The Science Of: Should Batman Kill?

Should Batman kill his villians? This question has surely crossed the mind of every fan at one point or another. Surely the world would be better off if he did... or maybe it would cause more problems than we might think!
Other Videos:
How Strong Is Batman? ➤ • The Science of How Pow...
Batman's Ridiculous Net Worth ➤ • Batman's Ridiculous Ne...
How Batman Manages His Sleep ➤ • The SCIENCE Of: How Ba...

[@tricktheorists]

Hi everyone! What's your thoughts on Batman's no kill rule? Also here's... The Science Of: How Strong Is Batman? ➤ kzbin.info/www/bejne/nl6UgmyqbqyImLM

[@daraghokane4236]

The problem is in alot of the stories you used there was no point. In the batman movie Riddler flooded the city then went to jail for life, In dark night rises Joker went to jail possible for life. The problem with these comics are back in the silver age it was meant to be a stand alone issue, Batman fights bad guy he goes to jail then batman says looks like thats the last we will see of him then Laughs. In the contex of that story he is right as it was meant to be a simple self contained story with no sequel, the idea that Arkham is this super bad Jail people can walk out of easy came later as a way to bring back bad guys that have been locked away for life

[@FriendlyBatDoom]

NO. In an alternate world, he killed criminals and the authorities came down on him and arrested him for doing so. It's up to the CITY OF GOTHAM to do this instead of Batman. However, they fail to do the job.

[@angelgomezramos1015]

Well, in that alternate world, it would be involve the FBI, the CIA, Homeland department, Marshalls, in other words, the USA govement would chase down these villians with the order to kill them or imprison with prision max security.

[@daraghokane4236]

I think if you do a Batman story with a start and end, It would have his criminals die. But new ones will come up. That would be a good way for the bad version of his vilians to exist. The riddler is dead who left this clue, I am the Clue master I was inspired by the Riddler, and I will do what he failed to do, that makes the character work as not just the lamer parody of the Riddler but his own person with a goal. I could see Joker dying inspiring 50 New jokers and one of them will say are you sure I'm a copy not the real Joker? you never found the body after he fell, Batman saying he was taller then you or something. Penguin takes over as mob boss after killing black mask.

[@sdcard7129]

Exactly. The people wont STAND for a bloodlusted Batman. Especially not Gordon.

[@m4sterpolk786]

In an alternate world (tim burton) Batman kills a lot of criminals, doesn't turn evil and gets loved by the people of Gotham

[@Icemario87]

Avoiding courts/prison for murder charges is a good way for a lawbreaker to keep his cop-assisting side gig going.

[@JackMcHugh-m8c]

Batman shouldn't kill Jason todd, on the other hand

[@Rengokuo4o6]

Yep, if Batman kills Jason because useless.

[@d77543020]

Batman is very mentally sound very mentally disciplined I don't think if he killed one person all of a sudden he would lose his mind

[@jlpgamin]

It's not that he would lose his mind but it's more like he wouldn't forgive himself. Especially if it's one of his rogues then it would be the question of when does he stop? Not just with his rogues but does it extend to the ones that his friends in the League deal with as well?

[@halokid1901]

I mean joker yes and then just keep doing what he’s been doing and lock them up if he thinks he has the self control and luxury of being Batman one body shouldn’t be to much 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@mightguy3118]

​@@jlpgaminHe can't forgive himself if he killed joker to serve justice but could forgive joker for murdering hundreds of innocent people? 💀

[@jlpgamin]

@mightguy3118 he's still taken a life. He's not judge jury and executioner and he has no right to be. Heroes don't get to decide who lives and who dies no matter what someone has done, something even Superman abides by

[@halokid1901]

I mean super man has killed his enemies when warranted he doesn’t like it be even he knows that sometimes you gotta nip the problem in the butt lol and let me tell you this metropolis is a better city than Gotham just saying 👀

[@hungryalmighty7156]

The question is why does Batman have to be the one who kills the joker ? U would think everytime Batman locks up the joker that someone else would’ve already put a bullet in him ? Or better yet why doesn’t the people of Gotham give home the death penalty ?

