Batman's dumbest rule

It's never made sense to me that Batman doesn't kill. I mean, yeah, I guess I bought into it (kind of) when I was a kid but the older I get, the less sense the rule makes. I mean, here's a guy who takes matters into his own hands on every single other aspect of law enforcement and criminal investigations.

Batman jumps through a suspect's window. Where/what is his probable cause? Batman forcibly questions a suspect. Where's that suspect's due process? Right to an attorney? Batman collects evidence. Where's his warrant? Batman conducts his own ballistics tests and conducts criminal investigations. Who/where is his IA?

I realize the bullshit justification Denny fucking O'Neil has always advanced is "this is the one thing that separates him for the bad guys". Well, no shit! Otherwise their methods look pretty fucking similar to me, even if their intentions are different. They both wear masks, they both commit acts of burglary, they both commit acts of assault, etc. Bet yer ass the ONLY thing separating them is lethal force!

It just seems completely arbitrary to draw the line at not killing. Seriously, why the fuck not? Batman's done everything already, eschewing proper law and order in the process. Is it really that much of a leap to assume he'd use lethal force?

And hey, I'm not even arguing that Batman would kill, say, a purse-snatcher or even a rapist or something. Contrary to popular strawmen arguments, he doesn't have to be the Punisher in order to use deadly force. It's not an either/or scenario where he uses either nothing but deadly force or else is the pussified character he is now who ALWAYS lets the bad guys live.

Batman might not kill a car thief. But the Joker? Yeah. A guy like Batman would whack the Joker and sleep like a baby later on.

Well, to be fair, Batman has killed REPEATEDLY in the films. From 'Batman' in 1988 up to 'The Dark Knight Rises' in 2009, Batman has taken at least ONE life in each film. So I can kind of see where you are coming from.

But I think the "easy" answer is, if Batman kills his enemies, who are they going to have as a recurring threat? Will people accept newly created enemies every few months, and if so, what happens if a particular enemy becomes popular? Do they make it so Batman is just unable to kill them, or do they kill him and risk alienating fans of that particular character?

Just something to chew over....

Apologist Puncher wrote:Well, to be fair, Batman has killed REPEATEDLY in the films. From 'Batman' in 1988 up to 'The Dark Knight Rises' in 2009, Batman has taken at least ONE life in each film. So I can kind of see where you are coming from.

But I think the "easy" answer is, if Batman kills his enemies, who are they going to have as a recurring threat? Will people accept newly created enemies every few months, and if so, what happens if a particular enemy becomes popular? Do they make it so Batman is just unable to kill them, or do they kill him and risk alienating fans of that particular character?

Just something to chew over....

Oh, no doubt about that. In my opinion, that's the REAL reason Batman doesn't kill. Allz I'm saying is that it's an unjustifiable philosophy given the guy's methods and psychiatric profile.

thecolorsblend wrote:Oh, no doubt about that. In my opinion, that's the REAL reason Batman doesn't kill. Allz I'm saying is that it's an unjustifiable philosophy given the guy's methods and psychiatric profile.

If they can take Superman's trunks off, they can scrap a rule they cribbed from Supes for Batman too.