If it came down to it...

[The Redux 714]

if it were a kill or be killed situation, how do you think Batman would go down? Would he kill, or would he go down fighting?

I know Batman has a strict "no kill" policy, but what if a situation he was in was so far gone that was the only other option next to dying?

Honestly, I think, despite his rule, he would probably kill if the situation came down to it, but he'd hate himself for it.

 

[Mladen]

Its obviously up to the writer of a specific story, but they always manage to write around that particular moral quandry, probably because its one which entirely screws up the ridiculous moral standpoint they've set up for him. Once you start superheroes in HUMAN moral dilemmas and quandries, ones where they have to make REAL decisions, the escapism starts to break down, and the idea of some guy dressing up in a dumb outfit to fight crime becomes questionable. As long as you keep the moral dilemmas simple, the question doesn't arise.

Batman has never HAD to kill somebody in order to save a life, and writers ALWAYS make sure he's never in the position to have to make that decision since fans will be shocked and annoyed at either conclusion. He's always got an escape which involves just injuring the criminal, or (deus ex machina) James Gordon busts in at the last second and shoots the guy down (which funnily enough Batman doesn't have a problem with).

Jeez, fanboys are still shocked and angry at that page in DKR where he shoots and kills a mutant gang-member to save a little boy's life. Even though its clearly the correct moral decision, it breaks the simplistic and realistically impossible moral standard which has been imposed on him by childish censors and fan expectations.

In answer to your question: The limitations of the simplistic type of superhero story means he'll never be in a situation where has to make that decision.

 

[The Redux 714]

....did you even read what I typed?

IF he ever was. Basically, what you said was "He won't, so don't worry about it.", which is pretty stupid on your part, even though it is more than likely true. But...what if he was?

What if...say, he goes agaisnt someone who he cannot just beat down, scare, or get at indirectly, and he starts to loose. The baddie in question is not gonna stop until Batman is dead, and Bruce knows this, and he also knows he can't beat this guy. What would he do? Would he really go so far as to loose his life and mission to protect the identity of Batman, or would he loose his purpose and kill the guy to save his own skin?

No one can beat their basic insticnts, and the "kill or be killed" instinct is among them. Would Batman give into his more primal brain function, or would he power through, mentally, and still loose?

It's a "lesser of two evils" in Bats' mind at that point, and after quite a while of being beaten closer and closer to death...that line he doesn't cross starts to get really hazy.

Does one actually think he'd loose his mission, his life and purpose all for his own skin? I don't.

 

[Fledermaus]

Jeez, fanboys are still shocked and angry at that page in DKR where he shoots and kills a mutant gang-member to save a little boy's life. Even though its clearly the correct moral decision, it breaks the simplistic and realistically impossible moral standard which has been imposed on him by childish censors and fan expectations.

He didn't kill that mutant. If you're speaking of the Wrigley child's kidnapping, Batman did shoot the mutant, but it clearly wasn't a kill shot.

 

[Mladen]

....did you even read what I typed?

IF he ever was. Basically, what you said was "He won't, so don't worry about it.", which is pretty stupid on your part, even though it is more than likely true. But...what if he was?

He's not a real person, and the situations he's placed in are far from real.

The question itself is utterly ridiculous, because he's a character in a bunch of stories which usually have no moral questioning. To then throw him into a situation which is well outside the possible world he inhabits is the stupid part. You may have well have asked "If it were a kill or be killed situation, how do you think Mickey Mouse would go down? Would he kill, or would he go down fighting?" such a situation can never happen in a Mickey Mouse story, nor can it happen in a Batman story, because neither can function in the context of real-world moral dilemmas.
Its a stupid question.

He didn't kill that mutant. If you're speaking of the Wrigley child's kidnapping, Batman did shoot the mutant, but it clearly wasn't a kill shot.

In what way was it clearly not a kill shot besides wishful thinking? The guy says something like, "Stay back, I'll kill him, I'll kill him" and BANG and then Bats says, "I believe you." There is a single frame in which you can't quite make out where the bullet hole is, but the back wall is covered in blood. Then the next scene we have Batman is interrogating the third mutant. We never hear about the one he shot ever again. There's absolutely no reason to believe Batman would have shot to injure, given the context of the situation, the child's life at risk, his characterisation thus far in the story, etc. If he HAD shot to injure, he would be intentionally choosing the action which would be more of a risk to the child, so how can you defend that decision?

Seriously, there's no reason presented in the story to believe that Batman hasn't killed that guy as the last resort. Besides the fact that Miller originally wrote DKR as out of continuity, and therefore to do whatever he wants, why assume that Batman's ridiculous oath to never ever take a life applies?