[@GmrGod10000]

i agree with this but batman stops people like jason for example from killing the joker and sometimes he even saves some of his villians🤦

[@blainecrowley1134]

“Every appointed police officer […] is accountable and will be held responsible for every action they do and don’t take” *laughs in qualified immunity*

[@therealmyers7826]

*should be held accountable lol

[@williamj.dovejr.8613]

" All the people I've murdered by letting you live! " The Dark Knight Returns.

[@m4sterpolk786]

I think the only justification for Batman not killing is because he is a symbol for Gotham. If he does this, he could end up inspiring other people to take matters into their own hands, and since you can't trust others, this could get out of control. Now, there are other justifications that I find a bit ridiculous and certainly not realistic. "Batman had his parents killed", wait, what does that mean exactly? Most people in the real world would have a tremendous desire to take revenge, and we would all understand this feeling. I think it's too relative an argument to use as definitive proof of the no-killing rule. We have many characters like this in fiction, such as the Punisher, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Wolverine, Black Panther, Huntress, or 'the Crow' are some examples of "heroes" who are not corrupted just by killing. "He can't kill or he'll never stop" what? The guy with perhaps the greatest sense of moral proportionality is going to lose control, is that it? He goes out fighting crime, acting as a criminal himself, breaking in, stealing, all because he knows the proportion between these crimes and the criminal he is chasing. People talk as if he became irrational to the point of wanting to kill for any crime, as if stealing to eat was the same as stealing for greed, killing in self-defense was the same as killing for pleasure. just ask yourselves. the police officers (the good ones, like Jim Gordon) who exist in the real world, and execute criminals because there is no other way to act in the situation, do they go around killing everyone? "In that parallel universe he killed and became evil" man, you know this is a comic book, right? There is no such thing as "Batman killed him in another universe and that's proof" simply because a certain author wanted to write a story like that. If I work for DC tomorrow and write a story where Batman kills a villain as a last resort (just like BatBale killed Harvey Dent in TDK), he will simply continue to be a good character. I can even cite an example where Batman goes back to the past and kills Joe Chill of his own free will, making Bruce grow up and have a happy life. Okay, that was undone, but guess what? Batman didn't become a villain just because he did this. "He shouldn't kill, who should judge this is the system" I even agree that Batman works better by avoiding killing as much as possible, but this argument is the weakest of all. Batman only exists because he himself distrusts the system, to the point of considering breaking the law every day to do the work that the corrupt legal system has become incapable of doing. So it doesn't make much sense for you to say that the guy who doesn't trust the system will leave the punishment of criminals to the system, it's not very coherent.

[@m4sterpolk786]

Do you know what DC could do to appease people? Stop creating stories where Batman saves the villain who caused his own death "oh everyone can change" that's nonsense, some people can change, others can't. The Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, Victor Zsasz for example, these guys simply cannot understand the complications of their evil, they will NEVER be reformed, and even so, when one of them triggers a bomb that will cause his own death, or slips from a roof through his own fault, Batman goes there and saves them. This is ridiculous

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@m4sterpolk786They will NEVER be reformed because its a fictional story. People forget this a lot

[@m4sterpolk786]

​@@joshheralal8758Actually, no. Not all people can change, this is something that psychologists insist on trying to argue but don't understand. A guy who kills more than 300 people just because he likes to see the soul emptying the body, will not stop at 301. He will continue killing any being, including animals, until eventually he returns to killing humans.

[@Icemario87]

​@@m4sterpolk786Batman is a vigilante. He's a lawbreaker and a criminal. He's tolerated by the police because of his friendship with Commissioner Gordon. If he kills, that tolerance goes away. It's exceedingly simple.

[@m4sterpolk786]

​@@Icemario87 So... if Gordon was okay with him killing, would he be tolerated? Is this the final argument about Batman not killing, nothing related to his own ideology or coherence or moral, but rather Gordon's opinion?

[@fergieseyebrows]

he should AT LEAST let Jason kill the Joker. there is no excuse for that. and he should AT LEAST stop enforcing the "they're mentally ill, they need treatment" whenever a villain of his gets the death penalty there's no excuse for that, i hate this aspect pf Batman so much

[@mightguy3118]

@@fergieseyebrows same. So many innocent people dying because he refuses to bring justice to the joker. He's literally went out his way to save the joker.

