@alex obviously nothing I can say will dissuade your view, not necessarily a bad thing, but we both have equated what citizens can/can’t do and apply that to heroes. Heroes are held to a different standard, I am a child of the silver age of comics. Heroes were clearly heroes and villains clearly villains. It is perhaps the biggest rub with the current take on the current version of superheroes; where many have to look over their shoulders wondering are they being chased by a villain or law enforcement. They can be flawed, but that is a line they should never cross except in the most extreme of circumstances ie the universe will end if they don’t.
@jeffbg: I’m actually partial to the solution offered in the Golden Age comics. Batman stopped using a gun and toned his use of the lethal force by the end of 1940, and Commissioner Gordon rewarded him for his efforts in the name of justice a year later by declaring him an honorary member of the GCPD (Batman #7). Only then did Gordon stick a Bat-Signal on the roof. From that point on, Batman was no longer a vigilante, and he could freely cooperate with the legal system in the same way that private investigators and bounty hunters do. He enjoyed that privilege without challenge until the Bronze Age, when Arthur Reeves and others tried to accuse him of being a vigilante (even though he wasn’t) and sought to revoke his honorary position. Then Frank Miller ruined everything, as usual.
@BatJamags: Batman actually can fire a gun non-lethally with a shocking amount of accuracy, according to Batman: Year Two. The bigger problem for him in that story is the temptation to use it lethally, not the risk of killing someone accidentally. Realistic? Nah, but that’s comic books for you.
On the other side of things, we have Detective Comics #452 from 1975.* When Batman is captured at the end of the issue, he tries to bluff his way out of the situation by claiming that he’s not really Batman. The head of the Crime Exchange decides to test that claim by having a member of the gang place a gun with one bullet on a console near Batman. If the Darknight Detective is willing to fire the gun at the floor (not at any person, mind you), the boss will believe that it’s not the real Batman, since his vow to abstain from using guns even to save his own life is a matter of record. Will Batman really be this absurdly strict about his own vow? Tune into 'Tec #453 to find out! Same Bat-Time, Same…eh, I’ll just spoil it: he throws the gun instead.
1 Like
Isn’t the real problem here the government’s inability to keep the villians locked up?
3 Likes
And directly preceded the Bronze Age?
If you said the USSC ruling in Miranda vs Arizona, go to the head of the class.
When Miranda rights and more attention thus paid to search warrants, he could not be an honorary member of the police force, because he was violating both Miranda and search warrant law. Every person he apprehended would walk under the legal system. So Batman became a vigilante. As such, anybody he left bound for the cops didn’t have their Miranda rights violated. I won’t even get started on the police brutality issues of the day.
Batman was revamped to be relevant to his time.
As for Miller messing things up. It’s not his fault. I wish writers, artists, editors & fans would remember that was an elseworld story. It never should have been brought into mainstream Batman storytelling. And if one is going to blame Miller, than lay a good chunk of blame on Tim Burton as well.
1 Like
On the one hand, if superheros kill, then they start to drift uncomfortably close to crazy people in capes beating up poor and/or crazy people. On the other, finish the job ya know? Lots of villains have earned the death penalty. Taking them out saves society, Ken McElroy etc.
@DeSade: Frank Miller introduced the idea of James Gordon working covertly with the Masked Manhunter while officially decrying him. TDKR is certainly in its own little world, but Year One wasn’t an Elseworlds story (no matter how much I wish it were). Then other writers made it worse by treating Batman’s current day relationship with the GCPD in the same way. I can kinda forgive it in a story set in the Caped Crusader’s first year or two, but when he has been operating for over a decade and the police commissioner is still trying to claim that there may not even be a Batman, let alone admit that the cops are working with the Dark Knight, it starts to get more absurd than anything we saw with Adam West and Neil Hamilton.
1 Like
Gordon has to, at least publicly, denounce or dissuade that Batman & GCPD are in any way connected. See the Miranda post above. Sure, everybody knows it’s crapola by this time but it’s either that or lose every “collar” Batman makes. Which would you have him do? Keep up the pretext, or lose the likes of insert_Bat _Villain_Here. At this point everybody with two brain cells connected by a synapse knows it’s BS, but understands why.
