• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

First Avenger Is Captain America like Batman when it comes to killing?

Would Cap kill?

  • Yes, he'd kill if he had to.

  • No, he'd never kill.


Results are only viewable after voting.
But those medics or radiomen or whomever don't have the skill set that Cap has. He is a weapon unlike any other. He doesn't need a gun to take out enemy soldiers. He doesn't need a gun to take out a tank. He has an indestructible shield and the ability to move faster and react faster than any other human on the planet.
thats true. i guess it depends on where hes fighting. if its a smaller special ops type mission he could probably get away with just incapacitating his enemies, but if its full on front lines combat i dont care how fast and strong you are anybody can die at anytime. plus hed have to worry about the guys hes fighting with. every bad guy left standing could mean the death of him or his comrades who arent superpowered by the way. its not that big of a deal to me but im interested to see how they handle it in the movie. Fox news already jumped on J.J.s comment about Cap not being a flag waver, but i guess all publicity is good publicity. they suck anyways. lol
 
Of course he wouldn't kill. Why all this confusion about it? :oldrazz:
 
After so many years of people killing each other and posing with all kinda guns for the cover of DVDs it would be really surprising if the majority wouldn't vote for him to kill.

It's an American favourite.
 
Have the naysayers forgotten he chose to join the army so that he could fight for his country, no matter what he had to do. Why would he all of a sudden have reservations? That's just stupid.

And none of this b.s. either of him only doing it in self-defense. There's enough heroes who have that mindset and Cap isn't one of them. He's a super soldier and he performs the mission at hand, and killing enemy forces tends to be part of the mission.
 
"No matter what it took" is the problematic part of the sentence.
 
Hey, Majik, that's the same thing in other words!
 
You did say that... re-read my post. I didn't ask why you want him to not kill in self defence, I asked why you'd like him to kill when it's not in self defence.
 
Yep.

And they could also add a nice touch in his costume, like a white skull instead of the star, covering his chest.
 
You did say that... re-read my post. I didn't ask why you want him to not kill in self defence, I asked why you'd like him to kill when it's not in self defence.
Because he needs to defend others who can't fight.
Are you telling me that he shouldn't kill Hitler unless Adolf puts a gun to his head.
 
Because he needs to defend others who can't fight.
Are you telling me that he shouldn't kill Hitler unless Adolf puts a gun to his head.


Defence of the life of others, as I've already stated in this thread, is also a mitigant. I only said self defence because that's what you mentioned in particular. My question is why would you want Cap to kill someone if no one's life is in imminent danger?

As for your Hitler question, you haven't given enough detail for me to answer that. But if no life is in imminent danger then of course he shouldn't kill Hitler.
 
Defence of the life of others, as I've already stated in this thread, is also a mitigant. I only said self defence because that's what you mentioned in particular. My question is why would you want Cap to kill someone if no one's life is in imminent danger?
Cap wouldn't be used if there wasn't a case of imminent danger.:huh:
As for your Hitler question, you haven't given enough detail for me to answer that. But if no life is in imminent danger then of course he shouldn't kill Hitler.
Do I really need to give detail of Hitler during WWII? :dry:
 
Cap wouldn't be used if there wasn't a case of imminent danger.:huh:


Do I really need to give detail of Hitler during WWII? :dry:


So, you're admitting I'm right then... he shouldn't kill unless in defence.

And about Hitler, try to follow. You hypothesized a situation, without giving details. The details needed are those of that situation.:whatever:
 
Last edited:
So, you're admitting I'm right then... he shouldn't kill unless in defence.
I'm not admitting anything. Sometimes, Cap may need to be used to take down a threat before it manages to fulfill any threats. You can get nitpicky about it being for defense in the future and blah blah blah, but you won't see Cap in action hesitating to kill someone that may be a threat to him or what he's fighting for.
And about Hitler, try to follow. You hypothesized a situation, without giving details. The details needed are those of that situation.:whatever:
I didn't think I had to give details about a tyrant who was a huge part of WWII, which is the main setting of Cap's origin.
 
Listen... I'm a strong proponent for Cap not killing... that being said, I did vote yes, cap would kill... because he has. I can think of 3 instances that Cap killed someone. The first was the assassin that killed Erkstien and the second was Baron Blood. The third was that terrorist a few years ago, right before he went public with his identity. One was an accident and the other 2 were calculated decision.

