Comics in which Batman kills

[The Dark Knight]

But the film does indicate Batman has only recently snapped, using harsher methods. If he ran into The Joker during BvS, Ol' Jokey would have bought it. No doubt. I'm sure the code went out the window after Superman arrived. The good man turned cruel. And the dream sequence doesn't count in my eyes....because it's a dream sequence.

[Travesty]

But the film does indicate Batman has only recently snapped, using harsher methods. If he ran into The Joker during BvS, Ol' Jokey would have bought it. No doubt. I'm sure the code went out the window after Superman arrived. The good man turned cruel. And the dream sequence doesn't count in my eyes....because it's a dream sequence.

Those Doritos comics that were tied with BvS touched on this. There was some random thug who said something along the lines of "Batman was never this bad before".

Maybe I'll try to find the panel later?

[The Dark Knight]

But the film does indicate Batman has only recently snapped, using harsher methods. If he ran into The Joker during BvS, Ol' Jokey would have bought it. No doubt. I'm sure the code went out the window after Superman arrived. The good man turned cruel. And the dream sequence doesn't count in my eyes....because it's a dream sequence.

Those Doritos comics that were tied with BvS touched on this. There was some random thug who said something along the lines of "Batman was never this bad before".

Maybe I'll try to find the panel later?

Yeah, I remember that one. I bet it's still not enough for the hater brigade. They've already made their mind up. That's what happens when you get on a negative train of thought. You ignore anything and everything because 'it sucks man'.

[Travesty]

Well, here it is, just in case people were wanting to see it:

[The Laughing Fish]

At best, I prefer Batman to only kill when necessary. Something like walling-up KGBeast or pushing Harvey over the edge in The Dark Knight.

I wouldn't have such a huge problem with Batman killing Two-Face...if he didn't spend the entire movie beforehand telling Joker he has a no-kill policy and endangered the entire city by refusing to kill him. That, together that he killed Ra's al Ghul because "he was trying to kill millions of innocent people", as he explained to Talia in TDKR, makes the whole "moral dilemma" against the Joker even more pointless. It's so mind-boggling and infuriating.

But going back to what I said earlier; "when someone is too heinous to live" fits my expectations of Batman killing. This presents us a problem in the comics (and now the DCCU). The Joker must die. I don't care what kind of reasons they've cooked up over the years, but there's no good reason for me why Batman hasn't done it. If they had never written stories like A Death in the Family or The Killing Joke and Joker was still a mere occasional killer, I might let it slide. But since the 1980s they've been making him more and more horrible. His entire goal has now become 'raising his body count'... and that's it. It makes for a great story, but it's unfulfilling when Batman lets him live; by doing that, he's guaranteeing more deaths. In the real world, it's because DC doesn't want to lose that character, I get that.

I don't know. I think Batman looks like a putz when he lets someone as horrible as The Joker live. Even somebody like Mr. Zasaz doesn't irk me so bad--he's not as good at breaking out of Arkham. He's a less frequent threat. The other villains, generally, have other motivations; murder is not their main goal but it's something they might do. The Joker, these days, only wants to murder innocents. It's a bit much.

I absolutely agree. It's a problem I've had with a lot of modern comics. It depends on how the writers approach the story. By making it darker, it risks coming at the expense of the hero being unheroic, if that makes sense. In The Dark Knight's case, the writers wanted to enforce a moral conflict between Batman and the Joker, which didn't ring true after everything that Batman did to the other villains before and after. In other media, Batman tends to enforce his moral code consistently, which is fine. But once a story keeps emphasizing that the villains are deviant serial killers who are guaranteed to escape and do harm to innocent people again, you begin to question Batman and lose empathy for him.

It's a huge problem I had with Superman vs The Elite. In that film, Superman faced a conflict where traditional moral values are being challenged by another group of anti-heroes, who are secretly cold-blooded killers. They took advantage of a situation where they killed Atomic Skull after he had escaped from prison and begins another massacre, much to Superman's disapproval. As manipulative and corrupt as the Elite were, I couldn't help but see where they were coming from when they declared that the only situation to destroy all pure evil is to destroy it. Superman knew very well that Atomic Skull was a murderer and would seek to kill again and again, and yet he still abides his belief that the greater good is found in everyone. It reached a point where I found Superman to be morally irresponsible, and that's something I don't want in a comic book story.

It's all about treatment. If writers want to have Batman, Superman or whoever else to face up against deranged killers, they need to tread carefully when it comes to the ramifications of the damage they bring.

But the film does indicate Batman has only recently snapped, using harsher methods. If he ran into The Joker during BvS, Ol' Jokey would have bought it. No doubt. I'm sure the code went out the window after Superman arrived. The good man turned cruel. And the dream sequence doesn't count in my eyes....because it's a dream sequence.

Whether that sequence was a dream or an alternate reality, I honestly don't care if Batman resorts to using guns at the moment. Why? Because the world appeared to be in apocalyptic ruin and the odds are totally stacked against him. As soon as Batman was double-crossed, he was already outnumbered by stormtroopers and his own troops were shot to death. Either he surrenders easily and faces an instant death sentence, or fights back to survive as best as he can. If it means taking up guns, then so be it.

