Should heroes kill in some circumstances?

[Tra-El]

If there were never any stakes high enough to challenge the hero into atleast thinking about the end-game and result to kill then I wouldn't have any interest in the first place. I never turned my head at the weight of trivial and controversial situations a hero may find themselves in. How things are handled is another discussion but yeah, hero's should kill in uncontrollable circumstances.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Batman and Superman has some special rules in this set, thats why everyone went berserk last time. Batman's very existence relies on not killing, people question "Why he didnt kill Joker like this to save himself a whole lot of trouble?" when he shoots someone.

Have you read Batman: Hush? Chapter 7 'The Joke' centres on 'should Batman just kill the Joker' - whilst having Batman deliver possibly the most brutal Joker beat-down I've ever seen. It includes heavy references to Joker's shootings of Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke and Sarah Essen in No Man's Land.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Yes....heroes should kill in some circumstances. Consider them like the police. They shouldn't actively try to kill bad guys, they should attempt to capture first.....BUT....if a guy has a big old butcher knife at someone's throat and they start to cut them.....bullet to the brain.

This is how I feel as well. All superheroes are like cops to me and to protect the innocent they sometimes have to take a life. I see the DCEU superheroes as having a little more of a soldier type quality to them. WW is the vet Batman is the veteran whose been jaded by his past Superman is the new recruit who still believe in the mission.
In regards to killing to save people I will say that Batman's road rage in BvS wasn't to save anyone.

In regards to Superman I've seen him kill in other mediums, and with Batman he has killed in every movie except Batman & Robin.

 

[Enriquespy]

I would be weary of giving superheroes cop privileges. Superheroes are not cops, and some of them are role models.

 

[Rocanrol]

Let's not eat steak because babies can't chew it.

/jk

 

[writer0327]

Superheroes are not cops, unless they are employed by the government and are given the capacity and right to kill, they shouldn't have the right to kill at all. They are citizens, no more than you or I.

They are already given license to take the law into their own hands by apprehending criminals themselves, I guess you could call it a "citizen's arrest" but killing? Nah, that's where the line should be drawn.

 

[Rocanrol]

Superheroes are not cops, they are criminals. Anti-vigilantism and anti-mask laws make sure of that.

So all superheroes (except those sponsored by the state like Captain Atom), the whole spectre, are breaking the law, from 'Mr. Big Blue Boyscout' to 'no-kill but certainly prosecuted for assault and battery' to executioner Roscharch.

I always felt that their level of legitimacy depends on their public approval, an unstable opinion to say at least.

While most people keep superheroes in high regard (and superheroes honour this trust) government will not cross them, at least not publicly. This argumment is an instrinsic part of the vigilante narrative, jumping from white to black back and forth. Operating outside the law for the sake of their cruzade.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Superheroes are not cops, they are criminals. Anti-vigilantism and anti-mask laws make sure of that.

So all superheroes (except those sponsored by the state like Captain Atom), the whole spectre, are breaking the law, from 'Mr. Big Blue Boyscout' to 'no-kill but certainly prosecuted for assault and battery' to executioner Roscharch.

I always felt that their level of legitimacy depends on their public approval, an unstable opinion to say at least.

While most people keep superheroes in high regard (and superheroes honour this trust) government will not cross them, at least not publicly. This argumment is an instrinsic part of the vigilante narrative, jumping from white to black back and forth. Operating outside the law for the sake of their cruzade.

Some heroes seem to view it that way (Superman for instance - as highlighted in Kingdom Come). Others (e.g. Batman) deem it their mission and purpose whatever opinions the public holds.

 

[idiot09]

Superheroes are not cops, unless they are employed by the government and are given the capacity and right to kill, they shouldn't have the right to kill at all.

But its okay to beat criminals to a pulp or making them vegetables?

Or to torture someone to get information out of them?

 

[acedrake]

How about mind wipe?
A decade or so ago, the JLA super heroes erased the minds of a very notable size of super villains and Batman as well. The villains found the heroes secret identities and targeted the family of the heroes. Well the JLA erased their memories and also Batman's when he discovered the mind wipe. Well that caused Battie to create Brother Eye in some unconscious level. So again, Villains who are unstoppable and those who tell the hero "You can lock me up but when I get out of here Ill kill a few thousands more". What is a superhero course of action? Way back in the late 80's, Superman executed three Krytonians from a different universe using green kryptonite to which he was immune to. Of course this action resulted on a very fragmented Superman's psyche forcing him to create a double personality unbeknownst to him.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Seem to remember Adam West's Batman using some kind of 'Bat-amnesia spray' a few times!

 

[writer0327]

But its okay to beat criminals to a pulp or making them vegetables?

Or to torture someone to get information out of them?

I didn't say that was okay either. It's all criminal behavior, but the line should be drawn at what amounts to murder.

Heroes have the ability to resolve problems without killing.

 

[idiot09]

I didn't say that was okay either. It's all criminal behavior, but the line should be drawn at what amounts to murder.

Why draw the line at that? That are all illegal things and bad things.

 

[writer0327]

Why draw the line at that? That are all illegal things and bad things.

Because it involves taking a life.

 

[idiot09]

Because it involves taking a life.

They are citizens, no more than you or I.

Saying its only the murdering where you draw the line, and not the torturing,vigilantism and the assault, and then saying they are like citizens, seems like a contradiction.

 

[writer0327]

Saying its only the murdering where you draw the line, and not the torturing,vigilantism and the assault, and then saying they are like citizens, seems like a contradiction.

The point of they are citizens is that they are not deputies or officers of the government of their country. If that were the case, they are under the jurisdiction of the laws of their country, and if that country allows heroes to murder, then so be it. But in our discussion, heroes are merely citizens.

