Sooo, Batman and his 'one rule'...

[Joel_Kirk]

Do you agree with it? Do you dislike it?

While I haven't read a great many Batman comics, I've been a fan of the comics I've read as well as the Adam West series, Superfriends, and the Tim Burton 1989 film (even though it doesn't have an actual story). I tolerate the first Batman film because I think Katie Holmes is so cute.

I find Batman's rule a bit hypocritical since he acts tough, but doesn't believe in putting down someone like the Joker or any supervillian....who will go ahead and kill once he escapes the upteenth time. His 'rule' will apply to those common criminals.

Too, there are those who claim that Batman will become like a criminal if he were to kill. Yet, he continually captures supercriminals to send to Arkham only to have those supercriminal continually escape and kill innocents....(e.g. Joker) which kind of makes Batman weak in my eyes.

Now, I understand that each version of Batman is different so that 'rule' isn't always in place. However, some 'diehards' believe that is what Batman should be in every version of the character.

As many of us know, Batman carried a gun in his early days. He also killed in the Burton films, but posed and beat up criminals in the Nolan version.

Burton's movie 'tells' us that Batman is as crazy as the Joker (and he probably is based on Keaton's performance since we do see Keaton's Batman kill in defense and take risks which are not calculated out fully) but versions like the Nolan Batman is just a guy trying to do what is right rather than brood around and immerse himself in crimefighting or the psyche of weird invididuals.

Batman wants to intimidate, but he doesn't intimidate everyone. In the first Nolan film, he doesn't necessarily intimidate Scarecrow; it's the other way around, when Scarecrow uses his formula. And, it's not Batman who incapacitates Scarecrow it's Holmes' Rachel....

So, while the rule isn't always in place, some fans expect it to be consistent with every version of the character. I personally don't care for it, since the character becomes more intimidating when he needs to take down a superbeing with force.

Of course, the question arises: What if another vigilante comes along and thinks he or she can kill in defense of his or herself or for other common citizens?

Even though I haven't seen it (and probably won't due to the script issues) Superman had to kill Zod in "Man of Steel" in order to stop him from harming a family. (And, that's another character who is believed to be a consistent boy scout, although that character also has been shown to kill to survive in prior media (e.g. Superman III, Superman IV).

I think Superman even killed the alien xenomorph in one comic (or comics) just like Batman had to kill a Predator in another.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I've always been drawn to the heroes that are just that. Heroes. People bigger than us, with the bigger moral codes that may not be realistic but are a great ideal to be inspired by. Spider-Man. Superman. That sort.

When Batman doesn't kill, that's the version I like most.

These characters are supposed to be better than what's considered "realistic". They're stories. Not documentaries. A murderer like Punisher doesn't interest or inspire me. Batman, when done right, when he shows the struggle (the struggle is a fun part of the drama) to take the higher ground and succeed, does.

 

[urbandefault]

From Batman Begins: "I don't have to save you."

Batman didn't kill Ra's, but as he said, he didn't have to save him. Letting a criminal die is not the same as killing him.

I don't remember Batman intentionally killing anyone in any of the movies. If the bad guy dies as a result of his misdeeds, oh well. It's a moral distinction that Batman has to make on a daily basis.

It's not much of a problem for me.

Funny that this comes up now, as the new Super Power Beat Down just premiered. Batman goes in with his entire arsenal ...

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj23dwWHukY&feature=youtu.be[/yt]

So, if Batman goes after a ruthless murderer should he hold back just to avoid killing the criminal? Or should he do his best to subdue the villiain and handcuff him? Batman is not a cop. He's already operating outsside the law.

I think the very concept of Batman mandates that he has to do whatever is necessary to neutralize a threat. Not with the intention of killing the villain, but if it ends up with a dead bad guy, ok fine.

 

[Trekker4747]

The idea, however, should be that Batman doesn't kill no matter what. Neither through action or inaction.

In one version of Batman in the comics he actually takes a mortally wounded Joker to the hospital, much to the protests of Gordon. But Batman couldn't stand there and let a man, even the Joker, die.

So that's sort of the problem with him letting Ra's die in Returns. Not saving someone who's going to die is just as bad as killing him yourself.

