What would your reaction be to a story line like this and what would Bruce Wayne do?

[Castiel]

Okay say for what ever reason Bruce Wayne became incapacitated and his Batman family either moved on from being a super hero finding a normal life, moved on to another city vowing never to return to Gotham or died in the line of duty. Then years a later a new Batman appeared similar to Oliver Queen in the TV series Arrow like in the first few issues he's ruthless in his defending of justice in Gotham and even kills but only when all else fails (like when a mad man has an atomic bomb ready to go off in the center of Gotham and the shut off device is connected to his vital signs meaning the only way to shut off the bomb is to kill the bomber) and will torture a psychotic killer to save a life (like a child molester buries a child alive and the only way to save the child is to torture the truth out of the child molester).

And in his own narration this new Batman explains his actions with "I wont kill or torture needlessly but if it saves lives I will do whatever it takes to protect my city and those that live in it."

Then years later Bruce awakens to find that Gotham city hasn't changed much but at the same time he learns his replacement has saved it and protected as well as he did despite being slightly more violent then Bruce. What would Bruce do would he shut down this new Batman or take him under his wing and teach him to not be so extreme?

I would like to point out that this new Batman isn't a Punisher vigilante he would only kill and or torture when the situation was the most extreme in truth he's the type that tries to avoid those situations as much as possible and would later be found at a church asking God for forgiveness.

[Jeff Brady]

I would not read that story.

[Kingcrimsonprog]

Okay say for what ever reason Bruce Wayne became incapacitated and his Batman family either moved on from being a super hero finding a normal life, moved on to another city vowing never to return to Gotham or died in the line of duty. Then years a later a new Batman appeared similar to Oliver Queen in the TV series Arrow like in the first few issues he's ruthless in his defending of justice in Gotham and even kills but only when all else fails (like when a mad man has an atomic bomb ready to go off in the center of Gotham and the shut off device is connected to his vital signs meaning the only way to shut off the bomb is to kill the bomber) and will torture a psychotic killer to save a life (like a child molester buries a child alive and the only way to save the child is to torture the truth out of the child molester).

And in his own narration this new Batman explains his actions with "I wont kill or torture needlessly but if it saves lives I will do whatever it takes to protect my city and those that live in it."

Then years later Bruce awakens to find that Gotham city hasn't changed much but at the same time he learns his replacement has saved it and protected as well as he did despite being slightly more violent then Bruce. What would Bruce do would he shut down this new Batman or take him under his wing and teach him to not be so extreme?

I would like to point out that this new Batman isn't a Punisher vigilante he would only kill and or torture when the situation was the most extreme in truth he's the type that tries to avoid those situations as much as possible and would later be found at a church asking God for forgiveness.

I kind of think that Bruce Batman would send him to prison for murder anyway. Its a character flaw of Bruce's. It gives him depth though.
Grayson Batman might begrudgingly let him off with a warning/education.

[Lorendiac]

Then years a later a new Batman appeared similar to Oliver Queen in the TV series Arrow like in the first few issues he's ruthless in his defending of justice in Gotham and even kills but only when all else fails (like when a mad man has an atomic bomb ready to go off in the center of Gotham and the shut off device is connected to his vital signs meaning the only way to shut off the bomb is to kill the bomber) and will torture a psychotic killer to save a life (like a child molester buries a child alive and the only way to save the child is to torture the truth out of the child molester).

I kind of think that Bruce Batman would send him to prison for murder anyway. Its a character flaw of Bruce's. It gives him depth though.

I don't entirely agree. Two reasons:

1. Jean Paul Valley left Abattoir to die when he was doing his own "grim and gritty vigilante Batman" schtick during "Knightquest." When Bruce came back, he reclaimed the mantle of Batman but didn't feel obligated to hand Jean Paul over to the GCPD to face trial for any crimes he had committed.

2. Even supposing for the sake of argument that Batman (meaning Bruce, the original Batman) tried to physically subdue this copycat, with the intent of handing him over to the cops, Bruce still doesn't have the authority to send him straight to prison. That's where the whole thing about "a fair trial in a court of law, standing before a jury of your peers" comes in.

The way Castiel describes it, I think what would happen would be very similar to the way Magog stood trial for killing Joker in a flashback in "Kingdom Come."

Assuming the District Attorney even files charges, the jury is finally asked to consider: "Was the defendant justified in killing that mad bomber in order to prevent the murders of a million other people?"

The jury says: "Of course he was justified! We find him Not Guilty!"

And frankly, I think Bruce would take that verdict a lot better than Clark did in "Kingdom Come" when he was so upset that he threw a Super-Tantrum and went off and hid in a cave for the next ten years. (As opposed, for instance, to giving serious consideration to the possibility that maybe the jury had gotten it exactly right.)

I would like to point out that this new Batman isn't a Punisher vigilante he would only kill and or torture when the situation was the most extreme in truth he's the type that tries to avoid those situations as much as possible and would later be found at a church asking God for forgiveness.

