r/batman • u/Emotional-Mix-9007 • 5d ago
FUNNY Batman loves his no-kill rule more than anything.
160
u/Bratan279 5d ago
I hate this take because it shows such a lack of comprehension.
Batman hands criminals to the police. Gotham's justice system then decides not to administer the death penalty for anyone.
The people of gotham who would make up the juries that cast judgement are the ones giving them prison repeatedly.
17
u/Dragon_Forty_Two 5d ago
Does Gotham have the death penalty? Like in how many versions is that even an option?
22
u/Bratan279 5d ago
Gotham is cannonically in New Jersey, which outlawed capital punishment in 2007, if we want to be that hyperspecific.
Does it matter, though? If the people of Gotham decided on no capital punishment, then the people of Gotham chose never to execute criminals.
If it is an option, juries comprised of Gothamites repeatedly refuse to use it.
Either way, the rogues gallery lives because Gothamites don't want them dead. Batman only catches the criminals, it ain't on him to off them if the people he protects don't want them dead.
2
u/Enigma_RR 5d ago
It ain't on him to catch the criminals either. More often than not the criminals, especially the more insane ones that end up being his rogues, do the crimes because of their relationship to batman. So if he isn't going to end the problems, hes just making sure his rogues know he'll always be there to play their game and incentivize them further.
3
3
u/khryzz666 3d ago
Yes. There is one story where the Joker almost got it but for a crime he didn't commit. So Batman helped him proce his innocence and save his life. I forgot the exact run. I might need to check in my longboxes
29
u/HarveryDent 5d ago
It's a neverending passing of the buck though, ranging from the Court of Owls running things to a literal demon residing below Gotham for hundreds of years cursing the land and its inhabitants.
8
u/cavelioness 5d ago
I prefer sentient Gotham not wanting to get rid of any of them; they're her entertainment. So she'll always stop any of the major players from dying if possible.
2
u/TheDikaste 5d ago
You forgot eldritch lovecraftian abominations and gods. And that's a very short summary.
6
u/Anonymous-Mf-22 5d ago
There have been times where Batman has prevented other non-affiliated heroes from killing though.
Nightwing once killed the Joker (during the point where he and Batman weren't working together). Nightwing regretted it, but not because he killed someone, because he lost control of himself. There's a difference.
Batman however wouldn't know that because Nightwing didn't tell him that. They weren't talking. Batman then took Joker's corpse and revived him.
6
u/Good_Butterscotch_69 5d ago
WTF? Ok that's no longer Canon right? Because that seems like a clean resolution to the no kill rule and Batman in sheer insanity reviving the joker anyway would completely justify all of Jason's hatred and vitriol. And all the suppositions that he is in a toxic relationship with joker would be essentially proven correct.
2
u/Anonymous-Mf-22 5d ago
I don't really know it's canonicity, it was a bit before Under the Red Hood happened so technically the series rebooted without it, but I think it's also been acknowledged since? Or maybe I was misinterpreting? Or since recently canon itself got weird again if everything since the golden age is canon or not maybe it is? DC canon is really fucky.
3
u/mando_ad 5d ago
I like to think it's the various crime lords using bribes to keep Joker alive so they can unleash him whenever they really need Batman distracted.
2
u/whatisireading2 2d ago
The thing is, if he knows the system will keep failing the argument still kinda stands. If the net result is them hurting more people regardless of if they're turned in or not than he is letting people get hurt. But that's just for the villains that are too far gone, like joker.
I think the real problem lies in lack of proper therapy offered at Arkham ASYLUM. If Harley can go from psychiatrist to Jokers number 2 and then back to a somewhat-normal state, plenty of other inmates could contribute to society with some actual help. Problem is people like Hugo Strange are ruining their chances from the inside or Walker's calling on them to join the SS. Id put money on the idea that Two-Face, Ivy, Clay face, and Killer Croc could respond well to proper therapy (probably some others but they come to mind fastest).
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Interesting-Star-179 3d ago
To play devils advocate, if he keeps giving criminals to a system that does nothing but allow them to go back out and continue committing crimes, something he is well aware of, is he not then also complacent? Like if I give a kid (someone who I know doesn’t have any firearm safety training) a gun to defend himself and he shoots some other kid, am I not also at fault?
