Hi everyone! What's your thoughts on Batman's no kill rule? Also here's... The Science Of: How Strong Is Batman? ➤ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/npNhhJylnq25koU.html

Batman shouldn't kill Jason todd, on the other hand

NO. In an alternate world, he killed criminals and the authorities came down on him and arrested him for doing so. It's up to the CITY OF GOTHAM to do this instead of Batman. However, they fail to do the job.

Batman is very mentally sound very mentally disciplined I don't think if he killed one person all of a sudden he would lose his mind

I think the only justification for Batman not killing is because he is a symbol for Gotham. If he does this, he could end up inspiring other people to take matters into their own hands, and since you can't trust others, this could get out of control. Now, there are other justifications that I find a bit ridiculous and certainly not realistic. "Batman had his parents killed", wait, what does that mean exactly? Most people in the real world would have a tremendous desire to take revenge, and we would all understand this feeling. I think it's too relative an argument to use as definitive proof of the no-killing rule. We have many characters like this in fiction, such as the Punisher, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Wolverine, Black Panther, Huntress, or 'the Crow' are some examples of "heroes" who are not corrupted just by killing. "He can't kill or he'll never stop" what? The guy with perhaps the greatest sense of moral proportionality is going to lose control, is that it? He goes out fighting crime, acting as a criminal himself, breaking in, stealing, all because he knows the proportion between these crimes and the criminal he is chasing. People talk as if he became irrational to the point of wanting to kill for any crime, as if stealing to eat was the same as stealing for greed, killing in self-defense was the same as killing for pleasure. just ask yourselves. the police officers (the good ones, like Jim Gordon) who exist in the real world, and execute criminals because there is no other way to act in the situation, do they go around killing everyone? "In that parallel universe he killed and became evil" man, you know this is a comic book, right? There is no such thing as "Batman killed him in another universe and that's proof" simply because a certain author wanted to write a story like that. If I work for DC tomorrow and write a story where Batman kills a villain as a last resort (just like BatBale killed Harvey Dent in TDK), he will simply continue to be a good character. I can even cite an example where Batman goes back to the past and kills Joe Chill of his own free will, making Bruce grow up and have a happy life. Okay, that was undone, but guess what? Batman didn't become a villain just because he did this. "He shouldn't kill, who should judge this is the system" I even agree that Batman works better by avoiding killing as much as possible, but this argument is the weakest of all. Batman only exists because he himself distrusts the system, to the point of considering breaking the law every day to do the work that the corrupt legal system has become incapable of doing. So it doesn't make much sense for you to say that the guy who doesn't trust the system will leave the punishment of criminals to the system, it's not very coherent.

The funny thing is this debate only exists because of the nature of comic book storytelling. The real reason Batman's, or anyone else's, villains keep coming back, is becuase a) they become popular and b) consistenty creating new villains for every new issue is very difficult. This is why superhero films are way more likely to kill off these very same characters. It's a completely different format that doesn't carry the same concerns. Way back when, there were those working on the original book who were against the idea of bringing back villains because they felt it would damage the character's moral integrity. They saw this problem coming even back then. Of course, they ended up doing it anyway. Fast forward almost a century later, and the whole thing has snowballed into a moral/ethical/legal quandary that the Batman character was never meant to represent.

“Every appointed police officer […] is accountable and will be held responsible for every action they do and don’t take” *laughs in qualified immunity*

No. It’s actually a lot more compelling for the character to refuse the very concept outright. Final Crisis had him shot Darkseid breaking the ‘no guns’ rule (not that he hasn’t used them before but he hates them as we all know.) Even then, in a time where everything seemed hopeless, he wasn’t willing to kill. Now, it’s possible to argue that’s because Darkseid was using a frail old man as his host body. Bruce does noted that were that not the case that he might be fine shooting Darkseid (from memory) with the intent to kill but saying and doing are two different things. Regardless, Red Hood would become a meaningless character if Batman was willing to kill. Never liked Red Hood personally but the appeal of that character is that he’s willing to do what Bruce won’t if he deems it necessary. A lot of people tend to forget this however because asking a man to break a rule he’s been steadfast in upholding is easier than simply asking why any of the DC’s universe’s anti-heroes, those whom are willing to kill, don’t just create a plan to kill these villains while distracting Batman themselves. Point being. Batman doesn’t not kill. That’s a good thing. It makes a conflict he’s in far more interesting than any the Punisher finds himself in because often Batman is forced to be creative about how he goes about dealing with conflict.

