The 'no kill' stuff just doesn't make sense...

I’ve always found it strange that most police in Batman will sooner use lethal force on him then any criminal. I mean I don’t recall a single bullet being fired at Joker but my giddy aunt was Batman hunting season open.

Anyways, I definitely agree; the no killing policy works great when it applies to everyone (heroes, villains and civilians) but as soon as the body count starts ramping up it changes the tone of the movie/show to have a very odd feeling to it.

Now I do understand why Batman doesn’t kill and I honestly prefer it that way (after all we have Jason Todd if we need a killing Batman) but I just find this universe works best when no one dies (BTAS) or the only ones getting caught in the crossfire are the underbelly (Under the Red Hood).


-Warning living may cause death-

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of Batman, but originally he did carry a handgun in his first adventures. This was before the Comics Code authority stepped in to censor their products before the government did so, instituting that if children red these comics and there were superheroes they looked up to they couldn't be murdering their foes left and right. Then came his "no gun" policy, which was the next logical step. True, Batman does use a sniper rifle in Part 1 for a grappling line and in one scene he shot a Mutant in the hand to save a child from a hostage situation. The Batmobile uses rubber bullets on the Mutant gang and that doesn't exactly qualify. When asked by the revived Jason Todd in Under the Red Hood why he hadn't taken The Joker out yet in those 5 years since his death, Batman replied "It would be too easy. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place, I'll never come back."

Let me try to explain some of the things that may be a little murky.

In Part 2 with The Joker, it was said he had murdered up to 600 people before but that wasn't all at once. The people in this altered universe have more liberal views on criminal punishment and those reflect on even the name of the place in which Batman's regular rogue's gallery is sent to in renaming it from the "Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane" to the "Arkham Home for the Emotionally Troubled". After Batman retired ten years prior, The Joker simply gave up on life and became catatonic, refusing to even eat as seen in Part 1 where orderlies have to feed him. There's a line from Batman: The Animated Series where The Joker believes someone has killed Batman besides him and he realizes it might be true when a heist produces no Dark Knight to swoop in and stop him. He says "Without Batman, crime has no punchline." This line somewhat sums up his lack of activity in those 10 years Batman retired until he dons the costume again. When he finally snaps out of it again, Dr. Wolper is amazed to see one of his patients is doing so well with the failure of Harvey Dent's treatment. He sees the oppertunity to make up for his damaged reputation in the media's eyes and is easily duped by The Joker when he feigns remorse. As to leaving the institution, it was only a day pass and only if Dr. Wolper was accompaning him at all times. Although if you know the character, he's a master manipulator and turned Wolper's ego against himself so I'm with you on that.

The confrontation on the rooftop of the televison studio with Batman and the Gotham Police is a little harder to defend, but there are a few things that give him an edge. As he first swoops down, one of the officers remarks "He can fly!" and seems frightened of the costume-clad warrior. You have to take into account that Batman wasn't opperating in 10 years and some police have retired, newer members joined the force and this officer might've been a child when he was still active and looked up to him. Now what would you feel when your hero comes swooping down from out of nowhere in the night to attack YOU? Another officer responds when told to rush him by Commissioner Yindel "Rush him?" and she retorts "He's twice your age! Find the nerve!" as if to say he's scared of the guy, which he definitley is. Batman tosses smoke grenades, attacks from blind spots, uses his speed, and the officers are told to arrest him on that rooftop and not to kill him at first. As for the First Blood novel and movie comparisons, I never read the novel and can't speak to that but I'll take your word for it. The difference with Batman is he's trying to do exactly what the police are doing but knows if he allows them to do their job, they will just wind up getting hurt or killed and since he's done this song and dance with The Joker before he's the best one to bring him in. So the issue isn't that Batman is a hero and therefore cannot kill police officers, it's that he is trying to perform the same duties as they are just with different means. Afterall, he's called "The World's Greatest Detective".

