Comics in which Batman kills

[BatmAngelus]

This really should be a feature, especially with some people acting like BvS is the first time Batman's ever killed before. While most people already know about the Golden Age Batman doing this, the feature would highlight all the parts where Batman took lives after his apparent vow against killing.

[DocLathropBrown]

This really should be a feature, especially with some people acting like BvS is the first time Batman's ever killed before. While most people already know about the Golden Age Batman doing this, the feature would highlight all the parts where Batman took lives after his apparent vow against killing.

Agreed. It needs to be made a feature. It's handy to have reference that proves the no-kill code is pretty routinely broken.

[The Dark Knight]

Basically, from what I recall, Batman only outright kills the goons in the vehicles. And Batman has done that a lot in the films. The confrontation in the warehouse with the flamethrower guy is manslaughter. He had to take some form of action to diffuse the situation. And throwing the grenades back is human nature, basically. No one wants to be around when an explosive goes off, so you toss it in the other direction.

[Dagenspear]

This really should be a feature, especially with some people acting like BvS is the first time Batman's ever killed before. While most people already know about the Golden Age Batman doing this, the feature would highlight all the parts where Batman took lives after his apparent vow against killing.

Agreed. It needs to be made a feature. It's handy to have reference that proves the no-kill code is pretty routinely broken.

Which doesn't matter to people. Because they want a heroic Batman who doesn't kill people or has a rule against it that may get broken, but it's still something he tries to adhere to. That want the ideal, not the bare minimum. Have a very great day both of you!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[BatmAngelus]

I prefer a Batman who doesn't kill, too. But the point of the feature isn't to try change people's preferences, so much as prove that the Batman's no kill policy isn't as strong or prevalent in the comics as they think. Same goes for the Joker's origin. Many people say he doesn't have an origin, but the countless versions of him falling into a chemical bath prove otherwise. It may not be people's preference, but it's still an origin story and it's been around for over 50 years.

[johnnygobbs]

I prefer a Batman who doesn't kill, too. But the point of the feature isn't to try change people's preferences, so much as prove that the Batman's no kill policy isn't as strong or prevalent in the comics as they think. Same goes for the Joker's origin. Many people say he doesn't have an origin, but the countless versions of him falling into a chemical bath prove otherwise. It may not be people's preference, but it's still an origin story and it's been around for over 50 years.

Yes, whilst there may be a very strong argument for a Batman who doesn't kill, I do wish people (although no one here it should be emphasised) would stop saying that 'Batman never killed in the comic-books'.

We're all entitled to our own personal preferences, and I suspect mine might be more along the lines of yours and Dagenspear's but that doesn't make the Batman who does kill invalid, especially not in accordance with the comic-books.

[The Dark Knight]

'My' Batman is effectively what we see from Keaton and Affleck, and TDK Returns. I like my Batman to be no-nonsense and self sufficient.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've been thinking about writing a feature on this subject for a while now. A comprehensive overview of Batman's changing attitudes to killing, the arguments for and against the 'no kill' rule, why it makes sense, why it doesn't make sense, where it contradicts itself, why it's important to certain stories, looking at both its real life an in-universe origins, etc and so forth.

For the record, I'm also one of those people who prefers the non-lethal Batman. Some of the greatest Batman narratives are ones in which the 'no kill' rule is put to the test, which in turn adds an extra layer of internal conflict to the character's struggles. But having said that, you can't just erase part of Batman's history because it doesn't gel with the latest interpretation. That's like editing 'politically incorrect' language out of classic works of literature. It's fundamentally dishonest and creates an inaccurate impression of the character's evolution.

Batman killing isn't some weird aberration they tested out in the seventies – it's part of the character's original make-up dating back to 1939. That doesn't mean people have to like it, but they should at least acknowledge it.

[The Dark Knight]

Some of my favourite Batman moments involve Batman putting down goons permanently. Case in point Ray Charles getting his noggin whacked on the bell and being thrown down the shaft. It's perfect to me. Self defence, unexpected and turning the tables on a seemingly hopeless situation. The same can be said of BvS's "I believe you" sequence with the flamethrower.

[DocLathropBrown]

I'm torn on the issue, and it comes down to the situations they've put Batman in over the years.

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. When someone is too heinous to live, or there's a need to act in saving an innocent is what I like. Do I get mad when there's a Batman who is loose with his code of ethics? No. It's just another interpretation. There's more to the character than that. If Keaton or Affleck had been doing nothing BUT killing people, then it wouldn't be Batman.

A Batman can kill occasionally and still resemble the character. Neither Keaton nor Affleck killed a majority of their enemies. Straight-up using a handgun? I draw the line there. Seeing Batman use one in the dream sequence in BvS was just wrong. If Batman's gonna use guns, I prefer it to be treated more like a tool. The Browning machine guns to open Axis Chemicals in B89 is about right. In BvS, Bats uses the rifle to ignite a villain's backpack gas tank, which obviously kills him. But I'm all right with that. He started a domino effect that killed, as opposed to shooting the guy outright.

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.