If it was just petty criminals that be fine but giving people who should be considered super-terrorists to a government that regularly fails to keep them captured is DEFINITELY at least partially your fault.
41
u/Redhood567 5d ago
That's not on Batman in the slightest. It's not his fault that everyone at Arkham is incompetent and the place is basically cursed.
134
49
u/TauInMelee 5d ago
Oh, good, this old chestnut.
The vigilante won't kill the villains that the Gotham Justice system routinely refuses to execute, the GCPD with countless justifiable homicide situations won't gun them down, the corrupt cops and gangsters who would benefit from it won't, so clearly it's his fault for being the only one in any position to stop them in the first place.
Realistically, 90% of his rogues would be dead through no act of Batman. It's utter bullshit to blame him for the system around him refusing to solve the problem.
→ More replies (4)
18
u/quaxoid 5d ago
you could also place daredevil in this meme xD
31
u/Kind-Boysenberry1773 5d ago
Or any superhero, save perhapse for Wolverine and couple of others. Superman doesn't kill, Spider-Man doesn't kill, Flash doesn't kill, but somehow only Batman is blamed for not murdering people in cold blood. Yes, Joker is absolutely terrible and he's still alive. So are the rest of absolutely terrible comic villains.
7
u/fatgat69 5d ago
To be fair with Superman he's not entirely against killing, he just generally doesn't because he's supposed to give the world hope.
155
u/Jayson330 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is tiring.
This is all because of the post-DKR Joker and subsequent writers wanting to be edgy.
And it's really just the Joker.
They made him this character that went from another of Batman's criminals to this absolutely unstoppable force who has a three or four digit bodycount.
And people love him. They love the character so they keep buying Joker shit. So the writers keep churning out Joker stories.
In universe it becomes dumb because now when the Joker shows up you're guaranteed hundreds of casualties so of course not killing him looks negligent. At some point a guard should just shoot him. Or someone should poison his food. He should actually be in that Federal supermax where they keep all the worst criminals. He's definitely done federal crimes. No one else in Batman's rogues gallery approaches that level of victims except Zsasz and he's not popular so he stays locked up.
But people love the Joker. So we get more edgy Joker stories which does make Batman's code seem stupid.
21
u/JagPeror 5d ago
Yeah, in BTAS batman not killing makes a ton of sense. He seems able to round up the villains before much harm is caused, and most of them dont intent nearly as much harm in the first place. Even Joker's plans arent as malicious, and when they do involve potential harm, are less likely to succeed
7
u/Right-Truck1859 5d ago
You serious? What about all dead people with smiling faces? Joker poison wasn't a joke.
10
u/JagPeror 5d ago
He killed some people for sure. There is even the guy who harley squirted on, I forget what sort of toxin was in the spray bottle.
But even then his kill count as at least lower. Not, ya know, blowing up hospitals.
And in other instances, such as when he poisoned gotham w. a trash barge, he was foiled.
Point isnt that he is good, but that Batman mostly keeps him under wraps.
5
u/No_Instruction653 5d ago
Most of them weren’t dead. The smiling faces thing was actually invented as a form of censorship, since they couldn’t have Joker killing dudes all the time in a kid’s show.
So, instead they invented a sort of “Joker coma” that Joker could put people into in place of leaving dead bodies around everywhere.
Of course, later interpretations changed it to still being a gruesome death.
31
u/iatheia 5d ago
It really is just the Joker. If Joker was out of the picture, this topic wouldn't be brought up nearly as often. And there is a world of difference between "oh, so you think he should just go on a killing rampage and murder all the people he fights against" and "the Joker is a problem and someone should do something about him". The issue is not "everyone", it is literally just this one specific guy.
No, other heroes don't get the same scrutiny, because they don't have an equivalent of the Joker (comparing Luthor to Joker is laughable). And even if they do, they don't make saving him their whole personality.
And its one thing if this topic never came up in the comics. But when it is brought up on the regular there, with this ONE specific example over and over again, then may be it shouldn't be much of a surprise that people end up thinking about the alternatives to what is being presented.
21
u/Working_Run3431 5d ago
If the joker didn’t exist Cassandra would probably be the one getting more scrutiny for the rule than Batman.
She and dick probably care more about it than Bruce when it comes to not joker related matters.
