would you support a murdering Batman?

[Thundercrack85]

Well murdering is a bit much. But kicking a crook off a building in a fight? That's fine.

 

[milost]

Why is he not breathing and with his neck to the side? Simple. It is because he fell from a ridiculous distance that lead to his death.

That scene plays off entirely as an accident to me, even the first time I saw it in theatres. I don't even hear Batman's "growl" and I saw that scene many times.

Then you're purposely disregarding the growl, perhaps flat out ignoring it. It's there. That and the fact that Nolan (both brothers) and Goyer clearly state in the Dark Knight screenplay book that Batman breaks his rule in the first two films. Like me, even they think that the death of Ra's is a little messy. So much so that they don't even have Batman deny or confirm Talia's claim that he murdered her father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJma8pVAvH4



1:50


Batman - "GRRRRRRRRR"


How do you not hear that? It's as plain as day. Batman bucks him off the ledge. That's no accident. He saves the boy's life. You can try to sugar coat it, claim that Batman did it by accident just so he doesn't have to break his rule, but for me, it's clear he does and people shouldn't have a problem with it. And I didn't say that the Dent thing is okay because it was "an accident", I said other scenarios in the comics, films, animated series where it is an accident is fine in my opinion. Essentially for me it depends entirely on the situation.

Batman isn't some goodie two shoes, perfect angel. He's human, he's flawed, he can kill. He does kill when it's necessary or in an accident or in some crucial situation with a serious dilemma. I think what he does is perfectly fine and in character.









And Nolan lies? Maybe, but that comes directly from the other two horses mouth's (Jonathan and Goyer)?







Jonathan Nolan: "He has this one rule, as the Joker says in the Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it."

Christopher Nolan: "He breaks it in two."

Jonathan Nolan: "In the first two."

David S. Goyer: Well, in the first, it's a kind of a yes and no. Refering to Ra's Al Ghul, when Batman says, 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you.'

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, I guess he gets by on a technicality with that one.

Jonathan Nolan: He does, but I remember calling you up at one point, I think you'd already shot the scene, and I said, 'You know what I'm not sure, I'm not so sure about that one, seems wrong.' (That and the death of League of Shadows members). What I loved about that, in the fullness of three films, is that it looks like there's an evolution, as you were saying.

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, but I didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David Goyer who broke that news later on. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on the Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to try and make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't use guns? Doesn't kill etc.'





You can find that in the introduction (page viii) of the Dark Knight Screenplay book.

Yes, the "no killing" rule is a crucial part of Batman. In fact, it is more important to Batman than it is for any other superhero. This is because unlike other superheroes who don't kill because they're superheroes, Batman has far deeper reasons for not doing it and is a core part of his character. In fact, the "no kill" rule is the second most defining thing about the character (the first being that he has no powers). Once he decides to intentionally commit murder, he is no better than the Joker and the Joker wants that. Batman killing completely changes the whole Batman universe from head to toe as well as Batman's relationships with many characters.

Tell this to Christopher Nolan, David Goyer and Johnathan Nolan.



Tell that to Ra's and the League of Shadows (depending on what kind of fan you are).

Tell that to the Garbage Truck driver goon.

Tell that to Harvey Dent.

Tell that to Talia's driver.

Tell that to Talia.







I'm sure I might be missing some.







For me, Batman can "make the choice that no one else can face". If he kills, depending on the situation, it doesn't make him just as bad as the Joker. The Joker might want Batman to think that, hell, I'm sure he does but that wouldn't be enough to break Batman into a spiraling descent of madness. Batman isn't the Joker, he isn't Dent. He's the hero, the Dark Knight, of this story.

Cops kill. The military kills. That doesn't make them bad guys. If Batman had run the Joker over with his Batpod going full speed, or dropped the Joker down off the building, then sure, the Joker would have won. But killing Dent to save the boy? Killing the enemy to save others? Sometimes it has to happen.

Then it gets even messier when we're dealing with killing with intent and killing "by accident". We can't make up the excuse that every life Batman takes is, "by accident". He kills them regardless. Imagine Batman in reality, he doesn't know what tolerance which criminal can take. Think about that person that he might punch too hard. The guys that couldn't take that fist to the face. Those cops that he crushes with his Batmobile that don't miraculously survive. Or the parked cars that he blows sky high that might have a couple making out in them. There would be casualties. It can't all be chalked up as "oops, that was an accident" or "whew, just missed em". That's childish and silly and defending a fictional character.



