ral's blog - Batman does kill

[burtongenius]

Actually, my point was to ask whether his actions are ultimately good for society.  I think on his best day, Batman's overall influence (but not necessarily his results) is not necessarily for the best.

In response to this statement I would ask how anyone stopping evil is not necessarily for the best- stopping joker, penguin from killing thousands of people.  I would follow that influence any day of the week. 

[burtongenius]

No doubt.  But I view it like this.  This guy is going to keep posting this stuff.  I can ignore it and pretend like it's not there... except that future viewers may read it and think "hmmm, y'know, that burtongenius guy has a point".  Um, no!  He doesn't!

I think others can be the judge  .  To me its real simple.  Batman trys to stop bad people by dressing up as a bat and scaring people and stopping them from crimes.  Hence the gangsters and villains.  I guess I just hopelessly assumed that he did this because he wanted to help others.  How idiotic of me  .  Batman can be one complicated character, I guess in this post anyway, can't he?  .

And I can't figure out how to quote only snippets.  Every time I try it quotes the whole thing.  Again computer challenged.

[The Dark Knight]

A killing Batman is not a true villain. He?s not whacking good guys. He?s whacking bad guys. By permanently ridding the streets of this filth, he is protecting the good.

These bad guys are not going to be rehabilitated. Batman takes the time to catch evil doers, but they're quickly regurgitated back on the streets causing mayhem with Arkham?s revolving door policy. Then he sets about catching them again. And so on.

In The Dark Knight, Bruce states that he doesn?t want his war on crime to last forever. If he was serious about that, he would be stepping things up and killing a few. Burton?s ruthless Batman just makes sense.

And burtongenius, you best learn how to use the quote icon. And quickly.

[thecolorsblend]

I would only add that Batman wouldn't and shouldn't use lethal force on, say, a purse-snatcher.  The strawman that typically gets used in the "should Batman kill?" discussion is a comparison to the Punisher (presumably implying a gun-toting Batman).

The Punisher would probably blow a purse-snatcher away and sleep like a baby afterward.

Batman would satisfy himself with opening a can of whoop-ass on the guy and then dropping him off at police HQ afterwards.

But.  Following the events of TKJ and ADITF, nobody will convince me that Batman wouldn't have the Joker's head on a pike.  For damn sure, Batman wouldn't share a laugh with the Joker and he wouldn't stew in his virtual certainty that the Joker's body wouldn't be recovered.  Batman would find a way to confirm or disconfirm the kill.  If possible, while deriving no satisfaction or pleasure from the act, he'd do it himself.  Quickly and efficiently.

[The Dark Knight]

I would only add that Batman wouldn't and shouldn't use lethal force on, say, a purse-snatcher.  

Agreed. But if you're aligned with high level crime, you're fair game.

When it comes heavyweights such as The Joker, that sucker is gonna be dead for sure. No buts about it. He's got to be. He is simply too dangerous to be kept alive. Especially after he's tried to gas the entire City.

The machine gunned Joker goons and so on. They pose an immediate serious risk and must be taken down. I would've liked Batman to dispose of the African Thug sooner, but I would have been dovoid of a great fight. But you get what I mean.

[burtongenius]

I didn't mean to cause an internation incident  .  Don't get your panties in a bunch dark knight, I think I figured out the whole quote thing.  And I completely agree with your last post - minus the blood thirsty part .  If you read my previous posts you'd see why.

[The Dark Knight]

Don't get your panties in a bunch dark knight, I think I figured out the whole quote thing.  

About time. I wasn't the only one frustrated by your computer illiteracy.

[burtongenius]

[/quote]
About time. I wasn't the only one frustrated by your computer illiteracy.
[/quote]

oh, riiiight   

good thing I didn't get caught by the quote police or I would've been in real trouble. 

I agree with the whole batman does kill thing.  I agree with everything he does in batman 89.  But batman does not kill out of pure hapinstance.  There has to be a reason.  The only real difference between batman and any other super hero is that he has to scare people and use humanly ways to stop criminals.  Didn't see anything in the fine print that made him homocidal.

[The Dark Knight]

good thing I didn't get caught by the quote police or I would've been in real trouble.  

Not really. Burton's Batman would deal with things more to my liking.  

[thecolorsblend]

Actually, my point was to ask whether his actions are ultimately good for society.  I think on his best day, Batman's overall influence (but not necessarily his results) is not necessarily for the best.

In response to this statement I would ask how anyone stopping evil is not necessarily for the best- stopping joker, penguin from killing thousands of people.  I would follow that influence any day of the week.

Those things are superficially good, I don't deny that.

But Batman breaks the law, violates another human's rights (RIGHTS), he's committed assault an uncountable amount of times, etc.  He breaks the law so that other people who break the law go to prison.  On some level, he's got to be seen by the public as more effective than duly deputized and authorized legal authorities.  You could argue he further undermines John Q. Public's faith in the system.

Moreover, Batman is often regarded as having a very gray morality when in fact he probably has the most black and white worldview of anyone in the DC canon!  Superman might smack a bad guy around but he's not above talking someone through their problems.  Batman (if he's being written coherently and consistently) wouldn't and doesn't do that.  If Batman sees a purse-snatcher, he'll most likely kick the tar out of him, tie him up and move along to his next assignment.  Superman will return the purse to the victim, at least make an attempt at getting through to the perp and then gently hand him over to the police.

Superman makes a lot of citizen's arrests.  Batman breaks the law night after night after night.

Superman inspires people.  Batman scares (or kicks) the piss out of them.

Superman would be good for society.  Batman, as a cure, would be almost as bad as the disease.

And understand, I'm not bashing on Batman.  How could I??  I love the character precisely because of these sorts of contradictions.  It underlies everything the character does.  His is ultimately a self-defeating ambition.

Batman is not a hero.