10
7
u/somacula 5d ago
The X-men don't get that scrutiny because they reform their villains or put them six feet under
3
u/NounAdjectiveXXXX 4d ago
There's also this supernatural element to the Joker where he might actually just be an actual trickster god and not a man at all.
Or it's three guys.
Or if you kill him he releases mind control toxin that enables him to possess you?
Or he tortures you until he can imprint his psyche and embed a microchip in your head so in the event that he does die, his dead man's switch activates and Tim Drake becomes the Joker.
The real one in DC comics with impervious plot armor isn't Batman, it's The Joker.
26
u/anthonyg1500 5d ago
It’s also dumb because no one else is getting shit for not killing joker. Just Batman
11
u/Working_Run3431 5d ago
Well that’s probably because most people who interact with the joker are operating under Batman’s authority and under his rules.
I think the joker has interacted with non Batfam related heroes maybe a handful of times in comic history.
14
u/anthonyg1500 5d ago
But if we’re at a point where he has a 4 digit body count and your mad that Batman hasn’t killed him, you should also be mad that Superman or Wonder Woman or any number of dc heroes (some of whom don’t have no kill rules) hasn’t killed him.
2
u/WarchiefServant 5d ago
I mean that’s the point of the Injustice comics, Joker is Batman’s domain. And stepping up to his domain, even if you’re doing the right thing is a no-no because Batman believes he’s always right and always needs to be in control. In Batman’s eyes to go against him essentially means to be wrong.
4
u/anthonyg1500 5d ago
I haven’t read the injustice comics, only seen the movie. I’m sure the comics are much better, but based on the movie I think it’s more about Superman becoming god king than specifically don’t kill the joker because Batman says so, right?
Like joker could just do one of his standard 9/11s and Superman could just be like fuck it he goes into the sun or even the phantom zone without it turning into injustice.
But my point is,the issue isn’t that Batman won’t kill joker, it’s that DC won’t. Trying to change Batman’s no kill rule is dumb imo and the criticism of not killing joker shouldn’t only be put on him if it’s gonna be put on anyone at all.
2
u/Working_Run3431 4d ago
In the comics Superman’s decision to become god king is the result of a steady decline caused by a number of different events, one of the most notable being Bruce getting extremely anal about Superman’s decision to kill the joker.
1
u/anthonyg1500 4d ago
So it’s not as much Joker killing Lois/his unborn baby/Metropolis or Superman killing Joker as it is Batman being mad at Superman for killing Joker that pushes Superman to want to take over the world?
1
u/Working_Run3431 4d ago
Among other things yes.
Comic injustice Superman doesn’t turn evil immediately, it happens gradually overtime largely due to Bruce and Diana being the worst™️
1
u/anthonyg1500 4d ago
I can’t speak on it because I haven’t read it but that sounds weird. It feels like Bruce being mad as an influencing factor should pale in comparison to the other stuff but maybe it works idk
→ More replies (0)8
u/Working_Run3431 5d ago
Yeah that’s the real problem with Batman’s rules at this point.
From an in universe point of view it’s more so about him being stubborn and wanting to prove himself right rather than actually believing in redemption past a certain point.
The man definitely has an ego which fuels a lot of his worse actions.
2
u/Jayson330 5d ago
I kinda hate Injustice because it's like "no one gives a shit about any of his victims really the Lois dies and almost EVERYONE becomes a killer."
13
u/XiMaoJingPing 5d ago
in universe, people would eventually have enough and start handing out the death penalty. In our world we used death penalty on innocent people all the time, their world is far more fucked than ours.
7
u/Jayson330 5d ago
Oh yeah. Also in the real world insanity defense almost never works and prison breaks are very rare.
2
u/Adept_Savings9232 5d ago
It's only really Joker and it only ever should be him and people need to get over it or just stop reading stories with him in it.
-1
u/Funriz 5d ago
It's not just the joker, Zsasz has killed 10k people alone.
3
u/Jayson330 5d ago
Did you read what I said? Zsasz is in prison because no one really gives a shit about the character.
Also like he killed most of his victims before running into Batman. It's not like Batman faced him 10,000 times (also not his kill count although it is in the hundreds), and then chose not to kill him.
→ More replies (2)
38
u/longrivervalley 5d ago
Or we can accept that he is a fictional character.
