rule is just rather than playing on his extreme phobia of death.

Writers portray Batman as someone heroic and competent, rather than a nutjob who uses cosplay as a coping mechanism. If the readers understood that "no kill" is part of his unique psychosis it would make more sense to them.

This.

Also we're kind of super down with killing in media because of the action movie formula taking the onus away from the act of murder.

I don't know, but I'll say that if I lived in Gotham I'd be pretty fucking angry that SOMEBODY hasn't taken care of the villain problem yet. I think most of my anger would be directed at the justice system for putting them in a loony bin where they rarely bother to lock the doors, though.

>Mass murdering psychopath frequently escapes prison and kills even more people before being captured again

>killing him is bad

Makes me glad the US still has the death penalty because there are retards that feel life in prison is a harsher punishment

It's not necessarily the rule itself that's dumb, it's the often-used explanations for the rule that are dumb.

>If you kill a murderer, you're no better than he is!
>If there are two killers and you kill just one, there are still two killers in the world
Herpderp.

Dear god I fucking hated that. Put Punisher in a room with fifty criminals and I guarantee there's only going to be one killer walking out.

I mean isn't it?
Also the issue with killing innocents which has happened.
Plus a legally sanctioned killing costs a shit ton of money, more than just keeping the fucker in jail.
Can't he be a heroic competent nutjob who uses cosplay as a coping mechanism?

Somehow people have come to believe that cynicism == realism.

This. The idea that Comic Code morality is actually the right thing to do is what pisses people off, because it is so blatantly wrong it offends their sense of justice to see Bats or Supes spewing such bullshit.

The reasonable ideal of course is a hero who knows when to kill and when to take someone in based on the circumstances. Though of course this falls victim to the fact that most supervillains are terrorists and if SWAT had anti-capeshit guns every single one of them would have died by now.

Stand your ground laws are pretty well liked. And if a police officer ever beat the shit out of you for trying to kill someone who was attempting to kill yourself or your girlfriend, allowing the guy attempting to kill you to get away (and then later go on to kill other people that same night, or the next day) while trying to arrest you for it, you can bet your ass people would be pissed.

Batman having hang ups around death and treating all deaths as unjust murders is an interesting angle to come from and could make for interesting stories. But not when writers treat him (or any other heroes with a no kill rule) as some sort of moral paragon whose individual hang-ups are just, noble, sustainable, something we should hold ourselves to and look up to- that are good for the people of Gotham or even beyond there and into the real world.

It's not murder to protect someone else or yourself when a life is in imminent danger. And it's not 'grim' and 'edgy' to be willing to end the life of someone who's putting your own life or the life of someone else in very serious danger. Batman sees the world in extreme black and whites. The problem is that so do a lot of the people writing heroes with no kill rules. So they don't adequately explore the problems that come with those worldviews or if they do, oftentimes they handwave them away as the villain's fault or something. It makes for a shitty story and shitty writing.

>people can only enjoy one type of hero

Seriously, Batman killing people would be jarring and annoying unless it was a remimagining.

Because Batman's no kill rule isn't a thing that came out of wanting to write a better character

>life in prison is a harsher punishment
Life in prison, at least at a SuperMax, is a harsher punishment. That's why I support it. It takes too long to kill a convict, and those prisons will destroy one, in a much shorter time.

>Batman kills all his enemies
>no more stories to tell because there is no conflict
>otherwise they would need to introduce villains that can't die
>otherwise comic book shenanigans with villains returning every month instead of yearly

...

I hate it more when he goes out his way to save the badguys

Not all murdering pieces of shit get sent to supermax prisons. Some even get sent to minimum security and have a chance at parole. And the shit with innocence holds no water in an age of DNA testing, the major rub with executions now is the appeals process and the faggots who think criminals have a right to life.

If the joker escapes multiple times and it's blatantly apparent that the justice system cannot deal with him, it's incumbent upon batman to kill him.

Otherwise he is responsible for anyone the joker kills. It's that simple.