Batman and Joker battling in the amusement park pushes him to the limit of his self-control, as seen when he doesn't even try to talk him down and immediately tosses a batarang at Joker's head then batarangs into his shoulders and eye when Joker is holding Carrie Kelley's friend hostage in their first encounter. The Joker asks "Are you out of your MIND?" and Batman then says "I'm through playing, Joker" very coldly as if he is ready to do whatever it takes to stop the Clown Prince of Crime. Yes, Batman does truly feel every death that Joker committed as partly his fault, as shown in the brutality of his fighting tactics against the maniac. In the Tunnel of Love where Batman breaks The Joker's neck just enough to paralize him but not kill, those people you are talking about I don't believe Joker had shot at those people who later run off after he slumps down. But yes, Batman does get ratted out which I thought was a dick move by that couple. Either that or the police would've just come to the conclusion on their own that since Batman's still alive and Joker wasn't, that logically Batman had killed him and not that Joker broke his own neck to frame him. The reason for the national guard and Superman being called in to put an end to Batman's vigilante activity if you watched closely wasn't made until after the nuke was set off and Batman brought order to Gotham with the Sons of Batman, the Mutant gang remnants and the other citizens he rallied. He embarrassment the government and the president's administration where in other cities that were effected by the blackout they were unable to keep the peace. Superman more or less states earlier that the Justice League was broken up and told to cease activity because of those same facts: brused egos and embarrassment on part of the government for notdbeing able to provide the same security the Justice League did.

Sorry if that was a little heavy on the eyes or I over-explained things, just wanted my points to get across. The movie, like you said, did have it's problems but was very faithful to the source material and it is one of the best if not THE best Batman animated movie I've seen. Again, you have to remember it was a satire as well as trying to reimagine Batman as a more kick-ass and brooding character than he had been at the time. Hope this helps some to clear up issues you may have had with the movies.

No... not even close. Batman can't kill. He was traumatized as boy. Death to him is like a claustrophobic person being buried alive in a coffin. When Todd asked him why he didn't kill the Joker after he thought the Joker killed him, Batman painfully admits "I... I can't".

Bruce WANTS to kill but he just can't overcome the trauma he suffered as a boy.

You want realism? Please go outside and kill a few bad guys, let's see if the police doesn't chase you.

Batman's code against killing distinguishes him from his inspirations from the pulp magazines such as the Shadow and the Spider. It also gives him a more solid morality than Marvel's Punisher. As it stands, we have seen stories where Bruce compromises his principles enough so that he allows events to turn deadly when he might have prevented it (as in a Batman comic from the 1980s when two violent gangs engage in a shoot-out in a warehouse filled with explosives resulting in the deaths of everyone present).

Apparently Batman's fear is that if he allows himself even a single exception, even just to kill the Joker, he will open the door to abandoning his priciples completely. We have seen that Batman is capable of using firearmes when he is firing at an object and not a human being. We have even seen Miller's Batman resort to machine guns using rubber bullets, which are less lethal but can still kill at close range or with a lucky hit to a particularly vulnerable area (such as the temple).

"You seem familiar with my name, but I don't remember smelling you before."

I have to agree. Not using lethal force to stop a slow motion mass murder just doesn't make any sense. At some point, it is us or him, and anybody who really cares about saving people is going to choose us. "No killing under any circumstances" only works in kid's shows.

Aww, a butthurt child decides to go on a rant, let's see what the child has to say shall we? And you're a waste of oxygen. XD No, batman does not kill anyone because of a moral panic that happened in the real world. In universe, yes, he believes killing people is wrong, and that makes him immoral for the reasons I stated. The end. See how platitudes work? Go watch My Little Pony instead. Change is not my intention, the intention was criticism when a particular piece of fiction fails to suspend disbelief. Your brain cells popped long before you ever came here son. Thank you come again.

The entire point is that Batman is the good guy, and refuses to sink to the level of criminals. He could kill, but that goes against everything he wants to stand for. He has to be better than them. Killing, even if the purpose is "noble", crosses the line. If he kills, then what gives him to right to judge others for the same crime?