Comics in which Batman kills

[thecolorsblend]

^That first example came from No Man's Land, where we see Batman returning to Gotham City and saves Alfred. I must admit, when I first saw this image, I initially thought he deflected the rock with his hand and threw at the crook behind him because of the way he folded his arm as he ducked under. At best, the incident was a result of collateral damage.

While we're on the subject, I saw this tweet by a novelist called Andrew Shvarts on his thoughts over Batman's moral code:

Batman's refusal to kill (and magical ability to never do so) is a narrative cheat to allow readers the thrill of brutal vigilantism while avoiding any moral recrimination or complexity

Source: https://twitter.com/Shvartacus/status/1133410269034475527

Ignoring the fact this thread has many examples of Batman killing in the comics, I think Shvarts is onto something here. While I prefer Batman stories to choose whether or not Batman kills and stick with it unless it has reasonable character development behind it, a lot of people really don't want to be faced with a story where Batman's conduct and morality comes into question. This is despite the fact that Batman's conduct is highly dangerous and life-threatening enough even without killing people directly, as Shvarts alludes to.

Tons of these fans praise Batman for being a "grounded" character, but then they expect him to find a way out of situations that are anything but realistic. Even worse is their hypocrisies when they deny Batman kills someone whenever it's convenient. No wonder paying lip service to certain ideals resonates so much to people. As long as the hero says something that sounds righteous and doesn't really sound like he's painting himself in a bad light no matter what he does, it helps them enjoy the story better. It's simply not intellectually honest.

But even putting that aside, from a realistic point of view, Batman can't afford to avoid using lethal force. Whether it's in self-defense, or saving mass-murderers from the greater good. It's simply not practical. Sure, it's a nice sentiment for Batman to have by saying "But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place, I'll never come back" in the animated Under the Red Hood movie, but if you think about it too much from a logical point of view instead of an emotional one, it doesn't add up. I enjoy the story otherwise as comic book fiction, but it's hardly as enthralling as a character arc you'd see in Batman's journey in, say, BvS.

People, both fans and writers, need to be more consistent with what they want with the character.

I have to agree with much of this. Particularly the "magical ability to never kill". Batman is trained in deadly forms of combat. Some people are tougher than others. Some of the strikes Batman uses on perps would be fatal if used against certain types of people. Batman might not intend to take their lives but if he were to strike somebody with too much force or simply hit somebody who is already weak to begin with... yeah, they're goners.

Still, I can add a tiny bit of nuance here that what Batman is ultimately trying to protect himself from is a desire to kill. I think a no-kill Batman would be okay with it if perps died because of his actions but in spite of his intentions. I think he's able to compartmentalize that easily. What I think Batman fears is intentionally taking human life. Because I think he knows he'd enjoy it. Ego suggested that much.

However literally one wants to interpret it, the "bat-demon" tells Bruce that the real reason he doesn't intentionally kill is because he understands he wouldn't be able to stop once he got started. Just once would be enough.

Yes yes yes, different writers have different perspectives so that angle doesn't line up with other comics. And that's fine. I'm just throwing it out there.

[The Dark Knight]

The throwing of a punch is not something to do flippantly. I encourage everyone to control themselves and walk away, no matter how hard that may be. The consequences are just too great. The reality is that it only takes one punch to kill someone. It's usually the head hitting the ground that does the job. Batman operates in a world of constant combat given he's dealing with criminals, so the law of averages suggests he has crippled people and made others expired vegetables.

[Sktchwlkr]

I don't have anything new to add but I wanted to swing by and let you all know that I appreciate the research and dedication everyone here has put into this list. When BvS hit theaters, I put my entire understanding of the character under a microscope especially his rule because I felt there was something I wasn't getting. In my search I found this list and it's changed my entire view of that aspect of the character. At this point I believe his rule is "no murder" not "no killing" considering both are very different. If he kills defensively, he's not breaking any sort of rules.