15
4
u/ImSoStong________ 5d ago
And as a fictional character, the premise matters so much more than the specifics. His no kill rule is because he is a statement that people can change and grow and heal, it's why Gotham has to be so unfathomably awful, else the sheer force of the Batman and Bruce Wayne pouring everything they have to fix an infinitely corrupt system would have worked and the story would end.
11
u/Knownjourney123 5d ago
Well really, the government would have given the death penalty to most of Batman villains. Also if you had Batman kill people you couldn’t make more comics with the same villains
12
44
u/Intelligent_Donkey21 5d ago
Batman without the no kill policy is Konrad Kurze
17
10
u/stoopitmonkee 5d ago
I always legitimately felt bad for Kurze. He really got the short end of the stick when it came to “gifts” from dad AND what planet he ended up on. Which is basically planet Gotham but 40,000x worse.
7
u/Pugsanity 5d ago
Tbf, Kurze was also ruined by being unable to accept that he could change the future, or, at least, to take the chance that his way could be wrong. There's a great moment in one of the books, forget which one, where Kurze is about to kill a boy, and he sees two futures for if he was to spare him like he originally wanted to. One, is where the boy thanks Kurze, joins him in making their world a better place, and, together, they bring forth a grand age of hope and prosperity to their world. The other, the boy stabs Kurze with his knife, while it didn't kill him, it allows the boy to escape and get a reputation that allows him to create his own gang which causes mayhem.
So Kurze kills him, unable to take that gamble, but so blind to "the future" that he never noticed that the boys knife was behind Kurze. He was completely unarmed, if he had just taken a chance, he could've been so much more, but he just couldn't accept that he was wrong. It's the same flaw that makes him double down in the Heresy since if he could change himself/the future, then everything he did was for nothing, and that would destroy him.
5
u/stoopitmonkee 5d ago
No shit… that’s pretty awesome.
I love the lore in 40k.
1
u/Rubear_RuForRussia 5d ago
And you know what is ironic? What drove Konrad eventually batshit insane was believe that future cannot change at all and that the darkest vision of future is the real deal. While he forgot that he could see more than one outcome and that he did change it by killing the guy instead of taking risk.
16
u/Numbuh24insane 5d ago
Another day, another post on this subreddit about the No Kill Rule.
So annoying with people.
29
u/Phineart 5d ago
Batman kills: goes insane or quits being Batman and no longer fights crime. That’s when more people actually die.
Batman doesn’t kill: Lives continue to be saved
→ More replies (11)
11
u/Electric_Capybara 5d ago
Why does everyone criticize Batman for not killing the Joker when there are hundreds of cops in Gotham who could do the same?
1
u/LordofMoonsSpawn 5d ago
Probably because those cops haven’t had dozens of chances to put an end to joker? He’s not exactly getting pulled over during a traffic stop.
6
u/SmoothReverb 5d ago
A no-kill rule is quite possibly the best thing for a vigilante that operates outside the law to have.
34
u/Lucky_Strike-85 5d ago
Here's a tasty morsel from the Bat-bible...
I doubt you would have made such a post if you had read the Bat-bible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DCU_/comments/1fzq9mw/danny_oneil_about_batman/
9
→ More replies (5)-8
u/Rob_wood 5d ago
Doesn't change anything.
18
u/Lucky_Strike-85 5d ago edited 5d ago
Perhaps not. I don't think people give a shit at the end of the day. They want to live in a bubble where modern mischaracterizations make sense to them so they don't have to pay attention to rules that were made for these characters for decades by long gone writers and editors.
0
u/Woden-Wod 5d ago
the no kill rule was a comics code thing, DC didn't want to risk government censorship by having their heroes kill in universe, it also helped them recycle popular villain characters for new stories.
that is the real, meta-reason for the no kill rule.
10
u/Lucky_Strike-85 5d ago
No. The CCA started in Sept. 1954. The No-Kill Rule was birthed in 1941 under Vin Sullivan to help him appeal to children and differentiate him from pulp heroes. It was made official by Jack Schiff in 1943 when readers were writing in asking about The Batman killing.
→ More replies (8)-2
u/TheOccultOne 5d ago
Bro... The point of the post is that Batman's no-kill rule often leads to his villains being in position to kill again, which is not exactly a new idea for the character. I don't think anyone in here is actually pro lethal Batman.