In fairness, he'd basically just be sending him to hell, which he'll also somehow manage to escape

Normies love his no-kill rule.

It's literally one of the reasons why they hated BvS, because Batman used guns and killed.

It's Sup Forums who hated Batman's no kill rule more than anyone else in the world. They literally think that all superheroes (except Superman) should stomp their enemies heads like American History X.

Well, it's not realistic to believe that you can avoid killing anybody when you heavily beat them and throw them around. Humans can be very fragile.

/thread

It's always presented in a hamfisted way with the absolute extremes.

>Joker kills Jason
>"I won't sink to your level that proves how good I am lol I can get another Robin"
>Max kills Ted Kord
>"We shouldn't snap his neck because he should be locked up for being evil who are we to judge Ted was gay anyways"
>Joker nukes a billion people
>"Clark we can't become like him if we kill him we'll be just as bad I mean fuck let's recruit Harley on our team"

It's tiresome when any other city in the DC universe would sooner put Two-Face and the like on deathrow than deal with Bamham's moral bullshit. It would work better self-contained like X-Men.

>Why does Batman's no kill rule trigger normies so much?
The no-kill rule doesn't trigger normies. Normies like the rule. Normies got mad that this piece of shit didn't have the no-kill rule. Only comic readers who watch Batman refuse to kill the Joker and then see him burn down an orphanage the next month are bothered by it.

THIS
H
I
S

Despite how silly Civil War was, I loved the part where Spiderman brings in some villains to help and Punisher just guns them down in front of everyone with no shits given

>And the shit with innocence holds no water in an age of DNA testing,
If you're going to trust the State to kill its own citizens, how they decide to do that doesn't really matter. The same people who conceal exculpatory evidence will fudge DNA results. DNA evidence, by the way, isn't always available.
I try not to give the State any powers over raging pieces of shit that I would gleefully kill that I don't want it to have over me.

And nowadays he works with mass murderers of innocents because his boyfriend told him to.

Yknow what I think is weird?

That even people that support capital punishment don't support corporal punishment. It's like, we have a system based primarily on detainment and incarceration, and in some areas the death penalty exists as the most extreme punishment, but literally nobody supports corporal punishment which seems like the logical bridge in between being locked up and executed.

It doesn't make sense when the opposition is an army of mobsters and psychos who kill like a hundred people each every week. Although Batman himself doesn't make much sense always, and it's ultimately not his main responsibility to keep the city safe from criminals. That's the government's and the police's job, and they're terrible at it. If you're gonna fault Batman for not killing Joker and thus ensuring that he won't blow up another hospital, you could fault ANYONE else who's been in range of Joker for the same reason. Like, everyone in Gotham must have lost a friend or family member to Joker by now. How does he still find people who wanna hench for him? If some rando just shot him and bashed his head in, he'd be a hero and probably receive a Kingpin-tier luxury cell in jail, assuming the police even bothered to investigate. The fact that people like him are still alive is the entire city's fault.

Does the USA constitution prohibit cruel punishments and unusual punishments, or only cruel and unusual punishments?

Because maiming someone physically only impedes their ability to deal with life after the fact. You either have them rehabilitated or end their lives because they can't be, there's no logical in-between.

All punishments are cruel by definition.

Only if you think the Justice system exists solely to protect citizens with no concern for the state of the perpetrator, and has no retributive or punitive aspect.

This>...Writers portray Batman as someone heroic and competent, rather than a nutjob who uses cosplay as a coping mechanism...

Batgod is a control freak who hates anything that would change status quo
The batgod needs desperately being nerfed and being write more like "world greatest detective" with a complex morality with the no kill as his stop line but anything between been exploring.

t. criminal

No retard. They AREN'T PUNISHMENTS if they aren't cruel.

The justice system exists to uphold existing laws and set new legal precedent when needs be. Its function in the macrosocial scale is determined by what qualifies a judge to hold court in that society. Usually, that's a public vote.