A moral, ethical, and legal question all rolled into one, in which the answer is obviously no, as you explained in great detail here. That being said, Batman shooting Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis was and still is one of the only justified examples I can consider as necessary in such circumstances. And like Lelouch has said in the anime, Code Geass, "The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed."

The question is why does Batman have to be the one who kills the joker ? U would think everytime Batman locks up the joker that someone else would’ve already put a bullet in him ? Or better yet why doesn’t the people of Gotham give home the death penalty ?

he should AT LEAST let Jason kill the Joker. there is no excuse for that. and he should AT LEAST stop enforcing the "they're mentally ill, they need treatment" whenever a villain of his gets the death penalty there's no excuse for that, i hate this aspect pf Batman so much

" All the people I've murdered by letting you live! " The Dark Knight Returns.

Batman told Jason that if he started killing, then he wouldn't trust himself to stop killing.

No. Batman shouldn't kill. Deep down, mentally, Batman isn't all there. He has stated this many times in the comics. That's why he doesn't kill. Bc he knows that if he did, he wouldn't just stop there. He would keep going and going, eventually becoming the villain that joker always wanted.

As a person working on his own Comic book Universe this is a debate I refuse to let my readers (HOPEFULLY) debate about. In my universe people can and will die if necessary. I have always hated this debate coz it kinda ruins some characters for me. I would rather relieve people from that debate and just let them enjoy the story, character development and action without ever worrying about who and why this person killed that person.

not gonna lie if i was a cop in this universe i would just kill joker by "accident"

Do the question yes yes you should, it's something we all have to do eventually

The answer is no, for multiple reasons, but the main 2 are: 1) Bruce wouldn’t stop killing. He’s not exactly sane. He’s even worse than Punisher. He’d eventually kill jaywalkers and stuff. And 2) Batman is more interesting if he doesn’t. But SHOULD CRIMINALS BE KILLED? That’s a far more nuanced question, and IF we can pretend Death Note is even remotely realistic, which tbh it has at least some plausibility but I’m not sure it’s realistic enough… but the answer is basically: Yes.* Why Yes*? Because I’d argue that not ALL criminals should, especially for first time offenders, unless it’s a HEINOUS crime (like rape or murder, especially mass murder)… I believe in second chances in general (but not in all cases, necessarily. Again, mass murder?) Also, a repeat offender who jaywalks or downloads music illegally or something (Yes ~I~ WOULD download a free car, if I could)… are quite different. Even as habitual jaywalkers. My sister would be killed if we killed all criminals lol. Although maybe if she knew she WOULD DIE if she didn’t use a crosswalk, she’d finally stop jaywalking lmao. But that seems like mostly “No” so why did I say “Yes*” instead? Well, based on MatPat’s FilmTheory(?) video, crime went down WORLDWIDE I believe, after Light/Kira started killing criminals in Japan. And for years. At least, I believe it was a MatPat video and not ImaginaryAxis or something, but tbh I don’t remember. Anyway, point is, Light/Kira killing the worst criminals who were presumably beyond reform dropped crime rates globally and made the world a better, safer place. So that’s why I’d argue, YES* criminals should be killed. Although, we’d need some way to make it seem like a godly being was doing it, since I believe that was a large part of why. Although, perhaps if we just executed criminals on the spot who we KNEW were responsible for mass shootings and such (which sometimes happens anyway, but sometimes they’re taken alive) PERHAPS with enough of a “no tolerance” policy, it would be effective enough to scare off many potential criminals. Although, due to how many wrongful convictions we get IRL… innocents would also be executed. So idk if people would consider that worth it or not. Might somewhat depend on the statistics. If crime went down an average of say 20% globally, and wrongful executions were like 1% of all executions, would that be worth it? I’m just going to completely ass-pull this number rather than even remotely try to figure it out.. but let’s say about 1,000 innocents were executed ANNUALLY, GLOBALLY, in exchange for 20,000 that wouldn’t be killed by crime… is that a fair trade? Or is it not ok because our law enforcement would have significantly higher rates of executing innocents? Technically more innocents would live, but our LEOs would be objectively worse people. Still better than outright criminals, imo. Especially since I’m theory, they would TRY to get things right and NOT execute innocents… although, considering all the corrupt cops irl, they’d probably be even worse if they were EXPECTED to EXECUTE some “collateral civilians accidentally” every year… but for 20x the innocents alive each year? Hell, I’d make that trade for 2x the innocents alive. It’s not like I trust cops, anyway. I live in America. Just having another reason not to trust them? 🤷‍♀️ fair trade for more innocents spared, imo. And it’s easier to spot a cop than a criminal. Criminals in general, don’t wear uniforms. Except the ones with badges to hide behind. But anyway, no, Batman should NOT kill.