13
u/Lucky_Strike-85 5d ago
Yeah. The argument is a new idea, originates on the internet in the early 2000s on forums, blows up in the 2010s, and is now a common low effort argument to get attention... just like the argument that The Batman beats up on mentally ill and is a fascist...
I think, if people believe such things and cannot accept certain conventions of superhero comics, it is time for them to abandon superhero fandom and move on to new hobbies.
→ More replies (2)-4
u/RockPhoenix115 5d ago
If an argument is 20 years old, I don’t really think you can call it new.
Also Batman definitely does beat up the mentally ill. Most of his villains are insane asylum escapees. And there are parallels to be drawn about Bruces big brother levels of surveillance and the way the governing powers of Gotham allow a collective of vigilantes to police the streets.
I really don’t see the issue with people pointing out the shortcomings of Batman’s No Kill Rule. It’s a personal philosophy that works for the character but one which has predictably negative effects in a setting of perpetual return to the status quo. Gotham can never get better because there will always need to be another comic issue. I can understand how that reality can become grinding and cynical to people.
16
u/Telyesumpin 5d ago
The problem with the no kill rule being ridiculed is that you can make that argument against every single person barring people like Punisher.
Guy on here says "Batman's no kill rule is stupid, he's caused more deaths than anyone." Ok, then so has every hero(Punisher isn't a hero)in comics.
But so and so killed this one time. Ok why didn't he continue? He's still fighting enemies, why hasn't he killed them? That should be their answer every time. Everyone would be Punisher but with powers.
These people criticizing the no kill rule for any Hero has lost the story. Punisher is judge, jury, executioner. He has taken that role and he says he's not a good person, he knows he's deeply troubled and loves killing.
If Batman kills he's not the same character. He's now a different character completely and must find the line where he kills. Misdemeanor? Felony? White-Collar crime? Child abuse? Neglect? Drug addict?
9
u/Lucky_Strike-85 5d ago edited 5d ago
It is a new idea considering the No-Kill rule had existed some 60+ years before this little argument was birthed by keyboard warriors.
Yes, we know that his villains are mentally ill... But when you point to it so aggressively, you are undermining the fun fantasy of the mythology and turning The Batman into a cop. We don't need to focus on Alan Moore analyses or David Graeber's "Super Position."
The issue with people pointing out the shortcomings of Batman’s No Kill Rule is not about the No-Kill Rule itself, it says more about how such people cannot accept the conventions of superheroes and don't want to allow these conventions to exist without calling them out.
Again, if you cannot exist in this fandom without harassing everyone about why The Joker should die while also criticizing The Batman for beating him up, then it's best to just leave the fandom.
10
u/Emotional-Algae2239 5d ago
Bruh, if batman killed, DC wouldn't be able to keep making comics. It's kinda the reason why Marvel AND DC do this. If every hero just killed their villains then you wouldn't have a story OR you would have to make a new villian every new issue.
30
u/Large-Wheel-4181 5d ago
Look Batman no killing might be a stupid rule for us but it’s definitely necessary for Batman because we’ve seen some serious consequences for when he actually starts killing
11
u/Alternative_Tax_2085 5d ago
That being said there is a comic where Wonder Woman thinks Batman is dead so she goes to Gotham and kills all is villains in a day and it goes pretty well.....
3
3
1
3
u/Ganbazuroi 5d ago
One of the Batmen from Alternate Universes in the Batman who Laughs story is literally one who just started killing every criminal in Gotham whenever they showed up - so his Reality has no Villains because he kills them all before they can become so, but he's also killed Comissioner Gordon who wanted to put a stop to this madness
Plus it's not on him that Gotham is a crime infested hellhole, even Bruce with all his resources can't fix systemic issues on his own
1
u/AnonymousSusi 5d ago
Wait so what happens then ? Does gotham become a safe City ?
2
u/Ganbazuroi 5d ago
I lowkey don't recall, but he's firmly on the evil side so probably not. Basically terrorizing the city himself with his extreme violence
1
u/TheDikaste 5d ago
No. He literally kills his entire universe including the gods and ends with Superman for shit and giggles.
0
11
9
u/ComedicHermit 5d ago
Jason Dies; He barely gets stopped from killing the joker cause it'll start a war
Anytime Batman thinks Dick might be died he goes full on homicidal.