This is why you have Texan judges giving patent trolls grounds for their idiotic extortion campaigns, but scarcely anywhere else in the US or even the world - the Texan people want their courts to function that way.

If punishment isn't cruel, it'll never become unusual.
Heinlein, I think.

If a punishment isn't cruel it MUST be unusual instead, because cruelty is the usual characteristic of a punishment.

Cruelty is enslaving an entire generation with inescapable debt, but that's not unusual in this day and age nor is it seen as punishment.
Just the same, penalizing or punishing yourself for lackluster results with additional training, however grueling, isn't necessarily cruel. You might even argue that taking a break despite your condition and skill - the supposedly merciful reward after a hard day's work - would be cruel to your future self.

Because in the normies head Batman is a God,one unstoppable being who only limit is "No kill" rule and that is precisely the problem,they clearly see "can easily beat the shit out of Superman but can't stop permanently some deformed stupid guy who toys with coins like autistic child with spinners"
And that is other problem
What in the DC universe can really stop the bat ?
The clown is only one dichotomy he don't want/can stop him
Nothing can win his preptime/plot armor.
And any attempt to nerfing would take out the nigger shit of everyone in this board.

If a punishment isn't cruel it isn't either corrective or preventative.

>draw a line the wrong way
>choose your punishment:
>erase it and try again
>jam razorblades between your toenails and take a bath in laundry bleach

Is that right?

...It would work better self-contained like X-Men.

But muh League
Sadpepe.jpg

You have any idea the real cost of locks!!?

If there are two killers and you kill just one, there are still two killers in the world

Tumbler can't write better.

House of M levels of shit

His no-kill rule would be justifiable if his villains actually stayed in prison and got their sentences, but they don't, and so Batman looks like a fool. Superman doesn't kill anybody and no one complains because Superman's villains either stay in prison or get driven away

Or for, you know, increasing the maximum jailtime.

Increasing maximum jailtime doesn't stop a criminal from committing crime. it also doesn't preclude things like escapes or parole, which many states still offer even if a convicted criminal gets a life sentence.

You're acting as if killing the Joker would stop him from killing people.

He'd be out of hell faster than Arkham. You know this is true.

This. Why the fuck do people blame Batman for Joker still being alive?

Blame the cops. Blame the court. Blame the Spectre, wrath of God incarnate for somehow being incapable of stopping a freak in greaspaint.

Because he's a hero, not a vigilante. Heroes don't kill. Call me a normie if you want (I have 20,000 issues of comics in the room I'm currently sitting in, if that helps) but that's why Batman and The Punisher are different characters.

Batman gave Gordon the chance to kill the Joker at the end of NML after Joker killed his wife, and Gordon chose not to, based on Batman's heroic example. To me, that's a defining moment for all 3 characters.

Yeah That threw me off. Except for the Fact that those were Parademons not humans and it was a DREAM ! So normies got triggered over NOTHING !

we have the Joker issue but as user mentioned above, Batman wasn't responsible for him escaping for the 450th time and he'll still be there to protect you and catch the Joker again if he escapes again and again

I think only edgy teenagers dislike his no-kill rule, but that said, a more realistic Batman, if put in a dangerous situation were the only way to save someone from a villain is killing said villain, well, this realistic Batman, after wasting all his (nearly infinite) resources, he would sure go for the kill, as any competent cop

> Call me a normie if you want
Wow. Sure jump to victim status by yourself. infected by the encroaching cult of victimhood in the scene i guess.

OP said why do normies get "triggered" by the fact he does NOT kill.
Normies would naturally think shooting/killing the bad guys is the natural thing to do. Like action heroes.

>gotham still doesn't execute them because they're insane and deserve help
>after the hundredth breakout of course
What a shitty city

surely someone with a lot of money and influence could do some lobbying and maybe fix this issue

because everyone wants to be a hurr durr edgelord.

The no kill rule doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is when heroes save villains from their own demise. e.g. Villain is about to fall to their death from the edge or steel beam from a building they somehow destroyed. The hero helps the villain up, and then arrests him.