I am. I get what you're arguing, I just don't agree with any of it or that it was Snyder's intention to make some sort of statement about consequences. Look at the quote that was posted below. Snyder had Batman kill people because he thought it was awesome, not to make any sort of commentary.
Okay, that's some pretty funky reading comprehension. Nowhere in that statement does Snyder say Batman killing people is awesome. It's the exact opposite. He's saying that the previous Batman films did not realistically present the consequences of what Batman has to do in the midst of a life or death fight. He's saying it is ridiculous to put this stuff on screen and pretend that nothing bad ever happens.
Moreover, this is a quote from an
essay on escapist violence in Snyder's DCCU films that I liked, and it seems relevant:
Zack Snyder has, on more than one occasion, talked about how consequences are very important to him. How he can’t have characters mowing down people without showing their bodies and the grisliness of the action. How he thinks it’s irresponsible and glorifying violence not to do that. In that respect, Batman v Superman is a deconstruction of the concept of consequence-free action. If you want to see the cool batmobile rampage through the streets, you will, but you will also see the consequences of it ramming through cars. You want to see Batman beating up criminals? Okay, but you’ll see how their limbs snap when he hits them and how they scream in agony when he takes them down. Truly, there is nothing wrong with this, nor is there anything wrong with Nolan’s approach; both are different and there’s room for both. The issue is we don’t need everything to be escapist. Sometimes facing the reality of the situation is necessary.
In
this interview with TIME (start interview at 2:50) during the release of
Sucker Punch, Snyder talks about his love for the film
Blue Velvet in part because it depicted the truth of violence. It didn't sugar coat it. The violence was real because it has real consequences, and in being real, Snyder believed the depiction of violence was more responsible. Snyder also said: "I'm a big advocate of the consequences of these movies...Without the consequences, they're slightly irresponsible in that it's unconditional violence" (
Source). Both statements are utterly consistent. From Snyder's comments on the Nolan films to his comments about violence in other projects, Snyder believes that the only responsible way to depict violence is to show the real consequences of it. The real threat of injury, the real blood, the real pain, and the real possibility of death.
Unrelated, but I'm guessing you haven't watched the news at any point in the last few years because yes, police officers killing people absolutely causes controversy, particularly when it's under suspicious circumstances. With Batman it'd be even worse because he's not even an appointed officer of the law, just some dude running around murdering criminals.
What suspicious circumstances? Known associates of convicted criminal, Lex Luthor, were intercepted by The Batman at the Port of Gotham. Later, an old woman and pillar of her small town community, could testify that the KGBeast and his goons terrorized her until The Batman arrived. Clark tried to write a story just taking on the brands and mainstream media representative, Perry White, shot down the idea because it didn't have a chance to make in impact due to the death of the "American conscience." The real world news absolutely lionizes heroes who take on bad guys even if those bad guys get killed. Americans eat up the "Nothing stops a bad guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun" nonsense. People get mad when cops or people of color are killed without cause. People don't get mad when criminals are killed by other criminals or heroes.