As far as the one rule goes, it wasn't so crucial to Batman before the comics code enforced that Batman be a smiling do gooder that can't kill or even carry a gun in his stories anymore. Or the Dark Knight Returns Batman (who has a sort of one rule that he breaks any way). Or any of the comic stories ranging from the 30s to 80s where Batman kills, sometimes sadistically. Or the even the Keaton Batman.


Or are they not Batman?

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So what was Batman supposed to do? Leave the coin to chance? Risk Jimmy Gordon's life?

Knowing Dent, he'd probably find a way to keep flipping just like he did with the Maroni's driver to get to Maroni. Who knows what he would have done if Batman had let him go on his rampage and it came up on tails. He'd probably go after Barbara and their daughter next.

Batman disposed of Dent, it needed to happen. Dent was beyond repair.


My only gripe is it would have been nice to see Bruce dwell on that decision but he sort of makes it even and rectifies the choice by taking the blame for Dent's crimes, for Dent and Rachel. Well, that and they cut out Batman's great line of "Nothing fair ever came out of the barrel of a gun". That was a great line for Batman and that scene that was stupid to cut.

THAT's the thing. Okay, I understand Batman had to kill Dent. But after all what was said about it in the movie, to address that in at least one line was in order.

 

[the last son]

That's a great line. Deleted scene?

 

[milost]

That's a great line. Deleted scene?

You mean this?



"Nothing fair ever came out of the barrel of a gun"



Yeah, that was a deleted line in the script. It was Batman's response to Two-Face's "Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair."

I have no idea why they cut it out. It's a great line, might have been one of Batman's best in the film. It makes perfect sense in the context of the story considering Batman's personal experience with Thomas and Martha and all.



Another good one that was cut from Batman was Batman's harsh line to Gordon after Gordon says "who are you going after!?!?" when Joker gives the addresses. Instead of screaming "RACHEL" and making it look personal, he was originally supposed to say "Dent knew the risks".

 

[Shikamaru]

Then you're purposely disregarding the growl, perhaps flat out ignoring it. It's there. That and the fact that Nolan (both brothers) and Goyer clearly state in the Dark Knight screenplay book that Batman breaks his rule in the first two films. Like me, even they think that the death of Ra's is a little messy. So much so that they don't even have Batman deny or confirm Talia's claim that he murdered her father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJma8pVAvH4



1:50


Batman - "GRRRRRRRRR"


How do you not hear that? It's as plain as day. Batman bucks him off the ledge. That's no accident. He saves the boy's life. You can try to sugar coat it, claim that Batman did it by accident just so he doesn't have to break his rule, but for me, it's clear he does.

Batman isn't some goodie two shoes, perfect angel. He's human, he's flawed, he can kill. He does kill when it's necessary. I think what he does is perfectly fine and in character.










And Nolan lies? Maybe, but that's comes directly from the other two horses mouth's (Jonathan and Goyer)?







Jonathan Nolan: "He has this one rule, as the Joker says in the Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it."

Christopher Nolan: "He breaks it in two."

Jonathan Nolan: "In the first two."

David S. Goyer: Well, in the first, it's a kind of a yes and no. Refering to Ra's Al Ghul, when Batman says, 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you.'

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, I guess he gets by on a technicality with that one.

Jonathan Nolan: He does, but I remember calling you up at one point, I think you'd already shot the scene, and I said, 'You know what I'm not sure, I'm not so sure about that one, seems wrong.' (That and the death of League of Shadows members). What I loved about that, in the fullness of three films, is that it looks like there's an evolution, as you were saying.

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, but I didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David Goyer who broke that news later on. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on the Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to try and make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't use guns? Doesn't kill etc.'





You can find that in the introduction (page viii) of the Dark Knight Screenplay book.

I watched the video. To be honest, this is the first time when I hear the growl (I'm not kidding). However, it sounds to me more like a growl from him having to get up and moving through the pain of the bullet than a "Roar! I'mma kill Harvey!" growl.

Regarding your quotes, you do have a point if all 3 of them said that Batman broke his rule at the end of TDK. However, I am still sticking to what I said before. It is either an accident or a plot hole. Since all 3 men have confirmed that Batman did kill Harvey in their eyes, then I consider it to be a plot hole.