[@Icemario87]

​@@mightguy3118I believe it's canon that Batman would donate an organ to save Joker 🤡

[@joshheralal8758]

They never get the death penalty

[@danielwayneb]

A moral, ethical, and legal question all rolled into one, in which the answer is obviously no, as you explained in great detail here. That being said, Batman shooting Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis was and still is one of the only justified examples I can consider as necessary in such circumstances. And like Lelouch has said in the anime, Code Geass, "The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed."

[@mc.builder8267]

Darkseid is the metaphysical personification of evil. Superman, is willing to kill him. He is the exception to every rule.

[@Strongmount]

The funny thing is this debate only exists because of the nature of comic book storytelling. The real reason Batman's, or anyone else's, villains keep coming back, is becuase a) they become popular and b) consistenty creating new villains for every new issue is very difficult. This is why superhero films are way more likely to kill off these very same characters. It's a completely different format that doesn't carry the same concerns. Way back when, there were those working on the original book who were against the idea of bringing back villains because they felt it would damage the character's moral integrity. They saw this problem coming even back then. Of course, they ended up doing it anyway. Fast forward almost a century later, and the whole thing has snowballed into a moral/ethical/legal quandary that the Batman character was never meant to represent.

[@Icemario87]

And he has the perfect cover for this rule but people (including the writers) seem to have forgotten what it is: Batman is a vigilante he's a lawbreaker. He's tolerated by the police because of his friendship with Commissioner Gordon. If he kills, that tolerance goes away. But nooo, it has to be some kind of moral high ground to the point that Bats would practically donate a kidney to save his villains.

[@MILDMONSTER1234]

And it made him a better character for it

[@mc.builder8267]

@@Icemario87ya, some writers know how to handle it well, others don’t. It’s sad but that’s what happens when a franchise goes on for this long. Just look at warhammer and how its community feels about the company.

[@DravisACard]

No. Batman shouldn't kill. Deep down, mentally, Batman isn't all there. He has stated this many times in the comics. That's why he doesn't kill. Bc he knows that if he did, he wouldn't just stop there. He would keep going and going, eventually becoming the villain that joker always wanted.

[@SpammytheHedgehog]

Batman told Jason that if he started killing, then he wouldn't trust himself to stop killing.

[@T.Nash_]

As a person working on his own Comic book Universe this is a debate I refuse to let my readers (HOPEFULLY) debate about. In my universe people can and will die if necessary. I have always hated this debate coz it kinda ruins some characters for me. I would rather relieve people from that debate and just let them enjoy the story, character development and action without ever worrying about who and why this person killed that person.

[@mc.builder8267]

If you get big enough your readers will find other things to question just as passionately.

[@conradsutton1456]

The question has to be asked. If someone will die if necessary, will that character kill for the same reason? Also, what determines if they purposely kill? Superman killed Joker in Injustice out of Rage, but if killing him would have spared Metropolis, would he or Batman be wrong if they did or didn't?

[@Dumbsourplum]

I'm not asking you to put this in a comic but I think it would've been cool if a hero (not Batman, he's a symbol, if he kills all the civilians that look up to him start killing and it becomes a warzone), just had a rule to not kill at all unless the criminal has simply proven to be uncontainable like escaping from a prison thrice or escaping a max security prison once, there is no moral question there, doesn't let the hero kill in revenge or anger but still kills when needed to.

[@Paradox-es3bl]