[Dagenspear]

Yeah, I remember that one. I bet it's still not enough for the hater brigade. They've already made their mind up. That's what happens when you get on a negative train of thought. You ignore anything and everything because 'it sucks man'.

Why would something that's not in the movie change their minds about the movie?

I wouldn't have such a huge problem with Batman killing Two-Face...if he didn't spend the entire movie beforehand telling Joker he has a no-kill policy and endangered the entire city by refusing to kill him. That, together that he killed Ra's al Ghul because "he was trying to kill millions of innocent people", as he explained to Talia in TDKR, makes the whole "moral dilemma" against the Joker even more pointless. It's so mind-boggling and infuriating.

He didn't kill Ra's. So, that line, if it's meant to imply that he did, is wrong. And him killing Harvey was an accident. Batman's never in a position in TDK where him killing the Joker to save someone is a consequence.

I absolutely agree. It's a problem I've had with a lot of modern comics. It depends on how the writers approach the story. By making it darker, it risks coming at the expense of the hero being unheroic, if that makes sense. In The Dark Knight's case, the writers wanted to enforce a moral conflict between Batman and the Joker, which didn't ring true after everything that Batman did to the other villains before and after. In other media, Batman tends to enforce his moral code consistently, which is fine. But once a story keeps emphasizing that the villains are deviant serial killers who are guaranteed to escape and do harm to innocent people again, you begin to question Batman and lose empathy for him.

It's a huge problem I had with Superman vs The Elite. In that film, Superman faced a conflict where traditional moral values are being challenged by another group of anti-heroes, who are secretly cold-blooded killers. They took advantage of a situation where they killed Atomic Skull after he had escaped from prison and begins another massacre, much to Superman's disapproval. As manipulative and corrupt as the Elite were, I couldn't help but see where they were coming from when they declared that the only situation to destroy all pure evil is to destroy it. Superman knew very well that Atomic Skull was a murderer and would seek to kill again and again, and yet he still abides his belief that the greater good is found in everyone. It reached a point where I found Superman to be morally irresponsible, and that's something I don't want in a comic book story.

It's all about treatment. If writers want to have Batman, Superman or whoever else to face up against deranged killers, they need to tread carefully when it comes to the ramifications of the damage they bring.

No, I'm sorry. People aren't responsible for the actions of others because they didn't stop them at some point before. Have a very great day both of you!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

It makes me wonder if there shouldn't be loose guidelines to Batman taking life. So far, the common denominators appear to be:

01- The result of collateral damage- The result of a domino effect (ie, confounding Two-Face in BF so that he loses his balance and falls).
02- No malice aforethought- Death cannot be the intended outcome; only a possible outcome (ie, knocking Two-Face off a building to save Gordon's son in TDK, which wasn't necessarily a guaranteed fatality).
03- Defense- Malice aforethought to save lives (ie, dropping Ray Charles down a belfry to save Vicki in B89).
04- Heinousness- Malice aforethought for hopeless cases (ie, the comic Joker's sole purpose is to kill; Batman's doing society a favor by killing him).

These are harder for all writers at all times in all places to rationalize. It's more complicated and isn't so easily reduced to "I don't kill". These rules aren't really soundbyte-friendly.

These are even harder for readers to contextualize. Most people are blithering idiots. The more nuanced and layered something is, the fewer people will understand it.

So hmm.

[The Dark Knight]

My guidelines are simple.

The situation always dictates your response.

[Travesty]

Damn, this is one of my favorite threads on this forum, and all of the panels are gone. Re-upload?

[Silver Nemesis]

Damn, this is one of my favorite threads on this forum, and all of the panels are gone. Re-upload?

Done.

Here are a few more.

In The Dark Knight Strikes Again (2001-2002) – quite possibly the single worst Batman comic ever written – the captive Bruce Wayne tells Lex Luthor "I'm just here to make sure you get killed."

Bruce then allows his captor to torture him in order to distract Luthor long enough for Hawkboy to arrive, whereupon Batman gleefully informs Lex "you're about to die".

Hawkboy crushes Luthor's skull and Batman expresses his delight, much to the Flash's disdain.

Bruce later takes credit for Luthor's fate and confirms that he orchestrated his death.

At the end of this story Batman kills Dick Grayson by knocking him into a pool of lava.

In 'Fire & Ice' (Batman: Gotham Knights Vol 1 #59, January 2005) Batman uses a henchman as a human shield against Mr Freeze's gun.

Batman then shatters the frozen goon in order to free his own hands from the ice.

In 'A Rush of Blood' (Batman: The Dark Knight Vol 2 #2, December 2011) Batman confronts one of the Joker's henchmen on the roof of a train. Batman is facing the direction the train is heading and sees an oncoming bridge that is about to hit the henchman in the back. The Dark Knight makes no attempt to warn or save the hapless goon, but instead stands by and watches as he is killed.

Since many of the comics listed in this thread aren't canon anyway, I wonder if it might be as well to start including examples from Elseworlds books. There are many, many examples of Batman killing in those stories. Their addition to this list would help keep the thread going. And with over 57,000 views (!) it does seem to be a popular subject.