But then again, I never argued that Batman didn't kill Harvey. What I argued was that accidental deaths do not count because they do not corrupt Batman. So technically, it is true that Batman killed Harvey. However, if it was an intentional murder as opposed to an accidental one, wouldn't it make sense for him to be corrupted at the beginning of TDKR? Yet he isn't. Basically, what Goyer and the Nolan bros. have said goes back to what I said earlier - it is either and accident or a plot hole. It could be viewed both ways. And if Batman intentionally killed Harvey, that makes the Joker the winner because he managed to corrupt Batman which not only contradicts TDK as a whole but makes the beginning of TDKR and the 8 year gap an even bigger plot hole. This all goes back to what I originally said - either an accident or a plot hole. No matter how you look at it, you reach the same conclusion, which is that it is one of those two.


Batman kills when it is necessary? I don't know what you're talking about but in the comics, Batman never kills whenever he is written correctly. The only exception was when he tried to kill Darkseid and the whole purpose behind that was to show how much it would take for Batman to break his one rule. It took the destruction of all reality and of the universe to make Batman cross that line. That is how big the threat must be in order for him to cross that line.

Just in case you plan on linking me to some obscure comic where Batman does kill, keep in mind that I said Batman never kills when he is written correctly. Bad writers who don't understand certain characters exist in the comic book industry all the time. Occasionally, you will get one of them once every 10 years or so who comes out with a poorly written story that goes against the essence of the character that DC eventually ends up retconning. This happens to all characters. Bad and inaccurate stories should simply be dismissed as being just that.

Batman does not kill. Period. It has been established.


Also, allow me to go into shock mode for a second:
NOLAN DID NOT KNOW THAT BATMAN DOESN'T KILL?

WOW. I cannot believe this. So not only did he not want to give Batman his cape and thought that the ending to TDKR is an accurate representation of Batman, but he also did not know that Batman doesn't kill? Wow. Just wow.

My friend has a theory about Nolan. His theory is that the only reason BB and TDK had so many comic book influences was because of Goyer and Jonathan Nolan who were there to hold his hand. Then with TDKR, he was given more freedom over them. Up until recently, I wasn't sure whether or not to believe that. However, with the everything I've been reading in the past few months, I've been coming closer and closer to that conclusion. What you just informed me combined with when Anno informed me that Nolan originally did not want to give Batman his cape was the final nail in the coffin for me.

I sometimes wonder how good BB and TDK really are (specifically TDK). I sometimes wonder whether the stuff that I like about them are actually there in the movie or if they're entirely my perception. I really don't know at this point. If they are all in my head though, that would really sadden me. TDK is one of my favorite movies of all time and the thought that I like it for reasons that are not in the film is something that would greatly hurt the way I look at them.

Tell this to Christopher Nolan, David Goyer and Johnathan Nolan.

I would if I could reach them.

Tell that to Ra's and the League of Shadows (depending on what kind of fan you are).

I'll give you that Bruce leaving Ra's on a train to die is not something Batman would do but it is not direct killing either.

Tell that to the Garbage Truck driver goon.

Those cars near the garbage truck were empty. There was no one in there. We know this for a fact.

Tell that to Harvey Dent.

We already discussed this.

Tell that to Talia's driver.

Tell that to Talia.

As you may know by now, I blame TDKR for contradicting a lot of the things in BB and TDK. As I said before, TDKR is the anti-TDK. It undoes many messages and themes about the film. That is why I am not too fond of it.

For me, Batman can "make the choice that no one else can face". If he kills, depending on the situation, it doesn't make him just as bad as the Joker. The Joker might want Batman to think that, hell, I'm sure he does but that wouldn't be enough to break Batman into a spiraling descent of madness. Batman isn't the Joker, he isn't Dent. He's the hero, the Dark Knight, of this story.

Cops kill. The military kills. That doesn't make them bad guys. If Batman had run the Joker over with his Batpod going full speed, or dropped the Joker down off the building, then sure, the Joker would have won. But killing Dent to save the boy? Killing the enemy to save others? Sometimes it has to happen.

