What would Batman do in this situation?

[Castiel]

Okay would Batman ever let someone an evil person get killed? Like say he stumbles on to a wealthy influential Gotham citizen then realizes that this person is being targeted by a smart sophisticated mad man who plants bombs, hires super villains to do his dirty work, and hacks computer systems.

After being put through the ringer a few times Batman discovers the man he is protecting is a child molester and repeat offender and that the attempted murderer is the father/mother of one of the victims. Ultimately there is a confrontation where the Parent is pointing a gun at the guy's head screaming "He has to die! He's already been charged but he beat it! Double jeopardy means he's can't be charged again! Please let me kill him before he takes another victim!"

I would really like to see what Batman would do especially if from a legal stand point Batman couldn't do anything to the man who was a target.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

I think most writers would have Batman prevent the man from getting killed, and come up with some other way to punish him.

He's saved supervillains before, I don't think this would be any different to him.

[Lee Stone]

The Batman I'm more familiar with is a firm believer of the the judicial system. Even to the point of taking down corruption.

Is this instance, I imagine he would attempt to prevent the man from getting killed by talking the father down, telling him "He's not worth it" and talk him into surrendering his gun. The father would then cry on Batman's shoulder and the child molester would have soiled himself. After which, Batman would dispatch the molester where he belongs with a firm, but not menacing, cryptic statement that would instill a fear of ever doing anything bad again because Batman would know.
And quite possibly, once Batman is gone, the entire experience would make him weep and pray for forgiveness as the reality hits him that he almost got killed and realize he's been saved by grace. Which would either lead him to become a new person with the intention of redemption or kill himself.

[db105]

I think most writers would have Batman prevent the man from getting killed, and come up with some other way to punish him.

He's saved supervillains before, I don't think this would be any different to him.

Yep, I think it's been established many times in canon that Batman's ethical code not only prevents him from killing, but also from allowing someone to die through his inaction, even the worst supervillains. To do otherwise would be as out-of-character as Superman killing Zod in the Man of Steel film. It's the line he has marked to himself as to how far he is willing to go, and he won't go beyond it.

Many comic readers have criticized Batman for that, saying that it makes no sense not just not to kill, but also to go out of your way to save the life of someone like the Joker when you know he'll be back in a short while, murdering hundreds of people. They have a point, of course, but in my opinion the problem is not with Batman. What does not make sense is the citizens of the DCU who allow their leaders to routinely put supermurderers like the Joker in cardboard prisons where they'll routinely escape to commit mass murder again:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ardboardPrison

In any minimally realistic setting, voters would never elect politicians who did that. Imagine that Osama Bin-Laden was routinely captured and imprisoned only to escape every few months to organize new september-11-like attacks. There's no way anything like that would be allowed to happen. In the presence of mass murderers like that who can't be contained in a prison, people would very quickly bring the death penalty for them, to be applied very fast, changing the constitution or whatever they need to change.

[MajorHoy]

It also depends in part on who's writing the story and if it takes place in the "present" or "the future". (I could see somebody like Frank Miller letting old Bat-fart handle it differently than normal.)

[JBatmanFan05]

I would really like to see what Batman would do especially if from a legal stand point Batman couldn't do anything to the man who was a target.

Batman wouldn't let the target the die, double jeopardy or not. The attempted murderer would be arrested. And Batman might warn the target or threaten him or maybe stalk him a bit, try to get him jailed for something legit.

For all that Batman violates, he generally believes in the system.

[db105]

The attempted murderer would be arrested.

Under the circumstances and considering the crime was not committed I think he wouldn't do that.

[JBatmanFan05]

Under the circumstances and considering the crime was not committed I think he wouldn't do that.

Crimes were committed in most jurisdictions. Can't hold someone and point a gun to their head. I think Batman would arrest the person if only to see that they get medical care for their mental condition that caused them to reach this (near-)murderous point.

I don't think Batman arrests anyone for every little crime, he gives people breaks, but this circumstance can't just be hand waived and Batman can't assume he finally settled this.

[db105]

Crimes were committed in most jurisdictions. Can't hold someone and point a gun to their head. I think Batman would arrest the person if only to see that they get medical care for their mental condition that caused them to reach this (near-)murderous point.

Well, let's say the big crime was not committed.

It depends on how it's written, I guess, but I find it difficult to see him helping get the distraught parent in prison. Getting him help is a different matter.

[The Whovian]

Okay would Batman ever let someone an evil person get killed? Like say he stumbles on to a wealthy influential Gotham citizen then realizes that this person is being targeted by a smart sophisticated mad man who plants bombs, hires super villains to do his dirty work, and hacks computer systems.