The answer is no, for multiple reasons, but the main 2 are: 1) Bruce wouldn’t stop killing. He’s not exactly sane. He’s even worse than Punisher. He’d eventually kill jaywalkers and stuff. And 2) Batman is more interesting if he doesn’t. But SHOULD CRIMINALS BE KILLED? That’s a far more nuanced question, and IF we can pretend Death Note is even remotely realistic, which tbh it has at least some plausibility but I’m not sure it’s realistic enough… but the answer is basically: Yes.* Why Yes*? Because I’d argue that not ALL criminals should, especially for first time offenders, unless it’s a HEINOUS crime (like rape or murder, especially mass murder)… I believe in second chances in general (but not in all cases, necessarily. Again, mass murder?) Also, a repeat offender who jaywalks or downloads music illegally or something (Yes ~I~ WOULD download a free car, if I could)… are quite different. Even as habitual jaywalkers. My sister would be killed if we killed all criminals lol. Although maybe if she knew she WOULD DIE if she didn’t use a crosswalk, she’d finally stop jaywalking lmao. But that seems like mostly “No” so why did I say “Yes*” instead? Well, based on MatPat’s FilmTheory(?) video, crime went down WORLDWIDE I believe, after Light/Kira started killing criminals in Japan. And for years. At least, I believe it was a MatPat video and not ImaginaryAxis or something, but tbh I don’t remember. Anyway, point is, Light/Kira killing the worst criminals who were presumably beyond reform dropped crime rates globally and made the world a better, safer place. So that’s why I’d argue, YES* criminals should be killed. Although, we’d need some way to make it seem like a godly being was doing it, since I believe that was a large part of why. Although, perhaps if we just executed criminals on the spot who we KNEW were responsible for mass shootings and such (which sometimes happens anyway, but sometimes they’re taken alive) PERHAPS with enough of a “no tolerance” policy, it would be effective enough to scare off many potential criminals. Although, due to how many wrongful convictions we get IRL… innocents would also be executed. So idk if people would consider that worth it or not. Might somewhat depend on the statistics. If crime went down an average of say 20% globally, and wrongful executions were like 1% of all executions, would that be worth it? I’m just going to completely ass-pull this number rather than even remotely try to figure it out.. but let’s say about 1,000 innocents were executed ANNUALLY, GLOBALLY, in exchange for 20,000 that wouldn’t be killed by crime… is that a fair trade? Or is it not ok because our law enforcement would have significantly higher rates of executing innocents? Technically more innocents would live, but our LEOs would be objectively worse people. Still better than outright criminals, imo. Especially since I’m theory, they would TRY to get things right and NOT execute innocents… although, considering all the corrupt cops irl, they’d probably be even worse if they were EXPECTED to EXECUTE some “collateral civilians accidentally” every year… but for 20x the innocents alive each year? Hell, I’d make that trade for 2x the innocents alive. It’s not like I trust cops, anyway. I live in America. Just having another reason not to trust them? 🤷‍♀️ fair trade for more innocents spared, imo. And it’s easier to spot a cop than a criminal. Criminals in general, don’t wear uniforms. Except the ones with badges to hide behind. But anyway, no, Batman should NOT kill.

[@alexescorza8120]

not gonna lie if i was a cop in this universe i would just kill joker by "accident"

[@strikerfrost7222]

If he did the police wouldn't work with him. And if he had to fight both criminals and the police would he be as effective long term? I think the justice system should pull its weight and use capital punishment like why should it be all on Batman who literally does the hard part of bringing them into custody and if need be effortlessly gathering indisputable proof of their crimes? Like what's he going to do? Stop the Joker from getting the chair??

[@Mike-vz6xg]

Why not lobotomize the crazy criminals? It worked for the Justice Lord Batman! You also forgot about the space villains who pose a bigger threat than the ones on earth!

[@joshheralal8758]

The Justice Lords were also fascists.

[@moritakaishida7963]

The fact you're arguing for lobotomies says more about you than it does about Batman's no kill rule

[@epicepicenter715]

Do the question yes yes you should, it's something we all have to do eventually

[@williamj.dovejr.8613]

What if Batman created his own maximum security prison?

[@FreakyTeeth]

Batman has ALWAYS been able to kill, it's just that the parents of children who read the early comics weren't happy about it, so the writers gave batman his no-killing rule.

[@MILDMONSTER1234]

Actually it was cause they didn’t want to make new villains lol

[@markstriker925]

Understandable lol​@@MILDMONSTER1234

[@kennyobi9871]

The creators of Batman also said that they weren’t comfortable with Batman killing criminals anyway.

[@SPRAYLIKEMASE]

The punisher would kill every last one of them

[@moritakaishida7963]

Batman shouldn't kill but personally I think if the joker accidentally slipped on the edge of a wet rooftop and fell over the side, batman also just... shouldn't interfere

[@moritakaishida7963]

"cops, unlike vigilantes, are held accountable for their actions" Oh you sweet summer child...no they're not

[@charleswolfe8896]

Well they're supposed to

[@MisterSinister47]

Without even watching the video in full. The answer is YES. It's not really up for debate. Batman NOT killing off the worst of his rogues gallery is why so many innocent people die. I absolutely love Batman but I think Gotham City probably needs more of a 'Ghostmaker' than anything. At least Bruce should have taken the advice of Jason Todd.

