Riddle me this:
Batman catches a serial killer who has already killed 8 people in the past two months. Batman takes this criminal into the GCPD, knowing full well that criminals escape from GCPD all the time. And, wouldn't you know it, this serial killer get's away and kills another person.
Is Batman in anyway responsible for this new victim's death?
Which is why Gun Batman will always be Best Batman
The world would be a better place if Batman just started killing people.
He's most likely, if anything, responsible for changing the destined victim, that is if the serial killer was killing random people.
In any case, he has acted as much as could be expected of him within the confines of the law and morality, if not ethics.
Batman doesn't just capture criminals you faggot. He comes to them under the guise of being a giant bat monster and snaps their elbows and knees, leaving them in some filthy alley way where they have to crawl for help, where they're found looking like they were mauled by a vicious animal. He leaves them with an ingrained fear of the night from that moment forward. You people seriously barely understand how any of these characters operate
Exactly. A superhero isn't responsible for further villainy when law enforcement is involved. It's their problem for not keeping the villain in custody or just killing them and getting it over with.
Only autistic mouth-breathers make this a moral debate where it is solely the hero's fault.
Seriously. It's like most people's impression of Batman is based entirely on other people's impressions, which were in turn probably informed by the 60s show.
Do they honestly think that's never been explored in a comic? That Batman has never once been written as self-aware enough to go "I blame myself for letting that killer escape"?
Some of the main themes of Batman are guilt and individualism, so there have been HUNDREDS of stories like that, and they mostly conclude that ultimately, all men are responsible for their own actions, and that guilt-tripping on his flaws or going on a kill-crazy rampage won't solve anything.
I mean, if you wanted to be really cynical or downright nihilistic, you could argue that nothing Batman does matters, yes, but then why the fuck do you even care about Batman stories? There are tons of crime dramas that're much more thematically dark and unforgiving.
Very clever, Edward. You,very tampered with holding cell 3 with locking mechanism serial number 856-27b at the Gotham police station as a means to let the suspects escape and in the ensuing chaos pull a heist on first Gotham national bank. I've notified Gordon, and I'm on my way to you.
Riddle me this:
Joker commits murder by Proxy. Batman clears his name.
Is Batman responsible for Joker's future victims' deaths?
It's a fucking endless ouroboros of logic. There's no answer. It's catch 22 with batman and all an answer tells you is would someone else feel comfortable killing someone. Which is a useful thing to know about some people, I suppose.
Ah, but you missed something, Batman! Something that I, the great Riddler, knew your tiny mind would slip over like a proverbial clown on a banana peel!
There was a NINTH victim, Batman!
So tell me, will you come and stop me or the bomb I step up in GCPD's Ninth Precinct Offices?
Tick-tock, Batman, the timer's already started!
Joker is the exception to Batman's rule, though.
This is why I think anti-Batfags really bother me. I don't go into Punisher or Midnighter threads shrieking "FASCIST MURDEROUS VIGILANTES!", but people shit on Batman's moral code CONSTANTLY, either in any thread tangentially related to Batman or in one of their own making, and it usually just adds up to 200+ guaranteed replies of anons going "Yeah, I don't see why a vigilante with absolute power of life and death and no checks and balances or due process whatsoever WOULDN'T be good for society."
The irony is, I'll bet WAY more of them have been screwed by an authority figure abusing their power than have ever been mugged.
They seriously just don't understand what makes a good character and story. Batman's insanity is what makes him interesting to begin with. We just have to many bleeding heart fake moralists who want to prove how sensitive they are to these kinds of issues
>Batman says "No killing"
>But then turns them over to a justice system with the Death Penalty in play
Just because he doesn't push the button doesn't mean he isn't responsible for that person being in the electric chair
Way to fucking not understand the character.
I don't know if Bruce Wayne has been written to have an opinion on the death penalty, but the important thing is that the crime that set him on the traumatized path to being Batman was murder. His parents' murder. He defines all injustice and evil by that one moment, that one selfish, destructive act. Bruce will always choose to be like his father, the man who saved lives, and not like the man who killed him.