Batman has ALWAYS been able to kill, it's just that the parents of children who read the early comics weren't happy about it, so the writers gave batman his no-killing rule.

What if Batman created his own maximum security prison?

Batman shouldn't kill but personally I think if the joker accidentally slipped on the edge of a wet rooftop and fell over the side, batman also just... shouldn't interfere

My dad and late grandma loved Batman growing up. But over time they grew to hate his ethics and moral codes cause of the damage his villains inflicted on others. Other hero’s get away with it but because of DC and Batman’s ways, tons of live time and money is taken. Honestly I mostly agree with them.

Why not lobotomize the crazy criminals? It worked for the Justice Lord Batman! You also forgot about the space villains who pose a bigger threat than the ones on earth!

If he did the police wouldn't work with him. And if he had to fight both criminals and the police would he be as effective long term? I think the justice system should pull its weight and use capital punishment like why should it be all on Batman who literally does the hard part of bringing them into custody and if need be effortlessly gathering indisputable proof of their crimes? Like what's he going to do? Stop the Joker from getting the chair??

Here’s a solution. Have Bruce Wayne get jumped by the Joker. Then, he can kill Joker in self defense. While we’re at it, have Jason or Damian take out Zsasz in the same way. There go two of the most unhinged Batman villains and then we can probably rehabilitate the rest. Or maybe there’ll just be a power vacuum without Joker around

Without even watching the video in full. The answer is YES. It's not really up for debate. Batman NOT killing off the worst of his rogues gallery is why so many innocent people die. I absolutely love Batman but I think Gotham City probably needs more of a 'Ghostmaker' than anything. At least Bruce should have taken the advice of Jason Todd.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: He should.

Joker kills alot but he emotionly traumatizes more then he kills

I prefer the “Gotham gives villains free phoenix downs when the audience isn’t looking” approach. It makes the idea of comic book characters never staying dead that much more hilarious

No Batman should not kill, but there are 3 people he should 100% let die, Joker, Professor Pyg, Victor Zsasz, James Gordon Jr, and Scarecrow

I always deter to "The return of Jafar" mentality when talking about the no kill rule. To quote the Genie when saying Genies don't kill, "you'll be surprised what you can live through."😂😂

We should leave the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" acts to beings like Ghost Rider because only he knows for sure who deserves to live and die and he'll inflict punishments that perfectly fit the crime. GR is not a human but a manifestation of Karma itself. I don't know if this was done in the comics, but his angel self, Angel Rider, has the potential to be the embodiment of everything all members of the Justice League unanimously stand for ultimately. No wonder Ghost Rider is so underutilized. He'll make other heroes and anti-heroes look obsolete.

Joker is batmans " trolly problem". Batman keeps stalling and the stakes continue increase... ....making batmans no kill policy a idiculous stance

The other thing is he doesn’t just not kill, he stops others from killing which destroys his entire argument at the end of under the red hood

The Joker has killed any number of people between 100 and 1000. He cannot be contained in an asylum because he somehow always escapes. If Gotham City won't give the death penalty to the Joker, then Batman should.

No. You notice the characters with the largest and best collection of villains don’t kill. And writers also have to come up with different ways for the hero to win. And on the flip side writers have to come up with goofy reasons why someone like the Punisher doesn’t kill Bullseye, KingPin when they fight.

