Why do some people want the Punisher to accidentally kill civilians?

[Brian B]

It's interesting that back in the 80's DC Comics published a title called Vigilante that was kind of "Punisher-lite". However, Marv Wolfman in the early issue made it part of the text. The hero would try to restrain himself, etc. There was one story where his helper had to stop him from beating the hell out of someone because they figured out that the man was innocent after all.

You mean this guy, below? Restraint? Nah! He’s a total psycho, but a lovable psycho! Just watch the clips.

[The Cool Thatguy]

You mean this guy, below? Restraint? Nah! He’s a total psycho, but a lovable psycho! Just watch the clips.

Yeah, they made Vigilante, who prior was an example of the natural progression/escalation of being a murderous vigilante...into Deadpool. And really glossed over the implications of Peacemaker's Punisher like antics...

...and people wonder why there needs be an examination.

[phonogram12]

I still see no reason why Punisher not be subjected to the same scrutiny every other comic character gets. Your defense seems to be that, if we stop and think about it, it'll destroy his character completely. Which hasn't happened to a deconstructed character yet, regardless of the story telling.

Some of this has happened but maybe not in the examples you raised.

Very recently, Daredevil accidentally killed someone and it raised a TON of questions.

Exactly. All of the above. In re to DD, the character has often (and purposefully) been painted in less than flattering or noble lights before in an attempt to explore the character. Some stories were better than others, but none of them destroyed him. In re to Zdarsky's run, specifically, Matt agonized over his mistake, quit for a little bit, then decided that instead of quitting, he just needed to learn to be better at what he does before eventually turning himself in (he also tried to make it up to the victim's family).

While I've enjoyed stories featuring the Punisher before (as well as at least the second season of the Netflix show), I wouldn't necessarily say I'm the world's biggest Punisher fan, but I am curious to know whether or not Punisher fans prefer him to be infallible or not. Would a Punisher who felt he needed to learn to do what he does better necessarily be a bad thing?

[j9ac9k]

Yeah, they made Vigilante, who prior was an example of the natural progression/escalation of being a murderous vigilante...into Deadpool. And really glossed over the implications of Peacemaker's Punisher like antics...

...and people wonder why there needs be an examination.

What do you mean, "glossed over?" The whole show was all about having Peacemaker rethink his entire worldview/MO/motto.

So, is the Punisher fantasy that he's so single-minded that he never questions himself or his mission? Is that what his die-hard fans love about him?

[Brian B]

It appears that there are some people who want the Punisher to kill civilians if only by accident. I understand that the Punisher is a vigilante who wants to fight crime and avenge his family but I also know that he does not target civilians. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this but why do some people want the Punisher to accidentally target civilians if only to see the consequences?

Who are these “some people.” Source, please. I ask, because I basically reject the very premise of this thread.

Frank has always been a villain in the comics.

Frank has been into crime and murder up to his eyeballs from his very 1st appearance and ever since. He’s no hero. He’s evil.

He was the Jackal’s assassin. You know he was up to no good.

He ran a mob. By the very definition of mob, Frank was making bank on the victims, living and dead, of the mob. He participated in the slaughter of innocents, no matter if he gave the order or did it himself. You don’t run a mob and not kill innocents. It may have been off panel, but he benefited as the head of a crime family, as a mafioso don.

He headed up the Hand. Again, Frank was in charge of an outright evil and demonic organization. You don’t think they weren’t murdering innocents?

You want to see him kill an innocent? Here you go. He beats a man to death with his hands just because he’s a “junkie.” Luckily, Daredevil resuscitated him on the next page.

Frank was so much more fun before he got his own, regular books, and before they made him demon Frank and then Frankenstein Frank. Just look at this maniac’s ultra violence. Frank Miller’s Punisher remains the greatest depiction we’ve ever had of Frank Castle. BTW, these two thugs had it coming. Still, you have to love the gun cocking as he prepares to unload on prone victims of his “justice.”



The only people who would want to see Frank kill more innocents apparently don’t know that the character has been doing just that from his very 1st appearance.

