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

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

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.

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

tolkiens legendarium - Did Gandalf wear his Ring of Power throughout the trilogy?

After Gandalf discovered that Sauron was back and sent Frodo on his quest to Rivendell, did he continue to wear Narya (one of the Three Rings)? It seems like a huge risk to continue to wear it after the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths) started to try and reclaim the One Ring; if they managed to get the ring to Sauron, couldn't he be corrupted by his power? Whatever powers Narya bestows upon him couldn't possibly be worth the huge risk, could it? Answer When Sauron forged the one ring and put it on his finger, the other ring bearers were immediately aware of him and his intentions and removed their own rings. There is no reason why they couldn't merely do so again. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and preceived that he would be master of them, and of all they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," Silmarillion