Since the release of Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice the comic fans who like this movie have made it a mission to prove that Batman's no kill rule doesn't matter. And people believe them. I personally believe that the no kill rule is what makes Batman, Batman and he is simply not Batman without it. What do you guys think? Should Batman kill? Is that just a small part his character? What makes Keaton and Affleck killing their victims different from Bale and Dent?

To clarify I mean the canon versions of Batman, Pre 52-New 52 the ones that matter :P

It makes no sense for Batman to kill regardless of morality/character ethics because the writer will have a hilarious time explaining why he doesn't kill the Joker.

The Batman in the film is not the Batman we will be getting throughout the rest of the DCEU. Maybe if people used their brains and payed attention, they would know that.

I can already feel Saint_Samantha hounding me down about insulting other's opinions, lol

Batman killed in the 80's. Most of these kills have been either retconed or not mentioned since. That is not who Batman is anymore, that is who Batman was. People want a killer Batman today like they wanted a campy Batman in 1989. They don't.

If Batman was a "killer" then he wouldn't leave people handcuffed and branded.

He killed when he had to.

There is one problem, one thing is to kill Ras Al Ghul and The Joker.

But killing people that you are not sure, if they are making it for the paycheck.

I dont mind if Batman kills, as long if it works in the character, the problem with this Batman, is that it looks like if they decide Batman kills now, because it makes him darker and edgier.

Besides the fact The Joker is still alive and he gets back to normal, so he doesnt kill Lex Luthor, it looks like if Batman only killed people you could say, werent so bad or that he let live bigger risks.

At the end The Joker and Lex will kill more people, that all the criminals he actually killed.

The times when Batman has killed is just bad writing, or for shock value (oooohhhh we're so edgy we had Batman killlll). Batman isn't supposed to kill. It's part of his pathology, that's pent up with his parents murder. It's been said elsewhere in comics that Batman doesn't want to see anyone else die.

Though I generally agree, running over people with his Batmobile was completely uncalled for (though you could say that he had no idea they would be there).

He caused a car to crash into a truck, with the truck exploding afterwards, surely killing everyone involved. Say what you want about the criminals driving the car, but the guy driving that truck didn't deserve to die by all accounts.

They also said everyone he branded died. Which means he essentially chose to kill everyone he branded. They even made a deal of it in the end when he tried to brand Luther.

To be fair, comic Batman chose to kill all those people who were killed by the villains he sparred.

@petey_is_spidey: Maybe if you stopped white knighting this awful film, you can realize how condescending you sound.

That dont make sense. That is like blaming the mother of a killer for her son/daughters actions because she chose to have a child.

No, he don't kill people with inaction. His actions, his choice that he made to give petty criminals the mark of death, does kill people.

@heroup2112 said:

This. Batman isn't stable

There's a reason he doesn't use guns, there's a reason he doesn't kill, there's a reason he runs around dressed as a Bat. Batman is suffering from something like PTSD, he's constantly living in the moments after his parents died, he's on a one man war, it's moralistic, but it's also pathological. Guns and murder are the weapons of the enemy. There's definitely a compassionate side to it, he's not a sociopath, but its also rooted in his broken psyche, there are occasions when Batman perhaps would be right to kill - but he doesn't, which is what makes him such an interesting character.

The way it was executed in BvS just felt like Snyder saying 'aww yeah, Batman's badass, look at him straight mercing people, fcuking awesome, right? Isn't Batman fcuking awesome?' The concept of a more brutal Batman could have been so easily conveyed without killing, imagine if they'd had him shattering people's hips so that they never walk again, just utterly devastating criminal's bodies, breaking bones, gauging eyes etc. We see Clark Kent looking at polaroids of the victims in custody and being apalled.

It's equally as harrowing but still true to the character, it shows how twisted Batman has become that he'll bring people to the very edge of death but still maintain his code.

He totally misses the point of these characters and what they are about to such a degree that even the general public have recognised it and rejected it. He portrays Superman more like Dr Manhattan, a lonely Angel broken from humanity, his only tie Silk Spectre Lois Lane. I enjoyed this angle in MoS as an origin story, under the assumption that Superman would find his place, that's what I thought the whole point of MoS was... he makes the decision between Krypton and Earth, he is not just amongst us, he is one of us, then at the end we see him at the Daily Planet on a lighter note, he's truly becoming 'Superman'.