[@halokid1901]

@LSWEditscause Batman tries to stop him lol

[@MisterSinister47]

@LSWEdits • Because Red Hood was out doing exactly as I suggest but Bruce just HAD to stick his nose in and stop it from happening. So if he's not going to allow anyone else to do then he should. Since he himself is the ultimate enabler.

[@mightguy3118]

Exactly. In the end Batman is responsible for the hundreds of innocent people that proceed to die because he can't bring himself to land the final blow and deliver justice. It isn't even about because they deserve death or getting revenge, some people are flat out a danger to society. And locking them up won't solve anything

[@MisterSinister47]

@LSWEdits • Yeah, Batman isn't preventing much of anything. He himself has already stated that Gotham is only getting worse. But whatever. I'll always love him even if I don't agree with his end result.

[@joshheralal8758]

More villains would just replace the dead ones and escalate in violence. Read Kingdom Come.

[@PrMtHs666]

Yes. Simply Yes.

[@joshheralal8758]

He doesnt though. It wouldnt save anyone or fix Gotham. Its not like Punisher has ever fixed shit

[@PrMtHs666]

@@joshheralal8758 Joker, Zsasz. Pyg are not to be continuously put in a place that they easily get released from to do it all over again. That’s insanity and incompetence. “All the people I murdered, by letting you live”-Batman to Joker.

[@Dumbsourplum]

Yeah he kills and then all the poeple that look up to him in gotham cuz he's yknow Gothams symbol of hope, then gotham turns into a civil warzone

[@Boricua_User]

The Joker has killed any number of people between 100 and 1000. He cannot be contained in an asylum because he somehow always escapes. If Gotham City won't give the death penalty to the Joker, then Batman should.

[@joshheralal8758]

He would just come back to life

[@michaellabonte6390]

Honestly he should just be like "hey superman let's send him to the phantom zone" and forget about Jim

[@mc.builder8267]

@@michaellabonte6390that’s actually not a bad idea, but if he manages to break free from there you now have two problems. Problem A. The Joker can no longer be contained by ANY prison, as he has now learned how to break free of alternative DIMENSIONS. Problem B. You know damn well that he freed everyone else in there on his way out.

[@michaellabonte6390]

@@mc.builder8267 okay fair then just throw him in Oan jail with the green lanterns. Not only does he have to break free but he'd have to travel back to earth. Also It depends on the version of the phantom zone. In all honesty for the crimes he committed he'd be put to death. Him breaking out anyway is just to continue the stories. In real life batman wouldn't need to kill cause we'd actually punish the people who need it

[@DarthJeter888]

No Batman should not kill, but there are 3 people he should 100% let die, Joker, Professor Pyg, Victor Zsasz, James Gordon Jr, and Scarecrow

[@joshheralal8758]

And they'd just come back to life or be replaced

[@kennyobi9871]

You just listed 5

[@DarthJeter888]

@@kennyobi9871 sh*t, sorry, I just edited it so I forgot to replace the 3 with a 5, thanks

[@JM-lp1jf]

No

[@assassinmaya8286]

You want to know my personal opinion? I would honestly say yes, it would be the most appropriate. Yes, I know what you'll tell me: That Batman should not kill. But, but being more realistic and direct, if we looked at it from a more realistic perspective, many of us would realize that it would be the only solution in a world full of pure corruption. Not all criminals deserve to be held and if they read more Punisher comics they would also realize that Frank does not always need to pull the trigger to punish. Sometimes he has even punished in creatively surprising ways. Now I, like many, also consider myself a huge Batman fan and I grew up with the Batman of 1989. For me, that has always been and always will be the one and only Batman, because he has the perspective that any vigilante should carry, and he also understands that it is not always necessary to forgive most of the criminals he fights. Most of the fans today, if I may say so with all due respect, are quite blind with that damn rule of not killing. The question is: why? Because everyone fell in love with the concept of the first Batman animated series, and if they looked back much further, to the early origins, they would understand in greater depth the true concept of the Dark Knight. That concept is that of the true Batman. The one who knew that not everyone has salvation, nor does everyone deserve redemption.