Then it gets even messier when we're dealing with killing with intent and killing "by accident". We can't make up the excuse that every life Batman takes is, "by accident". He kills them regardless. Imagine Batman in reality, he doesn't know what tolerance which criminal can take. Think about that person that he might punch too hard. The guys that couldn't take that fist to the face. Those cops that he crushes with his Batmobile that don't miraculously survive. Or the parked cars that he blows sky high that might have a couple making out in them. There would be casualties. It can't all be chalked up as "oops, that was an accident" or "whew, just missed em". That's childish and silly and defending a fictional character.

I disagree. Batman always finds a way to get the job done without having to resort to murder. That is one of the most crucial aspects about his character. He also never accidentally killed someone in the comics by punching them too hard or crushing them with the batmobile or anything like that. Is it realistic? No. Call it a plot contrivance, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the truth.

If Batman was fine with taking a life in order to save another life, he would have killed the Joker a long time ago. There are many situations he was put in the comics where it seemed like he could not save the day without taking a life to save another life very similar to the scene with Harvey and Gordon's kid in TDK or even worse than that. However, he always manages to find it a way. That is what separates Batman from the cops and the military. He finds a way to save the day without having to resort to killing people, something the cops and military cannot do. On top of that, the cops and military answer to someone at the end of the day. Batman answers to no one and just one murder is enough to send him over the edge. And since he answers to no one, who will be there to stop him if he decides to go kill willy-nilly?

As far as the one rule goes, it wasn't so crucial to Batman before the comics code enforced that Batman be a smiling do gooder that can't kill or even carry a gun in his stories anymore. Or the Dark Knight Returns Batman (who has a sort of one rule that he breaks any way). Or any of the comic stories ranging from the 30s to 80s where Batman kills, sometimes sadistically. Or the even the Keaton Batman.

Ah, the classic "He killed in the first few issues" defense.

Prior to the 1970's, Batman had no character whatsoever much like all the other DC superheroes. It wasn't until the early 1970's when they began to flesh out his character. On top of that, the original Batman from the 1930's was a ripoff of the Shadow. As he began to move away from the Shadow and to become his own character, the character aspects he inherited from the Shadow began to fade away. Censorship was a part of it too. However, the "no kill" rule was not given any depth until Dennis O'Neil came along in the 70's. That was the period when comics began to get dark again. They could have easily returned Batman to his original dark roots and have him kill but they added the "no kill" rule and added depth to it because it fit the Batman character of today. Sure that it started out as censorship but it is anything but that today. Today, it has become a crucial part of Batman's character and it is something that you cannot remove or ignore.

He never killed anyone in The Dark Knight Returns. We know this because A) Batman states many times throughout the book that he has yet to break his one rule and B) News reporters themselves state multiple times prior to the Joker's death that Batman did not kill anyone since his return.

Never been a big fan of Burton's Batman. His Batman being a killer is what puts me off about those films too.

Or are they not Batman?

Yes. They're not Batman. Plain and simple.

 

[milost]

@ the last part.


The most important perception to these stories and films are your own. You and I and anyone else that watched these are the viewers, their perception is what matters. That's the beauty of it, everyone interprets things differently. I hope I didn't seem too condescending with the whole "look at 1:50, he growled" thing. You're free to interpret any way you like.


I agree with you, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are great, Dark Knight is one of my favorites of all time as well. TDKR though? Not by a long shot, I feel like they screwed up there, no matter how ambitious or grandiose they tried to be.


As for the whole killing thing, like I said, I love most interpretations. Whether it's the cool and collected Keaton Batman that will kill occasionally to the BTAS Batman version that has a strict, noble no kill stance (so much so that his cyborg counter part that's the perfect replication of Batman goes bonkers when he accidentally "kills" Batman) to the Bale Batman that has a no kill rule but occasionally breaks it here and there where it gets into controversial territory when he is forced to act.



I'm not the type to get up in arms about Batman killing and shouting "OMG, FAIL, that's not Batman!", as long as it's not something so extreme. Do I want to see Batman hunt down a random thug that has stolen some cash and send a bloody fist through his head and brains and mutter, "fitting end for his kind"? No. But I feel that the writers can bend it here and there. Batman's a dark hero in a nasty, crime ridden city. There's bound to be stories that delve into Batman going "too far", whether by choice, by accident, or what have you. That's the nature of a character as extreme as Batman. If you keep having him be the same thing in character and action with no evolution or arc, it gets old. There's really no definitive Batman, not with all the writers, not with all the stories, not with all the films, not with all the different artists. Batman isn't the same Batman that was invented 70 years ago, nor the one 60 years ago, or 50, or 40, etc. etc. I'm open to all interpretations as long as it's not too extreme or something I don't feel comfortable with for the Bruce Wayne/Batman character.