BvS he's either totally ignored all of that development or I completely misunderstood Snyder's intentions in MoS, it makes me worried that I saw more in MoS than was actually there. Superman needed a lot more time in this film to be fleshed out.

Bit of a tangent there, but anyway... I know everybody says 'you can change the source material, make a good story, that's the primary concern', and I totally agree... but it still has to be the character, it still has to be Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne... or what's the point, you're just selling these films as a brand, not as the characters.

@joey_destroyer_of_worlds: Did you pay attention in the movie? The batbrand is death. Inmates who get the batbrand are killed by other inmates.

Every time he does not decide to take an individuals life, KNOWING that they will cause harm onto others or death, he lets those innocence die. And yes, though you can't kill someone with inaction, you sure can be liable for someone's death by not doing anything. If someone is pointing a gun at your daughter, and you have a gun but CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT, and that person kills your daughter, than that's on you.

And I could use your same logic against you. He's not FORCING the prisoners to kill the branded thugs, they CHOOSE to do it themselves. That's like saying that Jews during WW2 are liable for the deaths of their children who were sent to the concentration camps.

How do I sound condescending? Because I point out the obvious?!?!?

Yeah, this Batman is most definitely a killer, which is fine with me as I look at the films as an alternate universe like I would any Elseworld. Now why someone would take what happens in the films and then apply them to the comics I have no idea. May as well apply what happens in the animated series to the films.

Completely agree 100%. I was also the same way with Man of Steel and I feel kind of dumb for defending it now.

I prefer funny"not so serious" Batman over Batfleck

Adam West?

@petey_is_spidey: ... yes, don't tell anyone I said that..

@petey_is_spidey:

Every time he does not decide to take an individuals life, KNOWING that they will cause harm onto others or death, he lets those innocence die.

No he dont. It is not his responsibility to kill them. If anything it is the prisons responsibility to make sure that these criminals don't escape again. He has no responsibility in the situation, it is not even his responsibility to fight them, it is just somthing he chooses to do because he is kind of crazy.

And yes, though you can't kill someone with inaction, you sure can be liable for someone's death by not doing anything. If someone is pointing a gun at your daughter, and you have a gun but CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT, and that person kills your daughter, than that's on you.

Do you have any idea how messed up this statement is? There have been people who have owned guns and had there houses broken into and their loved ones hurt or killed and they didn't do anything. People freeze up, it somthing they have no control over, they are not liable.

Also this is a completely diffrent situation. Batman doesn't know for sure that the people he puts away will get out and kill again.

And I could use your same logic against you. He's not FORCING the prisoners to kill the branded thugs, they CHOOSE to do it themselves.

But he knows what is happening and chooses to brand them anyway.

That's like saying that Jews during WW2 are liable for the deaths of their children who were sent to the concentration camps.

No it is not. The parents didn't put a mark of death on their children.

@gonnagetthat:

Do you have any idea how messed up this statement is? There have been people who have owned guns and had there houses broken into and their loved ones hurt or killed and they didn't do anything. People freeze up, it somthing they have no control over, they are not liable.

Also this is a completely diffrent situation. Batman doesn't know for sure that the people he puts away will get out and kill again.

OH COME ON!!! For gods sake they've escaped Jail dozens upon dozens of time. They've killed on multiple occasions. If he KNOWS that the justice system doesn't work in Gotham, why doesn't he take it into his own hands?

And how is it any different from when he brands individuals? He doesn't know that they'll be killed. He has no control over what OTHERS DO! Are police departments responsible for the deaths of officers who are not under cover and who are shot by random ass people, simply for being cops? No.

But he knows what is happening and chooses to brand them anyway.

He knows what will happen but lets them live anyways.

No it is not. The parents didn't put a mark of death on their children.

It is the same thing. He chose to brand them. They chose to have children in a world where they would be tortured or put to death. Did they want that to happen? No. Did they have any controls over the Nazi's for their atrocities? No. Is it their fault? No, just like it isn't Batman's fault for what other's choose to do.