There's a reason why Batman never stayed with any of his many Asian mentors for very long. Denny O'Neil wrote it into stories, I believe, that his fixed philosophy would ultimately prevent him from learning any more form them. Whether they were trying to get him to compromise his morality by learning to kill or learning to forgive, Bruce would inevitably reach a point where he'd "NOPE" right out of their temple.
Do you seriously think Bruce Wayne doesn't lobby for the Capital Punishment in his State (usually New Jersey) to stay illegal?
Also, have you noticed that most of his rogues gallery end up in Arkham not Blackgate? Leading them to hopefully be rehabilitated.
There's no way it's cause Batman believes that justice is more than just punishment... That couldn't possibly be the case.
But anon. don't you see? Batman is SOLELY, PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for, not only the courts' decisions to send whomever to Arkham, but also is clearly to blame for the failings of every single guard, doctor, nurse, intern, assistant or custodian to ever set foot on Arkham grounds and is therefore responsible for every escape. Never mind that most of his villains actually spend years between Arkham stays if you look at their appearances chronologically, outside of hacky stories trying to ape A Serious House on Serious Earth (even Asylum: Living Hell's cast was mostly limited to B-listers who were either new or hadn't appeared in years)
No, it must all be Bruce Wayne's fault because, as everyone who's just too INSIGHTFUL to ever be caught dead reading a cloaked homosexual funny book will gladly tell you, we all know Bruce NEVER throws his money at rebuilding Arkham from the ground up with a new staff and improved security on a semi-regular basis.
Most importantly, Batman is CLEARLY to blame for the fact that Arkham Asylum is built on a fucking Indian burial ground over a Hellmouth over a fucking Old One or some shit, warping Arkhams and anyone who'll listen with Lovecraftian insanity. Nothing to do but shit on him for daring to be the main character in his own weird urban-gothic mythos!
>Batman's mantle is taken up by Jim Gordon, a licensed lawman with the full backing of the city, state and the courts.
>Arkham Asylum is rebuilt on Wayne's ancestral homestead
>still shat on as the sole source of Gotham's ills
Being Bruce Wayne really IS suffering.
My mistake anon, I clearly did forget all of that.
To add to Batman discussions I should probably have electro-shock therapy to forget every Batman story I read, and the Tim Burton Batman films, so my knowledge of Batman is limited to Nolan's Batman.
Clearly then I'd be far more INSIGHTFUL on Batman, because understand Batman from Batman stories is clearly pleb tier.
>tfw no Bane shitposting meme
Nevermind, looks like I'll have to go back to my knowledge about Batman based on the Batman comics.
According to Kantianism, one is only responsible for ones own actions, not those of others. The morally right thing to do is taking the criminal to GCPD. Each individual moral agent within the system then has to make their own moral evaluation, as autonomous rational agents, and Batman cannot be responsible for their actions, since that would deprive them of their autonomous agency.
Batman not killing badguys is the willing suspension of disbelief that you have to accept to appreciate batman.
Because logically it makes zero sense.
But if he did kill them he wouldn't be Batman.
Logic doesn't apply to the the human experience in the way you think it does. The methodology of superheroes does not operate in logical systems. You just have a reductionist world view that prevents you from understanding why complex interactions occur within the human experience that are beyond the simplistic conceptions of logic and reason
You misread my post, I acknowledged it doesn't make sense for him not to kill and that you have to accept that to enjoy the character.
Try not being pretentious long enough to actually read people's posts next time.
What I'm saying to you is, is that it all makes sense completely, and that your poorly conceived notions of logic and reason prevent you from understand complex psychological interactions between human beings. It's very clear why Batman lives the way he does
And if Batman did kill what would that mean for Gotham? How many other vigilantes would follow his example?
Befare long you could have a hundred wannabe Punishers going around popping everyone that looks at them funny. Ultimately Batman's decision to take a life to save life would result in thousands of deaths.
Batman is a famed investigator first and a high tech ninja second. Why has he not rooted out all the corrupt and incompetent elements of the GCPD and used his nigh limitless resources to transform them into an example for all national police departments as a (tax-deductable) publicity stunt.
What sort of doctor would excise tumors but not treat the underlying cancer?