Is Batman a murderer?

[Batmoney]

I have done a bunch of legal research. First I should note that law is not my first language or anything.

Anyway, from what I have concluded, nothing Batman has ever done in 89 is murder. People tell me all the time he is a murderer but when I looked up the law in regards to murder, citizen's arrests and even the castle doctrine, I don't understand why it is murder. I think some people are just convinced it's murder because to, for example, blow up axis chemicals with those men inside at a moment where they are not shooting at you makes it murder. But according to the research I've done I don't think that's true.

I want to get opinions on this as it is impossible to have logical discussions with people on places like imdb for example where basically anything Burton did was crap and anything Nolan did was great and therefore 89 Batman has to be a murderer etc.

I was just wondering, can anyone make a more clear legal argument that Batman isn't a murderer? I'd make mine but I've made it a million times so I wanna hear other opinions. In my researched legal opinion, he is definitely NOT a murderer. I find anyone who thinks he's a murderer is hellbent and stuck on one idea, and doesn't seem to even entertain all the legal reasons why he is not. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

Please, would love some thoughts on this.

[Paul (ral)]

He may be perceived as a murderer by the law...but then the law in Gotham is corrupt.

You could say he was at war when he blew up Axis. The Joker had a army -evidenced by the goons having ranking marks (in the form of playing cards) on their arms. Batman is a one man army!

If we read further, the GCPD was incapacitated and so Batman had to act in defence of the city.

The shootings from the Batwing were a further extension of protecting the public...the Joker was gassing and firing upon the crowds. An acceptable level of force IMO.

Before these events Batman never kills. I'm not going to say it was all in defence of the city...once Bruce connects Napier to his parents murder the gloves are off -so to speak.

[DocLathropBrown]

Let's take it case by case...

#1. Johnny Gobbs - No proof, so it's entirely up to the imagination. But since Batman doesn't try to kill Nick and Eddie, I have to assume Gobbs freaked out and fell off a roof while trying to escape Batman.

#2. Jack Naiper - He is quite clearly trying to save him. The entire reason he went to Axis was to help the police apprehend Naiper, so he didn't intentionally drop him.

#3. Axis Goons - This is where we get into shaky territory. They are firing upon the Batmobile... but he's not inside the car so it doesn't count as self-defense. I would say, technically, it's murder. But hey--a fitting end for their kind.

#4. Goons at Parade - He blows them away with the Batwing machine guns... even if he is trying to blow up the floats to deflate any more Joker surprises (as per the novelization), he doesn't care about filling the thugs full of lead. Same as the Axis Goons, it's technical murder. But hey, Bats does the same thing in TDKR to the guy driving the truck carrying the bomb. He flat-out blows the driver full of lead with The Bat's machine guns. Fair is fair. 

#5. The Joker - He doesn't get him this way due to malfunction, but he does indeed aim squarely for the Joker with machine guns and missiles. He definitely tries to murder him. But is murdering a known killer who will kill again the kind of case a D.A. can successfully prosecute? Arguable.

#6. Belltower thug - Throwing the guy down the stairwell will surely kill him. So Batman does murder him--but it's totally in self-defense. The guy was out to murder him and Batman had no escape recourse.

#7. The Joker - He's actually only trying to keep the Joker there by tying him to the Gargoyle. Batman doesn't know it'll break away. I'd say that's a case of Involuntary Manslaughter.

#8. The Firebreather - Jumping over to Batman Returns, setting the Firebreather aflame is probably Attempted Murder, but the guy is clearly able to same himself by dropping and rolling... probably.

#9. The Strongman - Strapping a bomb to the guy? Yeah, again, Attempted Murder. Evne if the bomb wasn't big enough to do more than take a chunk out of him... it's a chunk that will lead to his death.

#10. The Penguin - Involuntary Manslaughter... if that. Batman only tricked him into being accosted by Bats.... he doesn't know that the Penguin will fall through the glass to his (eventual) death by falling trauma. Really, I don't think he could be convicted of it in court.

Wow. When I think about it, Batman hasn't killed as many people in the Burton films as even I thought. The only confirmed kills are the Strongman, the Cathedral goon, the Axis goons and the two or three guys you see get shot at the parade. And even then, the Axis Goons are not confirmed kills. A few probably died in the immediate explosion... but as you see when the Batmobile is driving out, the place is navigatable, so any who didn't die right when the Batmobile's bomb goes off, they could still get out.

#11. Two-Face - Slightly arguable... but it's pretty clearly murder. He knows Harvey will fall to his death when he throws the coins. Pretty cut and dry.

#12. Ra's Al Ghul - Criminal Negligence and possibly Manslaughter. Being able to save, but choosing not to? That's pretty bad. It makes sense if the guy can come back to life, but since he's mortal in BB? That's pretty harsh! Imagine if a cop left someone to die just because they didn't like them... wouldn't go over well.

#13. Harvey Dent - Involuntary Manslaughter. He had to do it to save Gordon's son, so even though he killed him, it was by proxy of trying to save a life.

