It doesn't.... I was only trying to create a scenario in which there weren't many options due to a lack of super powers. it could have been a civilian with a handgun... Sorry if I made it seem otherwise.
It's the bad guy who makes the decision if someone has to die. But when the bad guy decides that somebody dies today, the good guy's responsability is to make sure that it's the right person. I respect human life a great deal, but there is no human alive that I respect so much that I will permit them to murder someone else in cold blood.
This is EXACTLY what I believe. In so many different situations, a villain (or simply a bad person) creates a situation in which 'someone' is going to have to suffer consequences. Often times, the question becomes, WHO is going to suffer those consequences. A friend once borrowed my car and had an accident... I didn't know that he didn't have a license at the time (as his had expired or something..) He ended up signing MY name on the ticket. He managed that as the cop used the name on the vehicle registration to write out the ticket.... So, I then had a choice... To accept the ticket and fine and consequences or show up in court and speak the truth which then put my friend in jeopardy for having given a false identity.... he created a situation in which SOMEONE had to pay.... I had to choose whether it was going to be me or him.... I chose him... I think it's the same in many life and death situations...
To this, I would humbly suggest a slightly differant model: Commissioner Jim Gordon. Does Gordon believe in and uphold the law? Yes. Does Gordon protect the people of Gotham? Yes. Is Gordon a hero? A resounding yes. It is easy to stand in front of a gunman when you are bulletproof, or to run into a burning building when you are indestructable. Superman doesn't actually have to risk his life in order to fight against most criminals. Gordon puts the life of innocent people as higher than his own life, placing himself at risk in order to defend them. Superman puts the life of innocent people as higher than his own time, being willing to engage in an activity without personal risk in order to defend them. This is not an insult toward Superman; he's done nothing wrong by being indestructable and if depowered I'm certain he would still wish to defend the innocent. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that, on a morality level, Gordon is at least as heroic as Superman, if not moreso.
Now, does Gordon believe in killing? Yes. Police officers, something that does exist in real life, something to which there are actually rules which can be analyzed without making unfounded assumptions, are taught in Academy that lethal force may be necessary in some instances. Police do not go all Punisher and shoot every criminal they find. Officers do try to detain every subject alive if possible. But, when placed in a situation of defending life, when forced to choose between the life of the criminal or the life of the victim, an Officer is taught to value the victim over the criminal. When some guy carries a submachinegun onto a college campus and starts mowing down students, the police do not yell for him to surrender while he kills even more; they put him down.
Does a police officer become a vigilante/antihero/villain if they kill a murderer in order to defend the life of a victim? Nope. Heck, they might even get a medal for it. That's what the law says. Legally, it is okay to kill in certain circumstances. Being a hero doesn't mean that you never kill; being a hero means that you value life, so you never take it casually. You don't kill if you don't have to, but when you do have to, you accept the responsability that comes along with it and make the difficult decisions that other people are unwilling or unable to do. The cop shoots the murderer to save the victim because the cop is the one trained to do it, the cop is the one prepared for the situation, and the cop is the one willing to accept the responsability and live with the consequences. For some real life police officers it may mean years of nightmares or counseling in order to come to terms with what they have done, but they accept that upon themselves in order to protect other people from having to suffer instead. Because a hero is willing to sacrifice for the good of others.
The law grants provisions for anyone, including persons whom are not sworn police officers, to be able to kill in certain situations. The most commonly regarded, of course, is Self-Defense. Regardless of his legal status, the second someone starts opening fire on Batman and shooting willy-nilly, he is actually legally justified in returning fire. He can take a life in that situation in order to defend his own. This is differant for Superman because, as Superman's powers result in him not actually being in danger from most attacks, he doesn't have to defend himself. If a knife-wielding psycho decides to stab Superman, Superman does not have to kill him because Superman is not in any danger; he can thwart this criminal simply by standing around waiting for the cops to show up. Jimmy Olsen, however, is not immune to stab wounds. If that same psycho decides to stab Jimmy, Superman is justified in killing them to save Jimmy.
The policy is to use "the least degree of force necessary in order to overcome resistance, obtain compliance, and establish the public safety". In short, lethal force is the last resort. Anyone can kill the man who breaks into their home and holds their family at gunpoint, but only if killing is the only reasonable way to stop them. For you or I, killing that man is reasonable. For Batman, with his extra training and equipment, he may be capable of doing something that we cannot. For Superman, immune to bullets and able to move faster than the human eye, it is hard to justify these actions because he has more options at his disposal than the rest of us.
But when Superman fights Metallo, or Doomsday, or Kryptonite Man, in those instances suddenly the option of killing in order to defend his own life and others is much more on the table.
The rigid No-Kill Code is an attitude of selfishness and irresponsability. Imagine a Police Officer who permits a serial killer to stab someone right in front of him and then escape and continue his killing spree all because he was unwilling to shoot when the situation warranted it. Imagine a soldier who permits dozens of his fellow mates to die under a bombing because he is unwilling to shoot the enemy at the controls. The No-Kill Code takes no regard for the victims and only considers the self: what would killing this person do to me? What would I become? The No-Kill Code refuses to make the difficult decisions, because ultimately the No-Kill Code is a cowardly choice of forcing the responsability onto others.
It's okay that Superman doesn't kill the normal criminal, because he doesn't have to. But when Superman faces the Super-Criminal, the person he legitimately needs to kill in order to defend human life, he has an obligation. We've all heard the "..great power.. great responsability.." speech, and there is no responsability greater than making decisions of life and death.
I just wanted to repost what you said earlier because it's spot on. Well said!
Log in to comment