 

[Infinity9999x]

Jeez, fanboys are still shocked and angry at that page in DKR where he shoots and kills a mutant gang-member to save a little boy's life. Even though its clearly the correct moral decision, it breaks the simplistic and realistically impossible moral standard which has been imposed on him by childish censors and fan expectations.

There's still a debate on weather or not he actually killed that gang member. I recall a big debate on it in a thread around here a while ago.

 

[Grim Goblin]

He's not a real person, and the situations he's placed in are far from real.

The question itself is utterly ridiculous, because he's a character in a bunch of stories which usually have no moral questioning. To then throw him into a situation which is well outside the possible world he inhabits is the stupid part. You may have well have asked "If it were a kill or be killed situation, how do you think Mickey Mouse would go down? Would he kill, or would he go down fighting?" such a situation can never happen in a Mickey Mouse story, nor can it happen in a Batman story, because neither can function in the context of real-world moral dilemmas.
Its a stupid question.

No matter how often I've read that line of thought, it never cease to be annoying and completely besides the point. Here's a guy who's obviously a fan and as such, has some level of emotional investment in the characters and you somehow felt the need to piss all over him for asking a question . Get over yourself man!

In what way was it clearly not a kill shot besides wishful thinking? The guy says something like, "Stay back, I'll kill him, I'll kill him" and BANG and then Bats says, "I believe you." There is a single frame in which you can't quite make out where the bullet hole is, but the back wall is covered in blood. Then the next scene we have Batman is interrogating the third mutant. We never hear about the one he shot ever again. There's absolutely no reason to believe Batman would have shot to injure, given the context of the situation, the child's life at risk, his characterisation thus far in the story, etc. If he HAD shot to injure, he would be intentionally choosing the action which would be more of a risk to the child, so how can you defend that decision?
How a
Seriously, there's no reason presented in the story to believe that Batman hasn't killed that guy as the last resort. Besides the fact that Miller originally wrote DKR as out of continuity, and therefore to do whatever he wants, why assume that Batman's ridiculous oath to never ever take a life applies?

IT'S NOT A KILL SHOT! Despite the lack of clarity over where the bullet hole is, the blood ON the mutant kid clearly suggests a shoulder wound. As far as not hearing anything more about him... NO **** SHERLOCK! he's just been shot, he's obviously in surgery or in intensive care when Bats is interrogating the third mutant .

As far as reasons presented, well you've got the fact that Bats specifies he's using rubber bullets at the dump. He then turns off the weapons systems because he "doesn't wants to leave himself a backdoor" and "might be tempted to use it". then of course, the fact that he breaks Joker's neck without killing him. Also his speech to the mutants and SOBs concerning guns when he hires them at the end.

Now to answer your question The Redux 714, I think Bats would go down fighting but he wouldn't cross the line. My reasoning is that he's faced with what normal people would consider "kill or be killed" situations every night he's on the job and would have dealt with that possibility before starting his war on crime. It seems to me that he'd rather die than become the same thing (in his mind) that took his parents away from him. just my thought though .

 

[Xofenroht]

If Batman were placed in a kill or be killed situation, it would have to be very serious. In that case, the person killing him would have to be more skilled than Bats, thus separating Batman from the average battle he engages in. That means that he couldn't handle it like the rest of his fights.

So YES he would kill if it came down to it. Think about it, if there's someone who's about to kill Batman he's either A) A villain or B) Another hero opposing Bats. At that point, if Batman allows them to kill him, the person could go on to repeat this with others. The lesser of two evils (to Batman) would then be to kill him.

Sure, there's been the Joker, but this is a "if it came down to it" kind of circumstance.

 

[Two-Face]

Batman is like God. He'll never die.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'm sure he'd kill...like he's done before.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I'm sure he'd kill...like he's done before.

Batman has killed before and in books a lot more resent then the one's you posted.But to answer original posters question.I do not think that he would kill just to save his own life.But if it were to save himself so that he could save the lives of others then maybe.

 

[BubbaGump]

Prep time.

 

[Cobblepot]

The modern day wouldn't kill not even in this situation, he'd rather die himself.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The modern day wouldn't kill not even in this situation, he'd rather die himself.

That depends on what you consider "modern day

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The modern day wouldn't kill not even in this situation, he'd rather die himself.

Agreed.

He certainly would 'Let' anyone die if he could help them. Even Ra's. Oh, wait! I forgot about BB.