Is Batman a murderer?

[DocLathropBrown]

But if he's doing it to take down a factory that is killing people then is it? People who hate this Batman say that it is murder because he didn't call the cops or take care of it another way. The movie had dictated up to that point that the Joker and his men would fire on site. It was established they couldn't be "arrested" and that in order to stop them you'd have to take them by force.

I just wonder what the alternative was supposed to be. You could call the cops, who are corrupt. But what are they going to do? Are they going to go into the factory and have another shoot out? Because we know what happens when they yell "freeze". I figured it was Batman taking measures into his own hands on an extreme level, trying to insure not another innocent soul was lost. He was gonna blow up that factory no matter who was in it in order to save lives.

Basically it says in the castle doctrine that the right to defend someone else can extend beyond your own property. Batman is defending the public from a group of terrorizers who are leaving a pile of bodies everywhere they go. Is it not perfectly acceptable to kill these people if that's what it takes to stop them from killing? As a citizen who is aware of a crime in progress, is it not his right to take necessary measures to stop the crime from happening?

I guess I could entertain the idea of manslaughter charges or reckless endangerment and such, but those are lower end homicide charges. I know I'm repeating some points here but I am just perplexed at how so many people equate this with murder. If people are killing people, how is it murder if you kill them in the process of stopping them from continuing to do so?

Well, don't mistake us for anti-Burton people... we're debating the merits, but it comes down to a case of "how would the prosecution deem this?" That's the full-stop question, since self-defense has many times been charged as murder and twisted by prosecution. Batman would face this kind of debate if he were sought after by a hardline anti-vigilante prosecutor.

None of us disagree with what Batman does in the film(s), but if you ask us a question like this, we'll really answer it, question it, analyze it. I know most people wouldn't give it real thought--just call him a murderer and be done with it--but not we. It's obvious that Batman's doing the right thing... but with the law, 'obvious' doesn't exist when lawyers are involved.

[thecolorsblend]

But if he's doing it to take down a factory that is killing people then is it? People who hate this Batman say that it is murder because he didn't call the cops or take care of it another way. The movie had dictated up to that point that the Joker and his men would fire on site. It was established they couldn't be "arrested" and that in order to stop them you'd have to take them by force.

I just wonder what the alternative was supposed to be. You could call the cops, who are corrupt. But what are they going to do? Are they going to go into the factory and have another shoot out? Because we know what happens when they yell "freeze". I figured it was Batman taking measures into his own hands on an extreme level, trying to insure not another innocent soul was lost. He was gonna blow up that factory no matter who was in it in order to save lives.

Basically it says in the castle doctrine that the right to defend someone else can extend beyond your own property. Batman is defending the public from a group of terrorizers who are leaving a pile of bodies everywhere they go. Is it not perfectly acceptable to kill these people if that's what it takes to stop them from killing? As a citizen who is aware of a crime in progress, is it not his right to take necessary measures to stop the crime from happening?

I guess I could entertain the idea of manslaughter charges or reckless endangerment and such, but those are lower end homicide charges. I know I'm repeating some points here but I am just perplexed at how so many people equate this with murder. If people are killing people, how is it murder if you kill them in the process of stopping them from continuing to do so?

I'm arguing that there was a legal basis for pursuing him if anybody was inclined to do so. We all know that there's no jury in the world that would've convicted Batman ("he blew up a factory producing WMD's and he killed a would-be mass murderer? What's the problem exactly? Shouldn't we give him a medal?") but that isn't the issue. Theoretically the DA's office would have cause to pursue him.

[Batmoney]

Yes I agree on the potential for manslaughter charges or something of that nature. I guess I just don't see how they could even pursue a murder charge so I don't understand why people label him as a murderer. He's a killer, but I don't see the murder. I see the potential for other charges maybe.