Why Doesn't Batman Kill?

[SiegePerilous02]

That’s not quite the point, as what happened after is not quite relevant here.

Then what exactly is the point the scan is trying to prove?

Everyone on here would know KGBeast didn't die because another writer/editor stepped in almost immediately and undid the OOC-ness.

[Gotham citizen]

Yeah, this.

Why isn't it the fault of law enforcement that criminals keep escaping?

I really wish writers would stop jumping up and down on the suspension of disbelief when it comes to escaping and killing. It's like watching the Wizard of Oz, only throughout the entire movie someone is yelling 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'

I totally agree: they are jumping between realism and the classical superhero tropes, with the result they are writing stories that aren't "neither flesh nor fowl". In my humble opinion they should pick a decision and keep it: or they adopt the "realistic approach" adopted by Nolan in his "Dark Knight", or they adopt the "naive approach" adopted in the animated series of the nineties, but they can't continue to "run with the hare and hunt with the dog".

[Electricmastro]

Then what exactly is the point the scan is trying to prove?

Everyone on here would know KGBeast didn't die because another writer/editor stepped in almost immediately and undid the OOC-ness.

That if heroes who risk their lives to defend the societies they want to protect, whether the villain ends up getting killed because something accidentally went wrong in the scuffle or the hero was compelled in good faith to use deadly self-defense to protect themselves and society, then it probably should be held against the heroes, regardless of rules or codes or whatever. I think the pursuit of justice and the variables of how anything can happen in fighting crime doesn’t guarantee codes to be upheld, whether we like it or not, and I extend this to Batman as well with the understanding of what he went through.

[Gotham citizen]

I think you should read again the post with which this topic was started, because it seems very clear to me that the creator of this topic meant murderer, when he used the word "kill"; but maybe I'm wrong.

So I am new to the comics as some of you might have seen me comment on. At present my source of Batman characterization are various movies and cartoons.

Needless to say, they paint a somewhat contradictory picture of our hero. I'm sure the same is no less true in comics, of course. Decades of characterization with dozens of writers, you're bound to get some inconsistency.

But even still, is there any consistency to why Batman has his no kill rule? In terms of films, The Dark Knight presents it as a sign of nobility. Batman doesn't kill because he's just that much of a paragon. Meanwhile, Under the Red Hood offers a far more compelling reason. Batman refuses to kill because if he slips, if he crosses that line, he'll become everything he fights against.

So, which is it according to the comics? Does he refuse to kill as a sign of what an amazing hero he is, or to show how incredibly screwed up he is?

[Bat-Meal]

I think part of the reason he doesn't kill is because he believes in redemption, or at least he seems to depending on which comics. He wanted Clayface to be redeemed in the 'Tec Tynion run, which is why he recruited him to the Gotham Knights.

[lowfyr]

I remember reading the first Batman and the Outsiders series and Katana always using her sword. I mean they did not outright say that she killed people, but her cleaning up her sword with Batman standing right beside her always made me wonder what his no killing rule really meant.

"No, I do not kill. But I will not stop other team members doing it" Later it would remind me of the reason Wolverine joined the Avengers under Bendis.

[Agent Z]

Why isn't it the fault of law enforcement that criminals keep escaping?

Because they're not the main protagonist and their incompetence and corruption are the entire reason Batman exists in the first place. If he isn't any better and stopping criminals from escaping and slaughtering people by the bus load, then he's just as lousy at his self-appointed crusade as the cops are at their jobs.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Because they're not the main protagonist and their incompetence and corruption are the entire reason Batman exists in the first place. If he isn't any better and stopping criminals from escaping and slaughtering people by the bus load, then he's just as lousy at his self-appointed crusade as the cops are at their jobs.

I don't know why you think going meta helps your case.

Batman doesn't kill because he can't. He's a 2-D fictional character. Every man, woman and child in the comics are not people, but things, its. He has no will of his own, whatsoever.

So Batman doesn't kill because no one dies. He doesn't kill because Joker, Riddler, Croc et all are copyrights, and thus are impossible to kill. He doesn't kill because he knows that will land him in a terrible elseworld that will ultimately vindicate his prior position.

Take your pick

[Godlike13]

Ya, you can't have it both ways with meta like that.

[Cyberstrike]

If Batman becomes like the Punisher then he will end up fighting the cops and the criminals.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman doesn't trust authority enough to do their jobs outside of a select few individuals like Jim Gordon, hence why he becomes Batman in the first place. But he still has to walk a fine line, Gordon's made it abundantly clear that he will not hesitate to take Batman down if he starts killing, so in addition to Bruce's own conviction that killing is wrong, there is also the practical reason that he avoids having the cops on his ass 24/7 in addition to the costumed maniacs trying to kill him.