 

[Scorpion]

You all do know that when Boob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman in 1939, he blatantly killed people, throwing them off of roves, punching them through guard rails so that they fell into acid,...and that was just in the first appearance issue, Detective Comics #27. Later, he snapped necks by kicking people, hung them by the neck, and even used a gun to shoot them.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I think it would really take away from the film if Batman hadn't killed him. It's another thing that makes The Dark Knight so unique in the superhero sub-genre.

 

[Ponyboy]

I don't think Batman intends to kill. To harm grievously, sure. Burton's Batman was more blatant about it. But notice that all the men he "killed" ... he never went back to finish them off (i'm thinking mainly the guy caught on fire from the Batmobile)... In his mind he'd neutralized the threat. We can assume that those men died from their injuries, but when Batman left them they were still alive. I don't think of it as murder.

If you think about the "black thug" in the belltower from the '89 Batman film, that guy was gonna kill Batman. That was a kill or be killed situation, hence the "killing" was acceptable. So which is more cruel: if batman had broken both of that guy's kneecaps and beaten him so senseless that he was a drooling vegetable... or that he let the guy fall a hundred storeys to his death? *shrugs*

 

[Human Torch]

There were a ton of ways Batman could've got to Dent.Aim a batarang at his head/coin/gun would've done the trick easily.Granted,it would be fairly anticlimactic,but it would be pure Batman.

I'd have loved for him to lose his coin and freak out (a la TAS).

It certainly would've been easily to deal with Harvey who all but forgot about him at that point,than to free himself from the steel bar joker had him under,get off from being flat on his back,get out his grappling gun and save the Joker from falling to his death.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Nolan's Batman didn't murder anyone. I will go as far as calling them killings but not murders. He didn't save Ras Al Ghoul and although he did set the Legue of Shadows headquarters on fire he didnt stop any ninja from escaping. Dent was 100% an accident and thats all.

Burton's Batman killed intentionally. Anyway enough with that.

No i don't want to see a murdering Batman. The only time that i didn't mind Batman killing was in The Dark Knight Returns where he killed the Mutant thug who held the little kid hostage. That's it. And I prefere the TDKReturns movie version where he hits the Mutant's hand, dissarming him a la Lucky Luck but that is also a bit on the silly side. THAT Batman would kill him because A) He was written by Frank Miller B) There is no other way of getting out of that situation.

I really love the psycho/obssesed/determined Batman like he is in War Games, Tower of Babel, TDKReturns even in All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder.

Didn't he shoot the driver of the truck (that was carrying the bomb) with machine guns from the Bat? He was shooting bullets and explosives right at the approaching vehicle. Blowing up a truck that's carrying a bomb is a good way to save the city.

If someone intentionally sets a home on fire and if a bunch of people died from it, I'm sure that would be considered as murder in the court of law. It's not like they'd give you a free pass because you "didn't stop them from escaping".

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If someone intentionally sets a home on fire and if a bunch of people died from it, I'm sure that would be considered as murder in the court of law. It's not like they'd give you a free pass because you "didn't stop them from escaping".

This actually happened in the UK, a man set his home on fire in order to look like a hero when he went in to save his children. However, all 6 of the children died and he was given a life sentence for murder.

 

[the last son]

Batman really should have turned himself in for half of his crimes

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

No he shouldn't. He's immoral in a productive way.

 

[Soundwave88]

Nope.

Batman's no-kill stance is one of my favourite things about the him. It'd be nice if we saw that -obscenely important- side of the character reflected on screen next time.

Well said.

------------------
My 2 cents:

For Batman to kill he would be no different then all the criminals he fights every night.

I can accept Burton's Batman killing because Tim Burton's world isn't like our unlike Christopher Nolan's world is very much ours.

Even say Joel Schumacher is a little like our's, LITTLE maybe if Gotham was like Vegas and even then it was clearly a period piece well to me at least.

I'd think Batman ever killed someone it would shock him to a point of realizing how easy it is to kill and make him go off in some crazy spin.

For example, Watch Under The Red Hood movie it's explain perfectly why Batman won't kill.