You talk as if Jewish people who lived in Germany during WWII knew that the Holocaust was coming and chose to have kids knowing that they would die.

And how is it any different from when he brands individuals? He doesn't know that they'll be killed.

According to the news report; they always die. Which is somthing he does know.

I'm surprised people are making a big deal of this. Burtons Batman killed WAY more than in BvS. Also as far as the branding goes I think Lex was killing those guys off in prison to motivate Clark into going after Bruce. It's never stated flat out but it makes sense. He did a lot to set that fight up.

My biggest problem was when Bats went after the kryptonite. Killing outright criminals is one thing, but I'm still not sure if those were genuine criminals, or just LexCorp employees doing Lex's dirty work. 'Cause if they were...man, that's messed up. It'd be like Batman slaughtering corrupt S.W.A.T. officers working for some asshole politician.

Dude batman is a killer thats right but he is not walking on the street with a pistol start shooting to the head criminals , he is fighting very violent way, if any criminal dies because of that fight is only because of them (for example if you fight against batman and wearing a gun, is highly likely to hurt yourself with your own weapon).

In the film a criminal throws a hand-grenade , what can batman do? , that hand-grenade could easily have killed 7 or 8 criminals who were near the explosion, so batman put down that criminal but he dies because of his action (use a hand-grenade in a fight)

Even for the criminal wearing a flamethrower if he is threatening to kill Martha, Obviously batman will save Martha but if the criminal dies in the process its the fault of the criminal for fighting Batman in the first place.

So Batman is not Punisher , Batman Just doesnt care if in a fight 1 or 2 criminals dies , he is not killing every criminals that fights but he doesnt care of his safety either.

=/

Also, it amazes me that people are trying so hard to justify this.

Is Suicide Squad in the same Universe? Why didn't he kill them?

# The original Batman was a killer. In Batman 1 he hangs with a rop and the bat plane a mentally handicapped man. In one early issues he shoots a vampire like villain with a gun and silver bullet while the vampire sleeps.

BvS Batman is just a crazy hypocrit.

Beata

For a year. Then after that they invented Robin and Alfred and the no killing rule. 50+ Years of canon was built off who he became not who he was

Is there some rule where if you don't kill somebody for a whole year, you are no longer a murderer??!!! Batman has a long history of killing and not just in the early years. Yep, in the early years he was brutal - hanging a mentally ill guy, killing a guy with a gun shot, killing an unarmed man with a sword. But in recent years Batman continues his killing ways:

Killed the Joker in the Killing Joke (re-conned, but that was the ending).

Left KGBeast to starve to death in a locked room (again re-conned out, but if you read Batman 420 you'll see that was what happened).

Fired Gun at Darkseid to kill him, hit his shoulder, but the intent was to kill.

Pushed a pile of cars over onto a drug dealer killing him (Batman 425).

Pushes two criminals into a garbage disposal killing them (Batman 618).

Sets villain on fire and kills him in All Star Batman & Robin.

Electrocutes the son? of Ras a Ghul, Qayin. (Batman Son of the Demon).

Batman's one rule is more like a "suggestion" that can be forgotten by writers.

Yes, Batman killed in the 40's and 80's. Most of the kills in the 80's have been retconed or not mentioned since. The 40's was a different continuity.

So you're saying it's okay for Batman to kill because he did it 30 years ago in the comics? That is like trying to justify Batman & Robin because Batman was actually over the top campy in the 60's. And 30 years before Batman & Robin came out Batman was campy in the comics.

Most people don't want a 80's Batman in 2016 anymore then they wanted a 60's Batman in 1997.

Well Batman killed quite often in the Golden Age of comics. In his very first comic, a guy falls off a ledge and into a vat of acid. He did nothing to save him and said something along the lines of, "Oh, well. He got what he deserved."

However, your average movie goer is not that familiar with comics and wouldn't know this. Most people are familiar with Batman through the Dark Knight Trilogy.

The way around the Joker issue would be at the end when Batman could have branded Lex Luthor, but didn't. Even though he had every reason to. This could be interpreted as turning over a new leaf.