[@Jason-wp7ed]

Batman shouldn’t kill. Superman works for the President & Flash works for Central City so they can if necessary & are beholden to & answer to the Law. Even the Punisher would stand trial for his crimes but Batman answers to no one & does his own thing. He commits many crimes like assault, breaking & entering & operating illegal vehicles in the city which GCPD lets him do. But if he was out here doing all that & killing people who he feels deserves it, with no one telling him otherwise & the cops are letting him, he is just as bad.

[@richardlegrand4697]

Joker is batmans " trolly problem". Batman keeps stalling and the stakes continue increase... ....making batmans no kill policy a idiculous stance

[@conradsutton1456]

I always deter to "The return of Jafar" mentality when talking about the no kill rule. To quote the Genie when saying Genies don't kill, "you'll be surprised what you can live through."😂😂

[@morrisonscott1139]

We should leave the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" acts to beings like Ghost Rider because only he knows for sure who deserves to live and die and he'll inflict punishments that perfectly fit the crime. GR is not a human but a manifestation of Karma itself. I don't know if this was done in the comics, but his angel self, Angel Rider, has the potential to be the embodiment of everything all members of the Justice League unanimously stand for ultimately. No wonder Ghost Rider is so underutilized. He'll make other heroes and anti-heroes look obsolete.

[@thestarkknightreturns]

The fact that he has a no-killing rule is good because it adds to his psychic trauma and his involuntary hypocrisy as a vigilante. Batman is someone who means well, but he is living in his own "bubble reality" of right and wrong. He is unstable and needs treatment. He is essentially someone who needs medical assistance and therapy, but is trying to overcome his vulnerability complex - since the night he watched powerless as his parents were gunned down - by doing everything on his own and maximizing the results of individual achievement. Therefore he negates treatment. Compounding to that issue, his method focuses on averting the murder of his parents over and over again by punching every "Joe Chill" he finds every night. He is essentially a high-functional schyzoprhenic who subconsciously designed a plan for his inner reality - one where he had control over his parents' fate - and channeled his anger into something that society would consider a positive goal: striking back at criminals and preventing what happened to him from ever happening again. Killing really is hard line for him to cross precisely because he witnessed his parents getting murdered. He cannot defeat the thing if he becomes the thing. However, him doing anything BUT that is a straight reminder that deep inside he suffered great trauma which remains untreated. The stuff he does is usually two moves away from being considered manslaughter, yet he keeps denial over his behaviour. A couple of passages across multiversal lore that suggest this trauma: - Dark Knight Returns: "my parents showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to" - The Flash, Bruce Wayne (Keaton): "I lost my parents... but that pain... made me who I am. I'm not sure who I am without it, actually. I spent a lifetime trying to right the wrongs of the past. As if putting on a cape and fighting crime would bring my parents back"

[@noahknight4039]

No. You notice the characters with the largest and best collection of villains don’t kill. And writers also have to come up with different ways for the hero to win. And on the flip side writers have to come up with goofy reasons why someone like the Punisher doesn’t kill Bullseye, KingPin when they fight.

[@Marlo_Doh_Waldo42]

My dad and late grandma loved Batman growing up. But over time they grew to hate his ethics and moral codes cause of the damage his villains inflicted on others. Other hero’s get away with it but because of DC and Batman’s ways, tons of live time and money is taken. Honestly I mostly agree with them.

[@ellis1469]

Gotham did have a death penalty in Arkham origins calendar man is about to get executed for his crimes before the events of origins take place.Bruce lobbied for the death penalty to be taken away that is why it’s no longer in use.

[@MILDMONSTER1234]

Realistically the feds and the cia would kill off most of Batman’s villains so that Batman doesn’t have too😂

[@rs07scapeNews]

For the sake of Gotham? Yes he should. For the sake of the story? Absolutely not!

[@amin2636]

Batman shouldnt kill, gotham city should have death penalty

[@Thedarkknight902]

Joker kills alot but he emotionly traumatizes more then he kills

[@amin2636]

I like a batman that kills BUT only in an elseworld story

[@bm-ub6zc]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: He should.

[@leroychambers7909]

Arkham asylum just needs better security lol

[@BobbyMoore2-mp8wb]

Batman should not kill

[@mightguy3118]

He really should. There's zero justification for him not killing the joker. It's a personal moto sure, but that moto is costing hundred of innocent lives that the joker takes the more batman refuses to kill him. batman goes out his way to save the joker

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@mightguy3118Wouldnt hundreds of people just die anyway to the next villain? Who would he actually save?