The fact that he has a no-killing rule is good because it adds to his psychic trauma and his involuntary hypocrisy as a vigilante. Batman is someone who means well, but he is living in his own "bubble reality" of right and wrong. He is unstable and needs treatment. He is essentially someone who needs medical assistance and therapy, but is trying to overcome his vulnerability complex - since the night he watched powerless as his parents were gunned down - by doing everything on his own and maximizing the results of individual achievement. Therefore he negates treatment. Compounding to that issue, his method focuses on averting the murder of his parents over and over again by punching every "Joe Chill" he finds every night. He is essentially a high-functional schyzoprhenic who subconsciously designed a plan for his inner reality - one where he had control over his parents' fate - and channeled his anger into something that society would consider a positive goal: striking back at criminals and preventing what happened to him from ever happening again. Killing really is hard line for him to cross precisely because he witnessed his parents getting murdered. He cannot defeat the thing if he becomes the thing. However, him doing anything BUT that is a straight reminder that deep inside he suffered great trauma which remains untreated. The stuff he does is usually two moves away from being considered manslaughter, yet he keeps denial over his behaviour. A couple of passages across multiversal lore that suggest this trauma: - Dark Knight Returns: "my parents showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to" - The Flash, Bruce Wayne (Keaton): "I lost my parents... but that pain... made me who I am. I'm not sure who I am without it, actually. I spent a lifetime trying to right the wrongs of the past. As if putting on a cape and fighting crime would bring my parents back"

Arkham asylum just needs better security lol

"cops, unlike vigilantes, are held accountable for their actions" Oh you sweet summer child...no they're not

The punisher would kill every last one of them

Early in his career, he's very emotionally unstable so he needs to not kill in order to maintain his discipline. Later in his career, hes become a symbol of hope and safety for Gotham, and he needs to uphold that

For the sake of Gotham? Yes he should. For the sake of the story? Absolutely not!

Realistically the feds and the cia would kill off most of Batman’s villains so that Batman doesn’t have too😂

In reality yes he should. But one defense I have for him not killing is the fact that in Under the Red Hood he has stated that if he does kill he won’t be able to stop

I like a batman that kills BUT only in an elseworld story

Yes. Simply Yes.

Because of his no kill rule I don't find Batman to be very terrifying like the criminals supposedly say he is, surely they know by now they will just be arrested, not very scary, then they escape or are released and hurt more people, I do however like Batman's no guns rule, because his parents died by a firearm, if he killed it would be even scarier because of the fact that he doesn't use guns, that means he's dropping you off a roof or you're getting a batarang up your ass or beat you to death, (that's why my favorite comic character is the Punisher, my favorite versions of Batman are Flashpoint Batman and the Grim Knight, OG Batman could be scarier than them if he killed because of the fact he doesn't use guns)

For me, yes if we are going to talk in a real world sense

Gotham did have a death penalty in Arkham origins calendar man is about to get executed for his crimes before the events of origins take place.Bruce lobbied for the death penalty to be taken away that is why it’s no longer in use.

Can you do the science of cortosis from star wars video?

No. That’s the whole point of the character.

No

ironically most criminal who he punch probabaly died seizure

That is why I can't stand DC. The writers does not want to kill off their villains and that make the heroes look like bad guys. They just cause problem.

Hey, Trick Theory! I have a question for you: as a Marvel fan, do you think the Punisher could stop all crime in Gotham? I just think that with all of the Punisher's military knowledge and additional training, that the Punisher could actually stand a chance at wiping out all crime in Gotham. Maybe that could be a future video idea for you.

There is no excuse for not killing The Joker. Two Face, Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, Penguin, etc. they are criminals but understandable and organised criminals that kill. The Joker on the other hand is an agent of chaos. Even criminals are terrified of him. Plus Batman is discipline. Just because he kills or severely PERMANENTLY crpples one or two that doesn't mean he's going to continue. If he believes in humanity so much why is it that he believes that killing one person, others will follow that same trend?

The short answer is NOOOO!

NO... Just the joker.

Any updates on my suggestion

Batman shouldnt kill, gotham city should have death penalty

No, obviously he should not. If he did, he would just become worse than his villains ever were. A batman who kills would directly go against the entire reason why he began his war on crime.

Batman should not kill

Everyone who advocates for Batman killing needs to read Kingdom Come, Superman vs The Elite, and Batman: Under the Hood 💀

Self defense of a 3rd party though so.

Justice lords batman killed his foes, I think

No.

No