If a superhero not killing is a cliche... then Cap was not killing before it was cliche. Don't get me wrong. Cap will kill if the situation leaves him no other choice. I'm not sure what comics you people have been reading or what they've been doing with Cap the last bunch of years... but the cap I grew up reading chose to embrase life... not take life. Its a big issue with him (maybe not Ultimate Cap) but 616 Cap for sure!!
 
Wow, people are really getting too wound up with this killing thing. I hate how people think Cap is Mister Perfect who won't kill or is squeeky clean. Of course he would have to kill. What other alternatives would he have if the situation calls for it? Poeple act like he would be the Punisher. He ain't. He does it when it's neccessary. And even when it is, he isn't happy about it. Just because you have a gun it doesn't mean you enjoy killing. It says I don't want to get my ass shot, and in Cap's case. "I'm using this gun to defend myself because I'm suppose to be a symbol on the battlefield, and if I can't use my shield all the time, and if I was shot, without a firearm in a war I wouldn't be much good." What's Cap suppose to just do? Run up deflecting bullets and get from A to B untouched? He's going to have to run into Nazis at some point. And the shield won't come in handy all the time. Plus, using the shield for everything would get stale. There has to be some points where he kills. But only when he has to. Like every other soldier in war. Or a human being. Self defense. We kill someone in self defense, it doesn't mean we enjoyed it or we are a psychopath. Plus he was trained to do it. I mean he wouldn't sign up to serve his country if that didn't mean killing? It still goes when you're a symbol. When neccessary. Yes, he's a symbol of hope and America and embracing life. But if it means not getting killed in a war, this is logical. It makes perfect sense.

Put yourself in that position.

"Where's my gun?"
"You don't have one. Your shield is your weapon. You are a symbol. It's invincible."
"Just because it's invincible doesn't mean something won't happen to it. I should get a gun."
"A gun? No."
"Why not?"
"Because it contradicts everything you stand for."
"No. I'm still a symbol. Putting a gun in my hand and killing in self defense is not a contradiction. It's me deciding and making the consicience decision whether to live or die. Just because I kill, doesn't rip my symbolism apart. I still have good intentions. As long as I have guilt and I feel it's wrong makes it fine. What good's a symbol for America that's dead. Oh, and the right to bear arms is the second Ammendment in the constitution. Which is American correct?"

It dragged at the end, but you get the point.

Even if I was a super solider, I still would be scared going into battle head first ahead of everyone else with just a shield and not a fire arm.
 
Last edited:
NO WAAAAAY CAP WOULD KILL HITLER. He would want him to pay for his war crimes. Killing him is giving him the easy way out. That is just ridiculous.
 
Cap is right up there with Superman on the old moral compass meter. THey both stand for a lot of the same principals. Cap has always been that way. He kills when he has no other choice and regrets having to do it. People who think that this type of character is cliche needs to remember that Cap and Superman basically created the cliche... ITS WHO THE CHARACTER IS. I would love to find out exact instances (from 616 cannon) where Cap purposely killed someone. LIke I said... I know of 3. THere is probably more. I can think of 3 people that Superman chose to kill. Zod, Non and Ursela (not a coincidence that Byrne drew/wrote both Baron Bloods(with Stern I believe) death and the Kryptonian villians deaths)
 
I'm not admitting anything. Sometimes, Cap may need to be used to take down a threat before it manages to fulfill any threats. You can get nitpicky about it being for defense in the future and blah blah blah, but you won't see Cap in action hesitating to kill someone that may be a threat to him or what he's fighting for.

I didn't think I had to give details about a tyrant who was a huge part of WWII, which is the main setting of Cap's origin.

You keep talking about "action" etc. That sounds alot like you're talking about warfare, which is not what this conversation is about. The rules for warfare are different. The question of killing willy-nilly only applies to Cap the hero.

Again, you've missed the point conserning Hitler. I didn't ask for general details about him. One would have to use details about the situation in a question conserning whether or not Cap should kill him. Eg: Cap sneaks up on Hitler having a bath; don't kill him. Cap finds Hitler holding a gun to a child's head; kill him. These questions are case specific, one can't generalise like you did.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"