[@mightguy3118]

@@joshheralal8758 Not every villain is the joker.

[@BobbyMoore2-mp8wb]

@@mightguy3118 No he shouldn’t

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@mightguy3118You realize DC would just make someone as violent as the Joker?

[@SamDodger]

Because of his no kill rule I don't find Batman to be very terrifying like the criminals supposedly say he is, surely they know by now they will just be arrested, not very scary, then they escape or are released and hurt more people, I do however like Batman's no guns rule, because his parents died by a firearm, if he killed it would be even scarier because of the fact that he doesn't use guns, that means he's dropping you off a roof or you're getting a batarang up your ass or beat you to death, (that's why my favorite comic character is the Punisher, my favorite versions of Batman are Flashpoint Batman and the Grim Knight, OG Batman could be scarier than them if he killed because of the fact he doesn't use guns)

[@michaellabonte6390]

Ngl. Being put in a body cast or broken/crippled is terrifying. I don't think people really understand that concept. Like image someone making you a vegetable for a long time every time you meet him. You have to stew in the psychological torment knowing he can find u anytime and do that to you. Some people beg for death after physical torture because of the mental toll it has on the person

[@TCStoner]

No. That’s the whole point of the character.

[@TempuraHot7]

For me, yes if we are going to talk in a real world sense

[@DukeMc678]

Self defense of a 3rd party though so.

[@codm22712]

5:32 so is being a vigilante

[@biguy617]

The short answer is NOOOO!

[@djb9267]

No, obviously he should not. If he did, he would just become worse than his villains ever were. A batman who kills would directly go against the entire reason why he began his war on crime.

[@mightguy3118]

The more he refuses to kill the joker, the more innocent people proceed to die. A real hero puts any personal feelings or moto aside to save as many lives as possible, something Batman can't do. Him killing someone like the joker does nothing but serve justice and save any future lives joker would take, not make Batman a monster as bad as the joker himself

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@mightguy3118Innocent people will just die to the next villain. Why do people think you can just kill crime?

[@mightguy3118]

@@joshheralal8758 it always depends on the villain. I can understand Batman not killing random street thugs, there's no reason to. Joker is an entirely different case and Batman going out his way to save joker and keep him alive does nothing good but put more people in danger.

[@joshheralal8758]

​@mightguy3118 There will just be another maniac. There always is. Joker disappeared for a whole year and there were still plenty of homicidal maniacs. One new guy turned into a black hole that almost destroyed Gotham. No "future lives" were saved by Joker not being there, nor would any be saved by killing him. It would just cause escalation from the villains resulting in more death.

[@m4sterpolk786]

"You can't kill joker because there will be another villain who will kill", really? According to this logic, you cannot punish criminals in the present, because there could be more criminals in the future? Why is there justice then? Are you going to stop giving the Joker the death penalty today (which will spare the lives of hundreds of people in his next attack), because there is a possibility that someone else will eventually kill those same hundreds of people? Can't understand how stupid that sounds?

[@WILLNOTCOMPLY72]

NO... Just the joker.

[@jacobcenter7374]

Early in his career, he's very emotionally unstable so he needs to not kill in order to maintain his discipline. Later in his career, hes become a symbol of hope and safety for Gotham, and he needs to uphold that

[@brandonpartain10]

Here’s a solution. Have Bruce Wayne get jumped by the Joker. Then, he can kill Joker in self defense. While we’re at it, have Jason or Damian take out Zsasz in the same way. There go two of the most unhinged Batman villains and then we can probably rehabilitate the rest. Or maybe there’ll just be a power vacuum without Joker around

[@notproductiveproductions3504]

I prefer the “Gotham gives villains free phoenix downs when the audience isn’t looking” approach. It makes the idea of comic book characters never staying dead that much more hilarious

[@youareacoward8459]

That is why I can't stand DC. The writers does not want to kill off their villains and that make the heroes look like bad guys. They just cause problem.

[@drewcasper4608]

The other thing is he doesn’t just not kill, he stops others from killing which destroys his entire argument at the end of under the red hood

[@nugget3327]

No

[@dylanrinker6831]

No.