 

[AgentCoop]

I'm a long-time Batman diehard, and I am firmly in the no-kill camp. Batman was born out of murder, and in his mind, killing is not only wrong, but a tool of the enemy. I think you can effectively write him into a scenario where he has to kill the bad guy (or allow him to die) to save an innocent, but those situations need to be few and far between, with Bruce expressing regret for what he had to do. As a general rule, though? I fully support Batman's one rule.

 

[urbandefault]

Sorry, but I think that it's Batman's thing that he won't intentionally kill. He will go out of his way to save innocents, but if a bad guy dies in the mean time, oh well. Sucks to be that guy.

I don't think that Batman would walk away from a wounded bad guy if there were not higher stakes. He will save anyone he can, but he won't cry over the death of a murderer. Like I said, it's a moral choice he has to make. He's not a murderer, but he can't let bad guys' dying affect him.

It's part of the job, and like Keaton said, "I gotta go to work."

 

[AgentCoop]

Well, by "regret" I wasn't implying he should mourn the death of the bad guy. I was saying that he should feel regret for what he was forced to do. He walks a very fine line between what he fights and what he has to become in order to fight it, and he knows this. He also knows that crossing that line is a slippery slope towards becoming the thing he hates most.

The Ra's Al Ghul scenario from Begins is particularly irksome to me. I think the movie is very good overall, but having Batman rationalize killing someone through inaction just seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

 

[RoJoHen]

So that's sort of the problem with him letting Ra's die in Returns. Not saving someone who's going to die is just as bad as killing him yourself.

Well, he was still new to the whole Batman thing. He hadn't clearly established his rules yet.

 

[urbandefault]

Well, by "regret" I wasn't implying he should mourn the death of the bad guy. I was saying that he should feel regret for what he was forced to do. He walks a very fine line between what he fights and what he has to become in order to fight it, and he knows this. He also knows that crossing that line is a slippery slope towards becoming the thing he hates most.

The Ra's Al Ghul scenario from Begins is particularly irksome to me. I think the movie is very good overall, but having Batman rationalize killing someone through inaction just seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.

Well, Ra's had left Bruce to die in his own home, pinned under the column or whatever it was. That was intentional attempted murder.

So that's sort of the problem with him letting Ra's die in Returns. Not saving someone who's going to die is just as bad as killing him yourself.

Well, he was still new to the whole Batman thing. He hadn't clearly established his rules yet.

Choosing to not save the bad guy from a situation of his own making is not the same as killing him yourself. That's justice--and something that Bruce would have to reconcile later.

We all make choices that determine what we become. Granted, the stakes are not that high in most cases, but it's there.

 

[Saga]

it certainly isn't justice. justice would be Batman handing Ra's over to GCPD for trial.

 

[FPAlpha]

I disagree.

Pulling the trigger or letting someone drown if you could save him for example is about the same thing even though in legal terms they are different.

The first would be either murder or manslaughter but the second could be criminal negligence if by saving you wouldn't even endanger yourself.

Batman has his own moral code.. he will not kill you or by inaction risk the death of anyone if he was around able to help but that doesn't mean he's around at nights looking for criminals to save who endangered themselves.
I doubt he'll also lose a minute of sleep when he reads in the news how a bombmaker blew himself up because he was too stupid.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

From Batman Begins: "I don't have to save you."

Batman didn't kill Ra's, but as he said, he didn't have to save him. Letting a criminal die is not the same as killing him.

I don't remember Batman intentionally killing anyone in any of the movies. If the bad guy dies as a result of his misdeeds, oh well. It's a moral distinction that Batman has to make on a daily basis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9KgswPdso#t=211

I dunno, the cops weren't exactly doing anything wrong.

Whether the cops survived or not (I don't think they said), this was basically attempted murder either way you look at it. And they weren't the bad guys!

 

[suarezguy]

I think Batman should try to avoid killing but it doesn't strike me as a super-core element of the character to the point where I dislike a version where he is willing to kill like in the Burton movies.