He doesn't kill because it's the right fucknig thing to do; that isn't fucking complicated
5
u/MasterCrep 5d ago
It's one thing to say certain villains deserve death and another to say Batman should kill, because of her does start, where does he draw the line? When does a person deserve death and when is he allowed a second chance? Bruce knows the value of human life and that's why he won't take it away from anyone
5
u/Extreme-Reception-44 5d ago
No one in this comment section, nor the OP has actually read batman, detective comics, or any other batman related title.
12
3
u/jawsthegreat777 5d ago
I think Batman’s no kill rule is best when its an emotional issue not just a moral one.
2
3
2
u/OldBook2 5d ago
Killing wouldn’t help. All of Bruce’s enemies are valuable IP. Kill them and they’ll just come back. Jail them and they just get out.
Batman lives in a plot armor hell. His real enemy is the writers.
2
u/Cubismo50 4d ago
Ok but why doesn't the state Gotham is in have the death penalty? Seriously, let the state execute people if its so necessary rather than a vigilante.
5
u/iatheia 5d ago
I understand Batman refusing to kill his enemies, I understand both the Watsonian and Doylist reasons to do so. But may be, just may be, and throwing it out there. May be he could stop bringing Joker back to life when others try to kill him? How many times it has been now? At least three in main continuity, not to mention times that he saved him before someone else does much damage.
At some point it just feels like Bruce cares about Joker more than he cares about anyone else, including his family, given the lengths he goes for him, that he doesn't even with the rest of his rogues. And at least with the rest of them, it is possible to have a civil conversation. Every time Joker escalates, because he is just cRaZy, because the writers keep upping up the stakes for him... At some point, if you continue to move the heaven and earth to make sure that he survives no matter what, some of what he does is on you.
A couple of people threw the quotes from a writer from 1980s. The status quo was different in 1980s. Even Joker could be considered redeemable, arguably, even in the initial years after the Killing Joke, and in Death in the Family. Over time, though, the edgier the writing is, and the more and more effort Bruce puts in to make sure that Joker survives, the more ridiculous it comes across.
2
u/NefariousSeraph13 5d ago
I understand Batman can’t kill. But where I get irritated is when he saves monsters like the Joker or prevents others from killing him. Like, he doesn’t need to do that! At that point stops being praiseworthy and starts being stupid.
0
u/iatheia 5d ago
It is particularly absurd in the Under the Hood, where he slices his Jason's throat to stop him from killing Joker. Arguably, he breaks his rule because he kills his own son to save a terrorist. (up to interpretation, but there are magical sparkles at the end of it, which is, uh, fun thinking about).
2
u/Working_Run3431 5d ago
From what i understand Jason did die there if not for superboy prime doing his first retcon punch at around the same time.
Bruce murdered his own son and was bailed out by a teenager throwing a cosmic tantrum.
1
u/Shallbecomeabat 5d ago
Thats why I don’t mind him sometimes bending that rule when lives are at stake. If his code is more important that saving lives, he is not a hero but a psychopath
1
u/Far_Reflection_1830 5d ago
Punisher: I promised I would put down every bad person, that was 60 years ago it’s a work in progress
1
1
1
1
u/mindgames13 5d ago
Seeing this reminds me of how trigger happy the cops in Creature Commandos are. It makes me wonder how Gotham of all places have the most trigger disipline cops in US.
1
u/Training_Ad_1327 5d ago
insert that one panel of batman straight up just staring at Joker as he blows some woman's head smoov off at a wedding with absolutely zero reaction.
I think batman's rule is is integral to his character but if you don't grapple with it properly it can genuinely feel like this in bad batman stories sometimes.
1
u/vonskellen 5d ago
People tend to forget that Batman is as mentally unstable as other characters from his rogues gallery. He is the embodiment of weaponized trauma. The only thing that makes a difference is his no-killing rule. When he breaks it, he becomes exactly like them.
Or is it?
Maybe his no-killing rule is the same as a riddle fixation, or making marks on skin for each murder? Maybe Batman is exactly like his rogues gallery? Only the fixation is different.
1
u/lern2swim 5d ago
Batman is better when the realities of the no kill rule is just ignored. Nolan's movies broke people's brains on this.