After being put through the ringer a few times Batman discovers the man he is protecting is a child molester and repeat offender and that the attempted murderer is the father/mother of one of the victims. Ultimately there is a confrontation where the Parent is pointing a gun at the guy's head screaming "He has to die! He's already been charged but he beat it! Double jeopardy means he's can't be charged again! Please let me kill him before he takes another victim!"

I would really like to see what Batman would do especially if from a legal stand point Batman couldn't do anything to the man who was a target.

Well, first of all double jeopardy only pertains to murder charges. So Batman would simply disarm the man holding the gun, then whisper in the child molester's ear "Turn yourself in and confess to your crimes or I'll make you wish you had"

[Castiel]

Batman wouldn't let the target the die, double jeopardy or not. The attempted murderer would be arrested. And Batman might warn the target or threaten him or maybe stalk him a bit, try to get him jailed for something legit.

For all that Batman violates, he generally believes in the system.

True still you have to wonder would Batman be able to live with himself if another child fell victim what would he say to the victim's family "Sorry your kid was raped and murdered but I have a code."

[JBatmanFan05]

True still you have to wonder would Batman be able to live with himself if another child fell victim what would he say to the victim's family "Sorry your kid was raped and murdered but I have a code."

A lot of people Batman jails or fails to jail kill again, so that's not new territory. If Batman thought the rapist was worth stalking, that the need was so dire, he'd do it. He did it to Joe Chill and others.
Otherwise, he, a very busy crimefighter, wouldn't kill himself over not being able to stop legally free innocent citizens from raping/murdering when he doesn't if/when they'll do it...he's let Lex walk around a free legally-innocent man despite having to know that Lex, a repeated murderer, will kill more people as a free man. He's a man, not Superman. Not even Superman could prevent everything.

Batman's not gonna kill or allow killing to cover bases, to cover chances, and he can definitely be able to live with himself on that. The cause and moral blame aren't clear at all.

Should cops kill OJ because he may murder again? Casey Anthony? Vladimir Putin perhaps? How are these cops and soldiers able to live with themselves?

[HellHere]

If Batman managed to find out that the person is a child molester, he'd would give the evidence to the police and let them deal with it. If the parent is planting bombs and hiring super-villains, he's be given over the police as well.

[db105]

True still you have to wonder would Batman be able to live with himself if another child fell victim what would he say to the victim's family "Sorry your kid was raped and murdered but I have a code."

Batman would try to prevent that from happening, if at all possible. If it still happened what do you want him to do? He'd feel shitty.

That seems to me a false conundrum like the one that "forced" Superman to kill Zod in the last film. Your are asking: but what if Batman absolutely has to kill someone (or allow someone to be killed) or something horrible horrible horrible will happen, and there's no other option? But, of course, this is a fictional universe, and there is always another option if the writers want. If there's no other option it's because the writers do not want there to be. It's a question that doesn't fit the conventions of the genre. However, if you absolutely want to ask that question, there's a clear answer (not with rape, since that's a no-no now in mainstream comics, but with murder). And the answer is: Batman will still not kill or allow someone to be killed when he can prevent it. He has had plenty of opportunities to kill the Joker or even allow him to die through his inaction, and he hasn't done so. And of course the Joker kills again.

Like it or not, but that's the premise. Batman does not kill.

Except when he kills, of course:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20111...by-batman.html

You'll notice that those stories are in one or several of the following categories:
a) Very early Golden Age stories, at the beginning of the character's history, when he had not reached his definitive form (he had no objection to using guns or killing then)
b) Not clear whether the alleged victim dies or not (like the KGBeast story, which is a very cool and badass story with a great ending, where it really seems that Batman leaves the KGBeast to die, but you can also interpret that he just kept him locked up so that he could come back with heavy police reinforcements to arrest him later).
c) It was actually an accident
d) Alternate universe stories

[taylortexas]

There was a time when the Joker was going to be sentenced for a crime that he didn't commit and would have been killed for it. Batman knew that he wasn't the perpetrator and begrudgingly set out to clear his name despite knowing it would allow this psychopath to inevitably commit terrible atrocities and skip sentencing through an insanity plea. In another story, the Joker had been stabbed in the heart and was quickly bleeding to death. Batman could have left him to die and caught the person responsible for stabbing him. Instead, he brought the Joker to a hospital, saved his life, and the perp got away.

Batman has drawn a line in the sand and refuses to cross it, even when doing so would very obviously be to his benefit. He has the strongest will of anyone. If he allows himself that one exception and allows someone to die, where does it end? It would become easier every single time. It's logic that doesn't really work in the real world but for Batman? It's pretty much gospel. He did have that famous bit at the end with Ra's in Batman Begins, but that's movie territory and I'd argue that letting something terrible happen to Ra's has much different consequences than your average criminal. The latter doesn't typically come back to life.