For real

The entire point of bvs was batman went over the edge and into questionable territory because of his experiences in Gotham and an alien is the one to bring him back into his humanity and frankly that's a better explanation for Batman's moral than some comic panel that only exist because some 1950s right wing organization decided that comics need to be as kid friendly as possible

Sure, Batman has killed before, but it was normally on accident. To make him kill makes no sense, I mean sure you can say he did in his early days, but it was like for a year because the editor suggested to change him so it wouldn’t taint the character. He has killed rarely in the ages, but most have since been retconned and the no-killing rule has been a part of his character for nearly 70 years. Kane and Finger agreed to it, and then Finger made Batman into the detective instead of the ruthless vigilante.

The only reason Batman killed in the early days is because he was a rip-off of a character called the Shadow. I prefer the frightening detective instead of another Punisher-type character. There’s reasons why Batman doesn’t kill (psychological ones at that), but people using it to justify this bad movie can do what they want.

Here’s a link to a page explaining it further for anyone interested: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html
http://toobusythinkingboutcomics.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-i-hate-bat-man-part-1.html

I agree with nathan(and others) on this. Batman should, wouldn't and should never have killed. Period. It destroys character.

@rogueshadow: You're basically describing the Punisher there's just a thin line between Bruce and Castle

@ultrastarkiller said:

@just_sayin said:

@ultrastarkiller said:

@just_sayin said:

# The original Batman was a killer. In Batman 1 he hangs with a rop and the bat plane a mentally handicapped man. In one early issues he shoots a vampire like villain with a gun and silver bullet while the vampire sleeps.

For a year. Then after that they invented Robin and Alfred and the no killing rule. 50+ Years of canon was built off who he became not who he was

Is there some rule where if you don't kill somebody for a whole year, you are no longer a murderer??!!!

Yup it's called retcons, like you mentioned below. Batman was a killer for a year and they retconned his image adding, Robin, Alfred and the no killing rule.

Batman has a long history of killing and not just in the early years. Yep, in the early years he was brutal - hanging a mentally ill guy, killing a guy with a gun shot, killing an unarmed man with a sword. But in recent years Batman continues his killing ways:

Killed the Joker in the Killing Joke (re-conned, but that was the ending).

The ending was ambiguous but when it was adopted into canon it was retconned. The Killing Joke was not canon when it came out originally IIRC, it was an else world story that was later adapted into canon and in canon Batman (the Batman who is above all else) isn't a killer.

Left KGBeast to starve to death in a locked room (again re-conned out, but if you read Batman 420 you'll see that was what happened).

Yup it was retconned because Marv Wolfman knew Batman shouldn't be depicted as a murderer.

Fired Gun at Darkseid to kill him, hit his shoulder, but the intent was to kill.

This was mentioned as being the ultimate exception to the rule. It's accepted by fans because the comic acknowledges that Batman needed to break his rule to prevent Darkseid from destroying the Earth. That's completely different than Batman murdering thugs he can easily take out just for fun and trying to kill someone who is obviously not a danger to people.

Pushed a pile of cars over onto a drug dealer killing him (Batman 425).

No he didn't

Pushes two criminals into a garbage disposal killing them (Batman 618).

Proof that they died?

Sets villain on fire and kills him in All Star Batman & Robin.

Not canon and a trash comic anyway

Electrocutes the son? of Ras a Ghul, Qayin. (Batman Son of the Demon).

Not canon

Batman's one rule is more like a "suggestion" that can be forgotten by writers.

No it's not it's canon, it is engraved in the character and it is mentioned many times. Whether or not a writer chooses to ignore it shows how much they care about the character or how good they are at their jobs. Else world writers can do whatever they want though cause their Batman doesn't affect our Batman.

The Batman character has killed a lot of people over the years. In his first issue he pushed a guy over a railing into a vat to his death. In the second issue he flipped a guy off of a roof to his death. In that same first year he kills a lot. Most of these occur with Robin present. In 1941 he mentions to Robin that they don't kill. But the character has intentionally killed since then. Whether it is the Mutant leader in the Dark Knight Returns, or a criminal in Batman:Cult, or the Joker in the Killing Joke or KGB Beast in 10 Nights of the Beast, etc., etc., and a whole bunch more etc. Currently these have been retconned but I'm pretty sure, looking at Batman's record, he will kill again and some writer will make a killing part of continuity; at least until the next writer retcons it.