This sounds suspiciously like the first part of the "Daredevil" movie from way back when. At one point, we see Matt Murdock going into the confessional to talk about his latest adventure as Daredevil (in which he'd killed a man by letting him be run over by a subway train). We gather he's done this sort of thing many times before and intends to keep doing it in the future. The priest says, very astutely: "You didn't come here for forgiveness. You want permission, and I can't give you that!"

[Kingcrimsonprog]

Oh, good point. I didn't think about that.

With JPV was it an actual killing, or just not saving a villain who was in a perilous situation?

Maybe that would make a difference to Bruce. [Intentional killing = unforgivable? / Death by omission of action= forgivable?]. Maybe not.

You definitely nailed it about the court of law situation.

[exile001]

With JPV was it an actual killing, or just not saving a villain who was in a perilous situation?

Kind of neither. Abbatoir was dangling over a vat of molten metel, and Az-Bats (as a result of mental conditioning) had a massive freak-out and began hallucinating St. Dumas telling him to kill. Abbatoir fell during this, so technically his indecision indirectly lead to Abbatoir's death.

Bruce didn't take Jean-Paul Valley to the police because he felt responsible for making him take on the mantle of Batman, JPV had mental-conditioning that made him wig out, and DC was already planning an Azrael ongoing series.

In this scenario, Bruce would come back and drag this other Batman off to the police on hearing about the first killing.

I don't think killing and torturing is 'slightly' more violent than Bruce.

[Kingcrimsonprog]

Kind of neither. Abbatoir was dangling over a vat of molten metel, and Az-Bats (as a result of mental conditioning) had a massive freak-out and began hallucinating St. Dumas telling him to kill. Abbatoir fell during this, so technically his indecision indirectly lead to Abbatoir's death.

Bruce didn't take Jean-Paul Valley to the police because he felt responsible for making him take on the mantle of Batman, JPV had mental-conditioning that made him wig out, and DC was already planning an Azrael ongoing series.

In this scenario, Bruce would come back and drag this other Batman off to the police on hearing about the first killing.

I don't think killing and torturing is 'slightly' more violent than Bruce.

So Batman would arrest Jack Baur from 24?

[Castiel]

So Batman would arrest Jack Baur from 24?

True that's the kind of character I had in mind besides what would Batman say "Killing that man was wrong you should have let the bomb go off causing millions of innocent people to die." and in regards to the torturing would he say "You should feel ashamed for torturing that pedophile so what if that boy would have lost oxygen and would have died without you going to such extremes."

I mean I understand that Bruce doesn't approve of such methods but like Lorendiac posted I find it doubtful a jury would convict a man who stopped a terrorist attack and saved a child who had been buried alive by a deranged lunatic. Further more I find it more likely that the police would arrest someone who saved millions of lives. I mean if someone killed Hitler or Osama Bin Laden in cold blood would they be seen by the world as murderers?

And if no one convicts this new Batman what will Bruce do how would he stop this new Batman if no one would charge him? Would he kill just because he doesn't follow the same rules? I mean it's not like this new Batman would be a trigger happy lunatic that enjoys killing and does it all the time.

[gwangung]

Given what's Batman done to extract information from thugs over the years, I'm not sure he'd have any leg to stand on.

And essentially, a person who employs deadly force to save others is pretty much a cop. That's what they are authorized to do.

[Carabas]

Kind of neither. Abbatoir was dangling over a vat of molten metel, and Az-Bats (as a result of mental conditioning) had a massive freak-out and began hallucinating St. Dumas telling him to kill. Abbatoir fell during this, so technically his indecision indirectly lead to Abbatoir's death.

Hallucinations aside, Abby was an unrepentant, cannibalistic serial killer who had terminal brain cancer and was going to die anyway within months or weeks (forgot the details), and rescueing was a dangerous, life-threatening thing to do.
Crazy or not, letting him drop was, for me anyway, the right call to make.

[Flash Gordon]

Meh, I'd hate that Batman.

[Lorendiac]

Kind of neither. Abbatoir was dangling over a vat of molten metel, and Az-Bats (as a result of mental conditioning) had a massive freak-out and began hallucinating St. Dumas telling him to kill. Abbatoir fell during this, so technically his indecision indirectly lead to Abbatoir's death.

Bruce didn't take Jean-Paul Valley to the police because he felt responsible for making him take on the mantle of Batman, JPV had mental-conditioning that made him wig out, and DC was already planning an Azrael ongoing series.

I need to go back and reread that. I just vaguely remembered that JPV was on the scene when Abattoir died, and thus was blamed for it by other members of the Bat-Family, but it's been a long time since my last big reread of JPV's "Batman career" in the "Knightquest: The Crusade" issues that followed "Knightfall." I don't recall the messy details of exactly how the situation arose which then led to Abattoir's death.