Even in the post-Year One comics he wanted and tried to kill Joker in A Death in the Family, was greatly tempted to do so in Hush and thought he would let Superman kill Lex in another story. In movies and even the animated series it seems more plausible that he doesn't kill and isn't really tempted because the villains are either less violent and/or don't escape and kill as often as in the comics.

An argument for why Batman would refuse to kill even Joker is he would then gradually find it to easy to kill less and less violent criminals as well.

Batman wants to intimidate, but he doesn't intimidate everyone. In the first Nolan film, he doesn't necessarily intimidate Scarecrow; it's the other way around, when Scarecrow uses his formula.

That's a good point and does bring up the somewhat uncomfortable question of whether Batman overall does more harm than good in inspiring or attracting the worse villains.

 

[Tosk]

I don't remember Batman intentionally killing anyone in any of the movies.

Just off the top of my head; he blows up a bunch of Joker Goons at Axis Chemical, throws a goon to his death at the church, sets fire to a Clown, and (my favorite) attaches dynamite to a strongman and then punches him down into the sewer just before he go boom.

 

[Karzak]

Murdering someone -criminal or otherwise- seems like it's own brand of criminality. Batman never struck me as someone who could take such an action and that's why -- no matter how much he may WANT to kill the Joker-- he never will. It makes Bruce a much more interesting character and more importantly allows us the opportunity to think and to discuss and debate issues just like this.

 

[Anwar]

After a while, Batman's no killing thing kind of makes him a royal jerk. He let Joker get away with killing Jason Todd and crippling Barbara and did nothing but send him to jail. At least break his spine or something.

 

[Nerys Myk]

After a while, Batman's no killing thing kind of makes him a royal jerk. He let Joker get away with killing Jason Todd and crippling Barbara and did nothing but send him to jail. At least break his spine or something.

But that's not who Batman is or at least not who he should be.

Most superheroes had the no killing rule once up on a time. Villains might perish by their own hand or by accident but never at the hands of a hero.

 

[Taylirious]

I don't remember Batman intentionally killing anyone in any of the movies.

Just off the top of my head; he blows up a bunch of Joker Goons at Axis Chemical, throws a goon to his death at the church, sets fire to a Clown, and (my favorite) attaches dynamite to a strongman and then punches him down into the sewer just before he go boom.

Superman snapping Zod's neck doesn't seem so awful after reading this.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I don't remember Batman intentionally killing anyone in any of the movies.

Just off the top of my head; he blows up a bunch of Joker Goons at Axis Chemical, throws a goon to his death at the church, sets fire to a Clown, and (my favorite) attaches dynamite to a strongman and then punches him down into the sewer just before he go boom.

Quoting to add more instances.

The shocking moment when you realize that the ONLY film Batman has not committed a homicide in is Batman & Robin 1997.

Batman 1989: he killed the Joker, those thugs in the church by throwing them down the shaft and those thugs in the chemical plant he blew up.

Batman Returns: he set a dude on fire with the Batmobile, strapped a bomb to a guy's chest, and caused Penguin to fall to his death when his bat's came out of the batboat.

Batman Forever: he caused Harvey Dent to fall to his death.

Batman Begins: he blew up Ra's a Ghul's house which was occupied with ninjas and people trapped in cages. Also he left Ra's to die at the end on the train.

The Dark Knight: he killed Harvey by tackling him off a ledge.

The Dark Knight Rises: he killed Talia and he driver by shooting at the truck carrying the bomb.


Superman can't break one dude's neck without audiences pitching a bitch. Let's not start with how many people the Avengers and X-Men characters have killed in their films.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'd clarify that his rule is about not killing intentionally and with premeditation and without a legally justifiable excuse. He won't execute the Joker in cold-blood. But even the movie that makes the big deal about his "one rule" had him kill Harvey Dent in defense of others by tackling him off a roof. It may not have been an intentional killing (although it was certainly reckless) but it was justified either way.

I have no problem with this. Batman is a hero. Most of his actions can be justified as simply acting to protect other people and bring bad guys to justice. None of his actions (as a general rule) go beyond that rule into becoming judge and executioner. That's a good distinction to make and a hero should always strive to make it. That being said, I would hope Batman has more than one rule. There are other lines he hasn't crossed and I don't think he'd actually cross.