[@andy2200]

There is no excuse for not killing The Joker. Two Face, Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, Penguin, etc. they are criminals but understandable and organised criminals that kill. The Joker on the other hand is an agent of chaos. Even criminals are terrified of him. Plus Batman is discipline. Just because he kills or severely PERMANENTLY crpples one or two that doesn't mean he's going to continue. If he believes in humanity so much why is it that he believes that killing one person, others will follow that same trend?

[@halokid1901]

That’s what I’m saying he’s supposed to be some peak human physically and mentally but can’t see that some things need to be done cause he’ll snap Is crazy he should just put up the cowl and be Bruce Wayne and stfu

[@mightguy3118]

I could understand Batman refusing to kill average street thugs. But as long as joker breathes hundreds of people die and he continues to break out of prison. Or any other villain that's flat out a pure danger to society

[@halokid1901]

@@mightguy3118yep

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@mightguy3118There will just be another villain. There's always another villain.

[@andy2200]

@@mightguy3118 This is not justice. This is a game of the insane. Catch them. They escape, they kill 10. Catch them, they escape, they kill 50. Catch, escape, kill100. Repeating the process over and over and expecting different results.

[@Vibranium_man]

Can you do the science of cortosis from star wars video?

[@nathan-fj2fi]

In reality yes he should. But one defense I have for him not killing is the fact that in Under the Red Hood he has stated that if he does kill he won’t be able to stop

[@Icemario87]

Batman is a vigilante. He's a lawbreaker. He's tolerated by the police because of his friendship with Commissioner Gordon. If he kills, that tolerance goes away. Why bother with "killing, even in self-defense, makes the strongest willpower even than Green Lantern instantly and permanently snap" logic?

[@darkman7009]

ironically most criminal who he punch probabaly died seizure

[@conradsutton1456]

We forget that with all the fighting skills he possesses, Batman has to be able to inflict maximum damage with no fatalities.

[@sageoverheaven]

Everyone who advocates for Batman killing needs to read Kingdom Come, Superman vs The Elite, and Batman: Under the Hood 💀

[@redrasegarden]

I’ve read only one of those.

[@sageoverheaven]

@@redrasegarden Well, Superman vs the Elite is actually just the movie adaptation of Action Comics #775, so that one's probably super digestible compared to the other two.

[@redrasegarden]

@@sageoverheaven the one I read was kingdom come

[@m4sterpolk786]

Kingdom Come is not a great example for you... an old Batman builds a police state spying all people of Gotham just to stop crime. This just proves that his war against crime was worth nothing

[@m4sterpolk786]

Superman vs Elite has nothing to do with Batman, but with Superman. It's pretty obvious why Super shouldn't kill anyone, he's literally an alien, it's as if humanity accepted a being from another planet coming to subjugate the population. But if you want to discuss a parallel between the Elite and Batman... that group is only "villainous" because they embarked on a movement to solve all the world's problems by killing someone, something that if Batman just killed the Joker, he wouldn't be a villain

[@jevonjohnson5824]

Any updates on my suggestion

[@nellidivina5280]

Justice lords batman killed his foes, I think

[@kennyobi9871]

He’s literally evil

[@MusicLover-my6fo]

Hey, Trick Theory! I have a question for you: as a Marvel fan, do you think the Punisher could stop all crime in Gotham? I just think that with all of the Punisher's military knowledge and additional training, that the Punisher could actually stand a chance at wiping out all crime in Gotham. Maybe that could be a future video idea for you.

[@Superdude-rd2gs]

the man can't clear his side of new York what's he gonna do in gotham.

[@m4sterpolk786]

Well, its certain that Gotham criminals will be more scared of a angry military man shooting every gangster in the neighborhood, than they are with the Batman that only break some of your bones and put you a asylum that you can escape next month

[@joshheralal8758]

​@@m4sterpolk786The Marvsl ones aren't lmao

[@DravisACard]

​@@m4sterpolk786more scarred of an angry military man, in gotham? 😅 Are you aware of the villains in gotham? I think you're thinking of Adam West Gotham.

[@m4sterpolk786]

The only time Joker was scared in his life was when the Batman/Punisher crossover, Frank was trying to kill him​, so... yeah @@DravisACard