Batman doesn't kill because the story doesn't allow it because the business needs to keep utilizing these characters. Even in the few instances where he says "**** it" and tries to kill the Joker, Jim Gordon or somebody else will appear out of nowhere like a Final Fantasy summon and talk him out of it. He's hardly the only superhero this applies to either and not just in his own corner. Even superheros who are a little more willing to cross the line when needed don't actually cross it and ice a villain of actual importance, only the expendable ones.

After a certain point, going meta and pointing out the obvious ways this fantasy setting doesn't resemble reality just stops being clever. People should know it's not real. None of the superheroes are going to enact lasting change until their stories are over, and the mainstream canon will never be over.

[The tall man]

Batman doesn't trust authority enough to do their jobs outside of a select few individuals like Jim Gordon, hence why he becomes Batman in the first place. But he still has to walk a fine line, Gordon's made it abundantly clear that he will not hesitate to take Batman down if he starts killing, so in addition to Bruce's own conviction that killing is wrong, there is also the practical reason that he avoids having the cops on his ass 24/7 in addition to the costumed maniacs trying to kill him.

Batman doesn't kill because the story doesn't allow it because the business needs to keep utilizing these characters. Even in the few instances where he says "**** it" and tries to kill the Joker, Jim Gordon or somebody else will appear out of nowhere like a Final Fantasy summon and talk him out of it. He's hardly the only superhero this applies to either and not just in his own corner. Even superheros who are a little more willing to cross the line when needed don't actually cross it and ice a villain of actual importance, only the expendable ones.

After a certain point, going meta and pointing out the obvious ways this fantasy setting doesn't resemble reality just stops being clever. People should know it's not real. None of the superheroes are going to enact lasting change until their stories are over, and the mainstream canon will never be over.

Gordon and his dept cannot even stop non-powered costumed crazies and two bit gangsters, but he's going to take down Batman? And why is it only Batman who is condemned for not killing his enemies, why doesn't this apply to other heroes? Should Superman kill Luthor, should Flash kill the Rogues and so forth. Bruce Wayne is not Frank Castle.

[SiegePerilous02]

Gordon and his dept cannot even stop non-powered costumed crazies and two bit gangsters, but he's going to take down Batman? And why is it only Batman who is condemned for not killing his enemies, why doesn't this apply to other heroes? Should Superman kill Luthor, should Flash kill the Rogues and so forth. Bruce Wayne is not Frank Castle.

Hasn't exactly prevented him from trying, and it's not as if Batman wants to make an enemy of Gordon and the cops.

This criticism has been applied to all other superheroes, especially Superman. But it's the same reason: they don't want to kill any important/popular villains. Wonder Woman, when written correctly, has the most mature stance on lethal force, but even she rarely takes out anyone of actual consequence so it's just lip service. The most noteworthy kills she has are Max Lord and Medusa, but death clearly didn't take the former off the board and the latter was already dead before being resurrected, whose to say she won't come back? if ever asked why she doesn't just finally put the Cheetah out of her misery, any response is just gonna be false and the real answer is "My IP can't afford to lose one of the few iconic villains I have."

[Agent Z]

I don't know why you think going meta helps your case.

Batman doesn't kill because he can't. He's a 2-D fictional character. Every man, woman and child in the comics are not people, but things, its. He has no will of his own, whatsoever.

So Batman doesn't kill because no one dies. He doesn't kill because Joker, Riddler, Croc et all are copyrights, and thus are impossible to kill. He doesn't kill because he knows that will land him in a terrible elseworld that will ultimately vindicate his prior position.

Take your pick

How was I going meta?

Batman doesn't trust authority enough to do their jobs outside of a select few individuals like Jim Gordon, hence why he becomes Batman in the first place. But he still has to walk a fine line, Gordon's made it abundantly clear that he will not hesitate to take Batman down if he starts killing, so in addition to Bruce's own conviction that killing is wrong, there is also the practical reason that he avoids having the cops on his ass 24/7 in addition to the costumed maniacs trying to kill him.

Batman doesn't kill because the story doesn't allow it because the business needs to keep utilizing these characters. Even in the few instances where he says "**** it" and tries to kill the Joker, Jim Gordon or somebody else will appear out of nowhere like a Final Fantasy summon and talk him out of it. He's hardly the only superhero this applies to either and not just in his own corner. Even superheros who are a little more willing to cross the line when needed don't actually cross it and ice a villain of actual importance, only the expendable ones.

After a certain point, going meta and pointing out the obvious ways this fantasy setting doesn't resemble reality just stops being clever. People should know it's not real. None of the superheroes are going to enact lasting change until their stories are over, and the mainstream canon will never be over.

Tell that to the writers. They're the ones who keep drawing attention to it.

[Cyberstrike]

I wonder has Batman ever been responsible for an accidental death? Caused by faulty equipment, the elements, ricochets, broken glass, a crook having a health problem he didn't know about, and so on.