Skip to main content

dc - Exceptions to Batman's no-killing rule?




Are there any exceptions to Batman's no-killing rule?


Eg. Would Batman kill:



  • zombies? (Solomon Grundy)

  • aliens? (Darkseid)

  • animals & plants? (idk, thb)

  • artificial life? (Brainiac, HARDAC)

  • Immortals? (Ra's al-Ghul)

  • Unwilling life? (Doomsday)


  • Irredeemable mother**kers? (child murderers?)

  • Non-direct killing? (Throwing live grenade back at the thrower)


Sorry, but watching the new BvS movie has gotten me thinking about these stuffs. Any answers from any main, non-elseworlds interpretations (eg New 52, Old 52, DCAU, etc) are welcome.


EDIT: Just to be clear, I was talking about possible situations where he would cross the line. Although the answers so far have been helpful (thank you, @HBhatia), I was actually referring to situations where if he would/would not cross the 'established' no-killing rule, such as facing Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, Ra's al-Ghul, HARDAC, Brainiac, etc. I do apologize if my question was unclear.



Answer



Batman was a killer from his very first appearance in Detective Comics # 27 in which can see him dropping a criminal into the vat of acid saying "A fitting ending to his kind". That , of course, wasn't his only kill in this issue


enter image description here


He was a grim figure in his first years, casually killing criminals, and Bob Kane liked this dark version best (Batman: The Complete History).


He used guns to take out his enemies (panel below from Detective Comics #32)



enter image description here


But also used other means, like for example ropes (panel below from Batman #1)


enter image description here


There is a common misconception that the reason why the early Batman killed and used guns is because he wasn't given his origins yet. This misconception is that once Batman was given his origins he hated fire weapons and vowed not to kill. That is very far from the truth. In the very same issue in which Batman is given the origins (Detective Comics #33), he uses a gun and is also portrayed in the last panel with a smoking pistol.


enter image description here


Furthermore, very soon after, in Batman #1, he is even more vicious than in his first appearance, carrying a sidearm and using a machine gun to gun down his enemies (he did the same in the 1989 movie) - a group of men who were given growth hormones by Hugo Strange (panel below from Batman #1)


enter image description here


The real reason why Batman stopped killing in the comic books (the sudden change was not explained in-universe) was that the editor, Whitney Ellsworth,



"decreed that in the future Batman would be forbidden to use a gun or kill anyone by other means. This ban was the first step in forming an ethical code that would stand DC in good stead "(Batman: The Complete History).




Bob Kane: In the first year Batman was a grim vigilante who operated outside of law. (Batman and Me book)



Bill Finger: I was called on the carpet by Whit Ellsworth. (...) The editors thought that making Batman a murderer would taint his character, and mothers would object to letting their kids see and read about shootings. The new editorial policy was to get away from Batman's vigiliantism and to bring him over to the side of the law. We made him an honorary member of the police force.(Batman and Me book)



The in-universe debut of Batman's vow for no killing rule and the hate for firearms (caused by his parent's deaths) appeared as late as 1988 in Detective Comics #583 where the oath is mentioned.


enter image description here


Although a no-kill moral code has been mentioned before


enter image description here


In 2004's The Forensic Files of Batman he can be seen taking the vow. There Bruce, while doing this research, creates a sense of principles for himself. Since a gun took away his parents, he plans never to use a firearm. And since he felt the effect of death at such an early age, he vows never to take a life. He does however, mention that he doesn't kill several times since the 80's



enter image description here


While Batman stopped killing for a long time (he was killing again, although occasionally ever since the late 60's), he never showed any kind of exceptional resentment or fear towards fire weapons and there's far too many examples throughout the decades to present them all, but he did use them during every age. The Golden Age:


Detective Comics #28


enter image description here


Detective Comics #33


enter image description here


90's (panel below from Detective Comics #627) enter image description here


In the 90's however, it was established even clearer that Bruce/Batman hates guns


enter image description here


And while Batman stopped killing ever since the 1943 due to becoming a kid friendly character, despite the fact that he got his moral code he resumed occasional killing starting with the late 1960's in Brave and The Bold # 83 in which he destroys a German plane using a hand grenade and uses dynamite to blow up a convoy of German soldiers as they are crossing a bridge. As Batman said while breaking his rule in Batman #420 (1988):




Sometimes you have to ignore the rules. I'm not in this business to protect the rules, I serve justice.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...
Post a Comment
Read more

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...
Post a Comment
Read more

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...
Post a Comment
Read more