[The Cool Thatguy]

What do you mean, "glossed over?" The whole show was all about having Peacemaker rethink his entire worldview/MO/motto.

So, is the Punisher fantasy that he's so single-minded that he never questions himself or his mission? Is that what his die-hard fans love about him?

Yeah, he was rexamining his world view, but that was largely because he killed Rick Flag and slowly realizing what a douche he was. He never had a single encounter with a criminal that made him rethink his methods.

The janitor at the hospital who accused him of racist rampages, for example, was later comfortable enough with Peacemaker to have him come to his nephew's show and tell, and the bad guys were alien bugs. Collateral damage was alluded to, but never explored

[marhawkman]

"It is not what the Punisher audience wants"

lol, wow, gatekeeping much?

I still see no reason why Punisher not be subjected to the same scrutiny every other comic character gets. Your defense seems to be that, if we stop and think about it, it'll destroy his character completely. Which hasn't happened to a deconstructed character yet, regardless of the story telling.

How often do people consider how easily a character like Cyclops or the Human Torch could... accidentally blow up a building? Yes, it IS unfair to only "stop and think about it"... (when it's not relevant to the story) in one case and not the other.

Btw, in terms of other heroes being taken to task, or not being given a pass, the Hulk was kicked off the planet by his friends because they thought he was too dangerous.

Which was a good story, AND based on stuff that'd happened before. Hulk was in many cases.... not actually in control.

Or like pretty much everything anyone did in Civil War (Bill Foster anyone?).

So much this... Civil War RUINED the idea of Heroes being "good guys". There are VILLAINS that look good by comparison.

[phonogram12]

What do you mean, "glossed over?" The whole show was all about having Peacemaker rethink his entire worldview/MO/motto.

So, is the Punisher fantasy that he's so single-minded that he never questions himself or his mission? Is that what his die-hard fans love about him?

This is basically my question as well. You have guys like Cap, DD, IM, Wolverine, etc. questioning how they do things all the time.

[davew128]

How often do people consider how easily a character like Cyclops or the Human Torch could... accidentally blow up a building?

Well Johnny was once wanted and on the run for accidentally committing arson at ESU at one point. In fact its been a point made many times of how cognizant Johnny is of the danger of his powers and how he constantly works on maintaining control of it.

[4theEarth]

Who are these “some people.” Source, please. I ask, because I basically reject the very premise of this thread.

Frank has always been a villain in the comics.

Frank has been into crime and murder up to his eyeballs from his very 1st appearance and ever since. He’s no hero. He’s evil.

He was the Jackal’s assassin. You know he was up to no good.

He ran a mob. By the very definition of mob, Frank was making bank on the victims, living and dead, of the mob. He participated in the slaughter of innocents, no matter if he gave the order or did it himself. You don’t run a mob and not kill innocents. It may have been off panel, but he benefited as the head of a crime family, as a mafioso don.

He headed up the Hand. Again, Frank was in charge of an outright evil and demonic organization. You don’t think they weren’t murdering innocents?

You want to see him kill an innocent? Here you go. He beats a man to death with his hands just because he’s a “junkie.” Luckily, Daredevil resuscitated him on the next page.

Frank was so much more fun before he got his own, regular books, and before they made him demon Frank and then Frankenstein Frank. Just look at this maniac’s ultra violence. Frank Miller’s Punisher remains the greatest depiction we’ve ever had of Frank Castle. BTW, these two thugs had it coming. Still, you have to love the gun cocking as he prepares to unload on prone victims of his “justice.”


The only people who would want to see Frank kill more innocents apparently don’t know that the character has been doing just that from his very 1st appearance.