 

[Bathead]

You all do know that when Boob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman in 1939, he blatantly killed people, throwing them off of roves, punching them through guard rails so that they fell into acid,...and that was just in the first appearance issue, Detective Comics #27. Later, he snapped necks by kicking people, hung them by the neck, and even used a gun to shoot them.

Which they officially changed in about the second or third year of Batman's publication. Since then, (in the comics at least) Batman has always had a strict "no kill" policy. Those first couple of years haven't been relevant for about 70 + years.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Which they officially changed in about the second or third year of Batman's publication. Since then, (in the comics at least) Batman has always had a strict "no kill" policy. Those first couple of years haven't been relevant for about 70 + years.

Yes, the Comic Code Authority certainly made Batman change into the average superhero. Bad way to mold your characters, by some moral code.

I also remember that Robin the boy wonder has been next to Batman 90% of its life. And that does not make it a good idea either.

 

[Bathead]

Yes, the Comic Code Authority certainly made Batman change into the average superhero. Bad way to mold your characters, by some moral code.
I also remember that Robin the boy wonder has been next to Batman 90% of its life. And that does not make it a good idea either.

I do believe the change came before the CCA, not 100% sure. Anyway, regardless, as to the bolded part:

You also must consider the times, considering back then, the primary audience were kids and young adults, what's wrong with giving their heroes a moral compass?
Either way, I've always appreciated Batman's "no kill" policy, it's a much harder role to play, and in my opinion makes him more of a hero. Being a killer is the lazy way to do things.
As far as Robin goes, I agree it's always been a dumb idea to have a 12 year old sidekick when you're going up against gun toting mobsters and murdering maniacs. It never made sense to me, even back in the pre-Adam West days (when I started with Batman comics long before the TV show) when Robin was solidly in place besides Batman.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I do believe the change came before the CCA, not 100% sure. Anyway, regardless, as to the bolded part:

You also must consider the times, considering back then, the primary audience were kids and young adults, what's wrong with giving their heroes a moral compass?

I do consider the times. I also consider those times are long gone.

Either way, I've always appreciated Batman's "no kill" policy, it's a much harder role to play, and in my opinion makes him more of a hero. Being a killer is the lazy way to do things.

That's the thing with Batman. He is a hero because he risks his life to defend people. In B89, he only killed when it was about to end the mass poisoning Joker is doing (either from Axis or in that parade), he's not outside killing every criminal. He doesn't kill the two thugs on the rooftop, he tries to save Jack Napier from falling.

But basically Batman is here the anti-hero. Among the superheroes, a much less common role (even if Batman is not alone in this) than the average hero.

As far as Robin goes, I agree it's always been a dumb idea to have a 12 year old sidekick when you're going up against gun toting mobsters and murdering maniacs. It never made sense to me, even back in the pre-Adam West days (when I started with Batman comics long before the TV show) when Robin was solidly in place besides Batman.

I agree. And Robin is also an elements that has been part of the Batman character for all this time. It doesn't mean is the best of ideas.

 

[The Joker]

I do believe the change came before the CCA, not 100% sure. Anyway, regardless, as to the bolded part:

You also must consider the times, considering back then, the primary audience were kids and young adults, what's wrong with giving their heroes a moral compass?
Either way, I've always appreciated Batman's "no kill" policy, it's a much harder role to play, and in my opinion makes him more of a hero. Being a killer is the lazy way to do things.
As far as Robin goes, I agree it's always been a dumb idea to have a 12 year old sidekick when you're going up against gun toting mobsters and murdering maniacs. It never made sense to me, even back in the pre-Adam West days (when I started with Batman comics long before the TV show) when Robin was solidly in place besides Batman.

Exactly. The best thing they ever did was getting rid of Batman being a killer. Jim Gordon and Alfred would never stand by and support a Batman who kills almost as freely as his enemies do.

 

[uniqueweasel]

Simply put, Batman should never kill.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Simply put, Batman should never kill.

He should in order to save innocent people. Like when he killed Dent in TDK.

 

[uniqueweasel]

He should in order to save innocent people. Like when he killed Dent in TDK.

No he shouldn't.

 

[Shikamaru]

Batman should never kill. Period. It is what makes him Batman.

The "no kill" policy is more important to Batman than it is to any other superhero. That is not an exaggeration. It forms who he is more than it forms any other superhero that doesn't kill (including Superman).