#14. Truck Driver - Yeah, the one I mentioned earlier in TDKR. Flat-out murder. But for a good reason. When a bomb's gonna blow up the city, kill one person to save a city? you do it.

THere might be other murders in the Nolan films... but I don't know them as well off the top of my head.

[thecolorsblend]

#5. The Joker - He doesn't get him this way due to malfunction, but he does indeed aim squarely for the Joker with machine guns and missiles. He definitely tries to murder him. But is murdering a known killer who will kill again the kind of case a D.A. can successfully prosecute? Arguable.

He was attempting to kill people at that moment. I doubt charges would've even been filed if the Joker had been shot into spaghetti at that moment.

[The Dark Knight]

He may be perceived as a murderer by the law...but then the law in Gotham is corrupt.

You could say he was at war when he blew up Axis. The Joker had a army -evidenced by the goons having ranking marks (in the form of playing cards) on their arms. Batman is a one man army!

If we read further, the GCPD was incapacitated and so Batman had to act in defence of the city.

The shootings from the Batwing were a further extension of protecting the public...the Joker was gassing and firing upon the crowds. An acceptable level of force IMO.

Before these events Batman never kills. I'm not going to say it was all in defence of the city...once Bruce connects Napier to his parents murder the gloves are off -so to speak.

Solid post by the owner of this site. I like the angle taken here. It's very true. For example, when martial law is called it is legal to shoot looters to bring a volatile situation under control. That's what had to be done here. And really, that's all you could do. The enemy is heavily armed and lining the streets. Gas is pumping out too.

They're not going anywhere unless you bring it to them. If you have an aerial advantage where you don't have to engage them one on one, you use it. The war began at Axis Chemicals as Batman knew what was coming.

If he really did stay at home and wash his tights, it would've been all over red rover. 

The stuff in BR is handled in a ironic, fun way. A fire breather who gets a thrill burning children's toys ends up getting burnt himself. What goes around comes around. Batman put the guy down and moved on. Same thing with the strongman really. The thrill of a smug, brick wall of a man being put down with little effort, as evidenced with that wicked grin of Keaton's.

[Batmoney]

See, but what I mean is that I figure by what I've interpreted from the law, and from the castle doctrine which is a law that can be applied in some circumstances, that I don't think any of Batman's kills were murders. If he did them with vengeance and blood on the mind may be debatable, but in all instances, even with Axis, was he not essentially making a citizen's arrest, or acting as a citizen stopping a crime?

In the case of Axis, not only has it been established that Joker's men will fire on site, but they have tried to kill Batman. They have literally chased him down shooting at him. The police haven't taken care of Axis and these men who tried to kill him, and Batman technically doesn't know if his life is any longer in danger or not. On top of that, they are committing murders within the city with their chemicals and are striking often, and deadly at an unpredictable rate. It has been previously established that you will have to take them by force, you cannot arrest these men ("shoot to kill" or when the first cop says "freeze" what does Joker's man do? shoot). On top of that, based upon interpretations within variations of the castle doctrine, Batman also may have had the right to act on property that was not his, in which illegal acts were being committed. In this instance, murderous acts.

I am under the impression from the criminal code that if a crime is taking place, it is within your right as a citizen to take necessary action to stop that crime. If that crime is murder, killing the person doing the murdering is probably acceptable force, particularly when it has been previously established in the movie that it is going to take force to stop these men.

Like If Batman were to theoretically get tried for these "murders" what would the charges be and how would the prosecution argue they should stick is my question? Batman was killing people who were killing people, and who were trying to kill him. I know people bring up the "axis wasn't self defence" angle but according to my interpretation of the law, in order to kill someone and have it not be murder, it doesn't simply have to be a case of pure self defence as in your life is in grave danger at that very specific moment.

I'm not trying to sound unreasonable, I hope I'm making sense. If you look up the castle doctrine on wiki it explains where I am coming from. I just don't understand how it is murder.

[Azrael]

(Not anything to add. Applying real life Law to imaginary heroes that operate with fiction/comic book logic always results in a fascinating read. Not directly related to murder, these are interesting too)

http://subcultureforthecultured.com/featured-columns/vigilante-situation-1-the-state-has-enacted-good-laws-but-is-failing-to-enforce-them/

http://subcultureforthecultured.com/featured-columns/i-wont-kill-you-but-i-dont-have-to-save-you-or-do-you/

http://lawandthemultiverse.com/

[thecolorsblend]

I am under the impression from the criminal code that if a crime is taking place, it is within your right as a citizen to take necessary action to stop that crime. If that crime is murder, killing the person doing the murdering is probably acceptable force, particularly when it has been previously established in the movie that it is going to take force to stop these men.

I think they could probably file charges for reckless endangerment or something for blowing up the factory and firing automatic weapons in the open because of the risk it could have posed to the public.

[Batmoney]

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?

[The Dark Knight]

Also - Batman being charged with any crime is kind of irrelevant anyway. They're likely not going to catch the guy and in the film universe nobody knows who he is. The police at the end of B89 seem grateful enough to accept the batsignal, read his letter and welcome future assistance.