Conway said in a 1987 interview that "I was fascinated by the Don Pendleton Executioner character, which was fairly popular at the time, and I wanted to do something that was inspired by that, although not to my mind a copy of it. And while I was doing the Jackal storyline, the opportunity came for a character who would be used by the Jackal to make Spider-Man's life miserable. The Punisher seemed to fit."[18]

Goodness when has someone been a villain in one book but a hero in their own - lots. Having mentioned the Punisher as foil it is just as important to show that yes the Hulk was a villian in the FF early on, Sub-mariner was a villain, heck Iron Man fans have been griping for years that he almost one in the Avengers. It is sort of a tradition https://www.cbr.com/marvel-heroes-villains/

Venom was created as a Villan too. We have whole threads on loving Villians. I am fine with your estimation of his character being yours. It is not universal though and it is just sad that that "Following the widespread appropriation of this logo by far right movements, it was officially retired from active use by Marvel Entertainment in 2022, replaced by a new horned-skull motif inspired by the Japanese mythological demon Oni.[17]" wikipedia So Marvel is worried too about a hero being an extremist.

Writers have tried to trash the character numerous times as the poster mentions. Marvel probably green lit the Mob boss story figuring he was done. Then he came back.

Through it all the Punisher remains.

Reading that Conway quote remined me of NYC in the 70's and the later Hero/villain in the headlines.

On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot four young men on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan after they allegedly tried to rob him. Goetz surrendered to police nine days later and was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses.

how many people loved him for it I can't tell you but the press ate it up. Curtis Sliwa built a career on it. Probably not heroes in the minds of some but I guess you had to have been there.

[marhawkman]

Well Johnny was once wanted and on the run for accidentally committing arson at ESU at one point. In fact its been a point made many times of how cognizant Johnny is of the danger of his powers and how he constantly works on maintaining control of it.

Yeah, and in the case of Frank Castle he makes a point to not hurt anyone who he considers "innocents". It's kinda the central pillar of the character concept. Frank doesn't just shoot people on suspicion of being criminals.

But getting back to johnny... most writers hand wave the mere idea of him accidentally hurting someone. In fact, one comic explicitly stated that Johnny has such incredible control he can incinerate someone's clothes... and NOT burn the person.

[phonogram12]

Is anyone actually saying that they want the Punisher to start killing innocents indiscriminately? I think more people are curious as to why the idea of him accidentally killing someone hasn't been explored yet and exactly why it hasn't happened yet.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Is anyone actually saying that they want the Punisher to start killing innocents indiscriminately? I think more people are curious as to why the idea of him accidentally killing someone hasn't been explored yet and exactly why it hasn't happened yet.

And some of us are curious why the damage left in his wake has gone completely unexamined, at all.

I mean, for all Punisher writers like to pretend to play with gray, 95% of Punisher's victims are puppy kicking sociopaths, a good number make a point to talk about how evil they are before getting killed and barely a one has any redeeming characteristics, and exist in a world that coddles crime.

[phonogram12]

And some of us are curious why the damage left in his wake has gone completely unexamined, at all.

I mean, for all Punisher writers like to pretend to play with gray, 95% of Punisher's victims are puppy kicking sociopaths, a good number make a point to talk about how evil they are before getting killed and barely a one has any redeeming characteristics, and exist in a world that coddles crime.

The Netflix shows actually do what the comics don't to an extent. In the second season of DD, Punisher killed a criminal (admittedly someone who had at least once murdered someone) and at this criminal's service (who the only three in attendance were Matt, Foggy, and Karen because I believe they were trying to help them out with a case), the priest had recalled that despite this man's misdeeds, he was still someone that (in his own way) tried to seek redemption every Sunday when he came to mass, putting a lot of his misbegotten gains into the offertory basket. While the Punisher didn't think twice about ending this man's life, there was an attempt on the show's part to humanize him.

In the second season of The Punisher's own series, he not once, but twice spared the life of major criminals, one being a major figure in the Russian Mafia and the other the season's big bad for no other reason that they were fathers.

[Ultimate Captain America]

About the thread's proposal, it has been done with Hulk, a character in a similar situation (his regular way of doing things should leave a lot of casualties, but has plot armor that the only deaths are the explicit ones). And despite the chaos he leaves behind, we're meant to see him in a good light. The Ultimates removed such protection, made him a complete monster and his rampage in New York was a 9/11 type of disaster. Fandom reaction? That's not Hulk, Hulk is a good guy, shame on you Millar, etc. Meaning, the deconstruction did not change their views at all.

Why would a deconstruction of Punisher's methods end any differently?