Depending on if you count the movie killings, he has killed between 15 to 100 people. In fact most of the live action movies since 1989 have incidents of Batman killing in them. In Batman (1989) he throws a guy down a bell tower, in Batman Returns, the dark knight straps lit dynamite to a guy and blows him up while he smiles. In Batman Begins he kills ninjas when he destroys the base. In The Dark Knight he pushes Harvey Dent to his death. In the Dark Knight Rises he shoots Talia's drive to death. Batman kills in the movies, that's "cannon". Its not a big deal for Batman to kill in a movie.

Affleck's Batman was the worst in terms of killing since Keatonman.

You contradict yourself in your statement. The Affleck and Keaton Batman are not the canon pre 52-New 52 Batman.

@jonny_anonymous: "Should Batman kill" that's when I meant Pre 52 and New 52 Batman

Maybe Joker is just too smart for Bruce to catch.

Alternatively, Bruce doesn't like to kill, but does so when it's just convenient. Essentially boiling down to "Either move or get dealt with." Dealt with being intentionally vauge. It could be as little as getting your body thrown through a wall or as much as getting blown up via Batmobile. Whatever gets the job done.

I want a camp Batman today, tomorrow, and possibly for the next few years.

Batman can't control criminals on the inside. People get attacked and sometimes die in prison. That's just the nature of the place. What I don't get is why that brand makes people want to kill the person that caught. Unless they just snitched, in which case then that's probably a reason they kill. However, that's like saying lawyers who put pedophiles and rapists in jail get them killed, because they're the low men/women on the totem in jails.

Seriously though, I'm surprised. Batman fans argue this harder than Superman fans when it comes to their favorite killing people.

It's simple. The people defending don't understand or know Batman.

Batman doesn't kill. This is core to the character. Having batman Murder is unacceptable, foolish, lazy, and a betrayal.

@just_sayin:

Okay. Here’s a fun game. It’s great, anyone can play it. It’s also simple – there are only two steps.

Step 1 – do a bit of research and find every instance in comics, cartoons and movies where Batman has been depicted murdering people. Occasions when it’s an absolute last resort and there are huge consequences for his mental well-being don’t count. Just all the times he’s done it as a matter of course, all “casual-like”. Cases that take place in his early years count, but do bear in mind these took place before anyone had bothered to even define Batman’s character properly.

Step 2 – do another bit of research. This time find every occasion in comics, cartoons and movies where Batman having a rule about not killing is mentioned as a key part of his character. Either by him, other heroes, villains, or anyone else around. Examples when he reacts extremely badly to other characters who do kill people and shuns/disowns them definitely counts (e.g. when Wonder Woman kills and both Bats and Supes refuse to even give her the time of day for many months after that happens).

Now step one should take you roughly an hour, especially since a lot of the work has been done for you via others compiling all the required citations.

Step 2 should roughly take you, on average, seven thousand years. The final count that you (or your great, great grandchildren) reach should be, as a vague estimate, somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million separately identifiable examples.

The point isn’t that Batman has been depicted killing or using a gun before. Like any character that has been around for a very long time, various writers have on occasion attempted to do something different with him for either shock or novelty value and had him break the core rules of his character. Everyone knows that. If BvS had depicted Batman wearing a dress, I’m sure there would be cases of him doing so in one of more comics, at some time or some place, that people could cite to prove that Batman has, yes, indeed worn a dress before. The character is old enough that there has likely been examples of him doing all kinds of weird and wonderful things; e.g. getting knocked out by a random thug wielding a crowbar, something very inconsistent with Batman’s characterisation.

Being able to cite examples when something bad that is happening now has previously happened does not make the latest example right. It just tosses the current example into the same garbage can of nonsense that those previous examples are already burning in, whilst also showing how desperate and defensive you and the people you are defending are to find absolutely any counter-argument available to the backlash that BvS’ depiction of Batman as a killer is inciting

After watching suicide squad were you see Batman clearly restraining himself i doubt that is the issue. He even goes out of his way to save Harley even when she is trying to stab him under water.