I'm not sure if this is cool with you guys or not but every single time I see myself in a discussion regarding "Batman never kills" I always share a link to this page and 9 times out of 10 they don't have much to say after...so I may be one reason why some people are seeing this...but I think they should.

I don't know whether this has been asked or not, I've only glanced at most of this thread,  but when did this "Batman never kills" misunderstanding take shape? Did it really hit the fan with the TDK trilogy?

Anyways, great work everyone.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't have anything new to add but I wanted to swing by and let you all know that I appreciate the research and dedication everyone here has put into this list. When BvS hit theaters, I put my entire understanding of the character under a microscope especially his rule because I felt there was something I wasn't getting. In my search I found this list and it's changed my entire view of that aspect of the character. At this point I believe his rule is "no murder" not "no killing" considering both are very different. If he kills defensively, he's not breaking any sort of rules.

I'm not sure if this is cool with you guys or not but every single time I see myself in a discussion regarding "Batman never kills" I always share a link to this page and 9 times out of 10 they don't have much to say after...so I may be one reason why some people are seeing this...but I think they should.

I don't know whether this has been asked or not, I've only glanced at most of this thread,  but when did this "Batman never kills" misunderstanding take shape? Did it really hit the fan with the TDK trilogy?

It got pretty ugly after each of Nolan's films, tbh. He took life through passive as well as direct means in each film and that was greeted with some considerable controversy.

For my part, the existence of Batman implies the need for him to act extra-judicially in eradicating threats to Gotham. By any means necessary. On the one hand, death is not an appropriate punishment to dole out to purse-snatchers. And Comic Book Batman knows that. But on the other hand, you're hard-pressed to argue that Comic Book Joker, for example, hasn't earned his own execution a thousand times over.

Now, Comic Book Bruce claims to want to be better than his own enemies... while knowing that he's lying. Dick, Tim, Babs and all the rest buy that because, when the chips are down, they don't REALLY know Bruce. Nobody does, imo.

But my take is that Bruce knows that if he ever willfully takes human life, he's DONE. Forever. The bat-demon in his soul will consume him and he'll be a blood-thirsty murderer for all eternity, always looking for his next victim. And he knows the time will come when he doesn't care about his next victim's guilt or innocence anymore. He will need to fill his thirst for murder using whoever he can get his hands on. The victim's guilt will be a non-issue for him by that point.

To avoid that fate, I believe that Bruce has struck a bizarre internal balance. He has tamed the bat-demon, at least to the point where he can using the darkness in his own soul to bring justice to the guilty. But he has to protect his soul with great care because he's One Bad Day away from becoming a monster far worse than ANY of his rogue's gallery. He constantly maintains a very tenuous compromise with himself. And that delicate balance becomes endangered every single time he puts on the mask. But normalcy was never an option for Bruce, now was it?

Like I say, Bruce's allies mostly buy that. "We have to be better than our enemies" and similar nonsense. They accept that BS at face value. And that's precious! Gordon, Dick, Tim, Babs and all the rest are Bruce's insurance policy against himself. I think it's important that Bruce has intentionally surrounded himself with people who will take him down if he ever goes too far. If he ever has One Bad Day, they will be able to put him down for good. They don't realize it but that's probably the only reason Bruce keeps them around, I suspect.

I will never write a Batman comic book. But if I ever do, that will pretty much be my take on the character.

[Travesty]

I just look at Batman like a cop. They have guns that the State issues them, and sometimes they have to use that to kill people, but at the end of the day, they're not knocking on doors shooting random people, or even using it in all situations. It's more for defense. So if Batman kills in defense, I don't see a problem with it, but if he plans out a murder, then it starts crossing the line. Which was the entire point of his character in BvS, lol.

[The Dark Knight]

I just look at Batman like a cop. They have guns that the State issues them, and sometimes they have to use that to kill people, but at the end of the day, they're not knocking on doors shooting random people, or even using it in all situations. It's more for defense. So if Batman kills in defense, I don't see a problem with it, but if he plans out a murder, then it starts crossing the line. Which was the entire point of his character in BvS, lol.