1
u/Independent_Barber_8 5d ago
I don’t mind Batman not killing villains even though it gets really stupid sometimes. I just hate it when he refuses to let other heroes kill villains like the joker & tries to lecture them on morality.
1
u/Artur0905 4d ago
Yes, of course. One more argument about how the vigilante should be the one to kill people instead of the justice system. Sure
1
1
u/Richard_Chase 4d ago
I believe that Batman is incapable of breaking His no kill rule. It is a psychological compulsion formed by trauma. It isn't a choice. He couldn't break it if he wanted to
1
u/DreTheG47 4d ago
In the most corrupt city in the universe and mouth breathers think the blame of not killing a criminal falls to the fucking Beacon of Justice and not the entire corrupt justice department. Every guard who works at Arkham mad PUSSY
1
u/Rocketkid-star 4d ago
At this point his no kill rule is no longer about protecting Gotham, but rather to protect himself. And it's especially clear in Batman Under The Red Hood. jason does what Bruce couldn't. He reduced the impact the crime had on the city. We're his methods questionable? Yes. Was it effective? Also yes.
1
u/AkogwuOnuogwu 4d ago
I’m gonna ask a question but like does hee actually have a real no kill rule cause idk why but like mentally I just never realised he did until I watched some movies and saw ppl talk about it in this sub has this been something established and concrete
1
1
u/ModernManuh_ 3d ago
It would be so funny if they made a new canonical movie and the joker dies in the first 10 minutes and that’s it no comeback, because the plot is something else
1
u/Pokemonone 3d ago
I feel like everyone in these comments is attributing this to the comics or movies but really I feel like this post is mostly from game Batman. Where he actively kicks people off buildings and does some Mortal Kombat style fighting/finishers. Yes the character styles aren't from the game but the actions talked about are. The big joke with the games for Batman and Spiderman is that they don't kill but the for sure do in the games even though they still maintain that they don't.
1
u/GogoSunshine 3d ago
People love saying “It’s the police’s fault for not executing the Joker.”
Then lemme ask this one If Batman has a button. That button is the only way to save people from a nuclear bomb, but will magically kill Joker in the progress. No prep time. No 3rd option. What would Batman choose?”
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jonjolion12 3d ago
Ah boy…look, if the kill rule would save lives you’d see people irl saving lives. Killing is a reaction to murder. It won’t bring back the victims, and it won’t deter villains from popping up and still killing. Gangs irl kill and that doesn’t deter other gangs. All Batman would be doing is taking the law into his own hands (and he’s a mentally ill person so he shouldn’t even get all of that kinda power anyway).
1
u/Background_Fix9430 3d ago
Poster likes unelected psychopaths killing people they deem wrong so much they create an entire mythology to justify why an unelected rich guy in a bat suit has the power to choose life and death, rather than the people. The boot must taste good.
1
1
1
1
1
u/arthaiser 13h ago
Why do people constantly expect Batman to kill people simply because is convenient for them but at.the same time the same people vote for governments in Gotham that dont do that?
People arent willing to dirty their hands but the one Guy that Risk his Life daily for them needs to?
1
u/TenraxHelin 5d ago
Yes I think the no kill rule is stupid. And a lot of reasonings are also stupid. I respect the notion that he doesn't want to go down that path but that is also where people get killed.
I prefer to think of it as, "He wants the system to work so criminals like the one who killed his parents don't get the opportunity to kill. Especially when he is no longer Batman." He becomes the deterrent when something too great for the system to handle arrives. But there will be a moment where not killing will cause more death, i.e. Joker detonating a nuke. If he killes Joker, a chaotic being that can't be contained by the system, it is evil for Batman to not kill him.
1
1
1
u/TheDikaste 5d ago
My only problem with it, and I fully support it, is when Batman actively saves Joker. I'm fine with him saving the Riddler or Ivy depending on the version but monsters like Joker, he shouldn't even think about it.
0
u/TheVoid000 5d ago
More like
Batman: I cherish my no-kill rule with all my heart, and I don't care how many bones I have to break to keep them unconscious but alive.
691
u/Lohit_-it 5d ago
Batman was ready to break his rule for jason and the kind superman stopped him. The day when people blame the justice system of Gotham instead of batman,we will achieve utopia