Murder ends life. None of that other stuff necessarily ends life. That's where the line is drawn. Who gets to judge when life should be taken and when it shouldn't?

Technically, this is a legal discussion, because obviously it's all illegal, but in many ways it's really a moral one. Should a hero be morally allowed to take a life? I think taking a life is where the line gets drawn. If he beats up the criminal, but the criminal lives, that's illegal as well, but the criminal isn't dead. The criminal is alive and still able to live out the rest of his/her life, maybe even get rehabilitated and become a great member of society. But once he/she is killed by the hero, the hero has ended that possibility for that person.

If we are saying that in all circumstances the hero is a law unto himself, that's where things get awfully dicey. How do we know the hero is using good judgment in deciding this life? What if the hero is having a bad day and just says "Screw it, I don't have time to negotiate a surrender, I don't feel like fighting this guy right now, I can just off him?"

So legally, the answer is no.
Morally, the answer is no.

No murdering for heroes.

 

[Set]

The answer, for me, would depend on the hero.

Heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman are ideals, inspirations and champions. Additionally, they have incredible powers, and, IMO, should be held to higher standards (just as a police officer or soldier is held to a different set of legal standards than a civilian or citizen). The fact that they have the power to end most conflicts without killing anyone, and aren't even in danger from some things that would allow a powerless person like me to justify a self-defense argument, means that they are much less able to argue that they were 'in fear for their life' or whatever. Also, speaking as someone who can't burn down cities with an angry stare, or throw a cruise-ship into orbit, I'd want people with those abilities to exercise some restraint, yanno?

But for Batman, who has never been an inspiration, or even a 'hero,' so much as a vigilante who deliberately crafts a terrifying and intimidating reputation for himself, I see a different standard. He's very much in danger (even if, like a fireman or police officer, it's often a danger into which he's chosen to run) when faced with a psycho with a gun, or a roided-up dude in a mask. I don't think he's going to get away with a self-defense argument when he's deliberately putting himself into situations like these on a nightly basis, but he's still far more justified in doing what he has to to survive (or to protect others) than Superman would be to just laser-vision anyone who points a gun at him, or Wonder Woman would be to chop someone in half when she could restrain them with her magic rope.

That Batman *chooses* not to go all Punisher and start blowing people away is perhaps his most heroic quality.

 

[idiot09]

But in our discussion, heroes are merely citizens.

And citizens are not allowed to beat people up and interoggate them when they feel like it. you get my point?

Should a hero be morally allowed to take a life?

Morally no. And morally beating people people up, and assault and all that is not moral either. That is when you just consider the action alone, and severe it from the context it is performed, like you are doing with killing.

So legally, the answer is no.

Violence and assault is too, but you are not drawing the line at that.
LEgally that aint allowed either lol

No murdering for heroes.

You didnt even like that with Wonder Woman?

 

[Primal Slayer]

Totally if the situation calls for it which is a reson why I wasnt against Supes killing Zod in MoS and is partially a problem I have with Batman. There comes a point where if you keep locking them up only for them to constantly break out that the blood starts being on your hands as well.

 

[writer0327]

And citizens are not allowed to beat people up and interoggate them when they feel like it. you get my point?



Morally no. And morally beating people people up, and assault and all that is not moral either. That is when you just consider the action alone, and severe it from the context it is performed, like you are doing with killing.



Violence and assault is too, but you are not drawing the line at that.
LEgally that aint allowed either lol



You didnt even like that with Wonder Woman?

I totally get your point. As I previously said, all of these actions are illegal. This is why I said this is a matter of morality.

My point is I am willing to make some moral allowances for our heroes in the pursuit of justice. Murder is just not one of them.

Heroes can and should find other ways to pursue justice. Murder shouldn't be an allowable option.

 

[TheRedWraith]

Unless said course to preserve their precious moral high ground results in a prolonged fight that kills many more people, especially if the plan requires enough finesse that it could easily fail, this is not to say they go key red straight away and try to kill at a moments notice, but at some point as the damage and death mounts there has to be a point where enough is enough.

Also those people like Wonder Woman or Superman who some say are never in danger, they are routinely fighting people in their power level who can kill them (because clearly a villain is scaled to their hero) and cause untold destruction, so if over the course of the fight the only rational answer is to kill them, then so be it.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I totally get your point. As I previously said, all of these actions are illegal. This is why I said this is a matter of morality.

My point is I am willing to make some moral allowances for our heroes in the pursuit of justice. Murder is just not one of them.

Heroes can and should find other ways to pursue justice. Murder shouldn't be an allowable option.

What an awful box to place characters in. lol

 

[King23DC]

Yes. Realistically it will happen. Even if collateral damage. Just like police, the intent should be to avoid killing, but if it happens or needs to happen then so be it.

Even in the case of Batman in BvS ... people make it sound like he's going around offing people violently ala the Punisher. Which couldn't be more of an extreme over exaggeration.

The deaths via Batman in B89 and Forever - TDK Rises all seemed fitting, unavoidable or circumstantial. Man of Steel too.

Only one that was gratuitous or even careless and villainous in intent was Batman Returns. Which all seemed out of character. Burning random thugs alive, or blowing run of the mill thugs to pieces with bombs, etc.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Can we stop calling killing 'murder'?

 

[BruceWayne2]

Have you read Batman: Hush? Chapter 7 'The Joke' centres on 'should Batman just kill the Joker' - whilst having Batman deliver possibly the most brutal Joker beat-down I've ever seen. It includes heavy references to Joker's shootings of Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke and Sarah Essen in No Man's Land.

Wait, it's been a long time since I read No Man's Land. What does Joker do to Sarah Essen?