I pretty much agree. The purpose of Batman as a crimefighter, first and foremost, is becoming a terrible thought to gangs. If he doesn't have that mystique he cannot operate effectively because he will be considered weak. That's the tightrope Batman must walk in comparison to super powered heroes. Therefore the intensity of his combat must be consistent, which raises the likelihood of collateral damage.

Generally speaking Batman is content with scaring people and breaking bones. The wrestle is maintaining his humanity from the Bat Demon, as colors puts it, which is also brilliantly communicated in Ego. He has to be both Bruce Wayne and Batman, even if the Batman persona is dominant. He's a scary thought to the underworld but a symbol of good to the public.

[Sktchwlkr]

I just look at Batman like a cop. They have guns that the State issues them, and sometimes they have to use that to kill people, but at the end of the day, they're not knocking on doors shooting random people, or even using it in all situations. It's more for defense. So if Batman kills in defense, I don't see a problem with it, but if he plans out a murder, then it starts crossing the line. Which was the entire point of his character in BvS, lol.

I completely agree Travesty. This is exactly my thoughts to. I think if the fanbase had more of this thinking, there may be less tension and scrutinizing of Batman's actions.

[thecolorsblend]

I completely agree Travesty. This is exactly my thoughts to. I think if the fanbase had more of this thinking, there may be less tension and scrutinizing of Batman's actions.

I'm inclined to the belief that a diversity of viewpoints about the character is what makes everything interesting.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm not sure if this is cool with you guys or not but every single time I see myself in a discussion regarding "Batman never kills" I always share a link to this page and 9 times out of 10 they don't have much to say after...so I may be one reason why some people are seeing this...but I think they should.

Welcome to the forum. I've seen some people sharing this thread elsewhere and even making a similar list of examples online around the internet, so you're definitely not alone in that regard. I suspect more people are slowly waking up and acknowledging "Batman NEVER kills" is a myth, but not nearly fast enough.

I don't know whether this has been asked or not, I've only glanced at most of this thread,  but when did this "Batman never kills" misunderstanding take shape? Did it really hit the fan with the TDK trilogy?

If you're asking if the myth took shape because of TDK trilogy paying lip service to the rule, then yes, I'd say that's true. The thing is, Nolan presented those kills in a way that people were encouraged to find a loophole and overlook Batman's responsibility for his actions, which made them feel comfortable in ignoring such inconsistencies. The other film versions didn't do that. You have to acknowledge that Batman kills. It doesn't matter if there is a narrative point behind it, people will tend to reject it if it doesn't make them feel good, or lacks some heroic sounding monologue to accompany the course of action.

Combine this with revisionist history over Batman killing in the comics, as well as ignorance and pure dishonesty being contributing factors, you get this misinformation getting big as it got.

But another factor I'd like to point out: you know how you distinguish the difference between murdering and killing? I notice most people aren't able to do that. They persistent in their argument against the character from killing at all costs, but fail to apply that criteria among their favourite interpretations. This proves that they failed to think any of this through.

As I said before, more people are beginning to wake up. But this misinformation should never have gotten this strong in the first place.

It got pretty ugly after each of Nolan's films, tbh. He took life through passive as well as direct means in each film and that was greeted with some considerable controversy.

You know very well there was hardly any controversy. Aside from some commenters complaining about it on a small internet forum, the vast majority of people swept the Nolan kills under the rug. While still having to nerve to complain about the other versions for killing, directly or otherwise.

I completely agree Travesty. This is exactly my thoughts to. I think if the fanbase had more of this thinking, there may be less tension and scrutinizing of Batman's actions.

I'm inclined to the belief that a diversity of viewpoints about the character is what makes everything interesting.

Only if those viewpoints are informed. Unfortunately, a lot of people on the internet aren't as knowledgeable about the character as they think they are. The same thing goes for Superman.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've been reading JSA: The Tenth Circle, it's about the Justice League investigating an ancient vampire cult that emerged thousands of years after they were beaten by the Amazons and found another example of Batman killing. This time he stabs a vampire monster to death.