Bruce helping kill Nazi soldiers in The Brave and the Bold #84 (June, 1969).
Why doesn't Batman kill?
I think this is one of the best answer we can have:
«It's like kids trying to write stories for adults or something.»
There is an huge difference among write a good story and try to write a great one.
«Heroism is not about being perfect or always winning, but breathing hope into the hopeless.»
Batman's world isn't realistic. It's grounded in psychological realism… In real life, Batman's crusade would be a horrible idea.[…] But in the world Batman inhabits, it not only makes sense, it's absolutely the right thing to do.
But he didn't kill him per se
It's the Batman Begins rule "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either."
But then again he did board him up; Batman was strait up killing peeps.
Nevertheless, I think modern Batman doesn't kill because it would be too easy. In this day and age it would be easy to justify any kind of killing with enough leaps in logic and if Batman did that he wouldn't be an exemplar of the people, a paragon of justice or an ideal to strive for.
Sometimes we want someone who follows the letter of the law to show us that said laws are just and fair; i.e. Thou Shalt Not Kill
It's not as clear cut as some examples, but it seems to be implied that Batman doesn't kill because he "protect" the child Bruce Wayne from his own anger and rage in the last issue of BatO :
The question is not why does Batman not kill its why does in-continuity Batman not kill? In-continuity Batman does not kill because its not his decision to make. He enforces the law, protects and takes out immediate threats. Everything else is decided by a judge or law enforcement. Movie Batman or out-of-continuity-Batman can kill to have an arc or a cool on-screen moment
Another history lesson: Batman using an amulet which kills murderous cultists in Batman #271 (January, 1976):
Because he’s a hypocrite. The villains always get out of Arkham and kill more innocents, but at least little Bruce’s conscience is clear.
If I remember well in "Batman: year three" it was revealed he called the Police in order to arrest KGBeast, so he didn't kill anybody; directly or indirectly.
An history lesson to the history teacher: in that point of the story Batman had only two possibilities left: do what the cultists wanted: keep the amulet and explode with it or trow away the amulet and escape from the cultists; what would you have done in his place?
Anyway he didn't used the amulet to kill the cultists: like it was explained in the following page, he used the explosion of the amulet to trap the cultists in the basement of their base in order to (I quote): «…keep 'em safely coped up 'till the Gordon's brigade arrives.»
Last edited by Gotham citizen; 05-14-2020 at 01:15 AM.
«It's like kids trying to write stories for adults or something.»
There is an huge difference among write a good story and try to write a great one.
«Heroism is not about being perfect or always winning, but breathing hope into the hopeless.»
Batman's world isn't realistic. It's grounded in psychological realism… In real life, Batman's crusade would be a horrible idea.[…] But in the world Batman inhabits, it not only makes sense, it's absolutely the right thing to do.
Batman throwing Dugger into electrified cables, electrocuting him to his death (Batman #290, August 1977):
Before any excuse, it's because he doesn't want to become the same thing that took his parents. He doesn't want to. It's for him. He moralizes it a lot, he often claims murder is a lot like Pringles, but deep down it's because Bruce can't bring himself to do it. He just doesn't want to be a killer.
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'