You are the one arguing for utilitarianism and yet are going to dismiss an action, which while non-lethal, is a tactic of utilitarianism. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.
Batman may be effective at reducing crime, but, he should never be treated as some paragon of virtue. Both he and Gordon have admitted that he can do things cops can’t.
2 Likes
The notion that Gordon has to denounce Batman is purely an invention of Frank Miller. The commish did not have to distance himself from Batman during the Bronze Age despite the introduction of Miranda Rights because Batman had been granted special privileges to do his work in the same way that a fugitive recovery agent (the friendly modern term for bounty hunter) is granted those privileges in the real world. Typically, bail enforcers (or anyone doing a citizen’s arrest, since that matter has been raised) don’t have to read anyone Miranda rights or even obtain a warrant before entering a person’s home. So too, his close work with the police and the DA’s office is actually a fairly common occurrence with private investigators. The only real issue with Batman’s (much tamer pre-Crisis) methods is the one I’ve mentioned before: he’s wearing a mask, so a real-life police commissioner would probably be reluctant to license Batman. In fact, the mask would get him a loitering charge in NYC.
But you are the one that gets on Auther Reeves case about turning him into a more vigilante character IN THE BRONZE AGE.
Also the bar for evidence in a citizens arrest case, where the evidence is collected without warrant is EXTREMELY high. Much easier and more effective to tie them up with the evidence and leave before the cops arrive. They have just cause to enter and so the items collected are not in need of a warrant.
Even if Gordon does not denounce Batman publicly, he officially can’t grant him special status. Batman doesn’t even meet the criteria of a bounty hunter, since they have to be registered, by law, an that must include their name and a background check.
Post-Miranda, any legal argument for Batman crumbles.
Gordon having to publicly distance himself from Batman is really the only thing Miller got spot on in Year One.
Arthur Reeves is framed as being mistaken and ultimately corrupt, so the writers didn’t think that Batman was a vigilante in the 70s-early 80s.
The laws for bounty hunters differ from state to state. If we’re assuming that Gotham City is essentially NYC and that it follows the current real-world New York laws, then you are correct: https://www.how-to-become-a-bounty-hunter.com/states/new-york/
Of course, in a universe teeming with superheroes, there might be different laws on the matter, lest the dispute result in some kind of Civil War…
So your reason for bring Auther Teeves into the discussion was???
Batman was a vigilante as he was operating outside the parameters of the law. Now he might not have been viewed as such a dark and disturbing vigilante, but technically he was a vigilante. The police and the DA, the mayor may have turned a blind eye, as we saw in BTAS in the attitudes of mayor Hill and Gordon, but Bullock called out the legal truth, that he was a vigilante.
BTAS was released after the Crisis and reflects that era’s continuity, where Batman was a vigilante. Batman was NOT a vigilante in the 1970s. He was an honorary member of the GCPD and a private detective, as he had been for decades. Arthur Reeves was a comic foil used by the writers to refute the idea that Batman was a vigilante. He existed to show that such accusations were foolish and misguided, since he himself was foolish and misguided.
To summarize my points from various unrelated conversations:
-
Superheroes are inevitably criminal vigilantes if they have not been officially recognized by some high-ranking military or law enforcement official as something else. Typically, the heroes are given a blind eye by authorities if they uphold a no-kill rule, but strictly speaking, they should be arrested even if they aren’t killing anyone. Their behavior goes beyond that of “citizen’s arrests,” so it honestly shouldn’t matter if they’re murdering people or merely kidnapping them.
-
If superheroes have been granted law enforcement powers by the proper authorities, they aren’t vigilantes, no matter what some pencil-pushing bureaucrat says. Whether they have the right to use lethal force would be dependent upon who is granting them this power and what limits they place upon them. However, unless they’ve been given a position in the military or the secret service, it’s probably wise for the heroes to have a no-maiming rule, let alone a no-killing rule, if they want to protect the privileges granted to them from people who might try to use their actions against them for personal political gain.
-
If Batman straight-up murders the Joker, it would most certainly be as illegal as any other murder, and it would arguably be immoral, but it shouldn’t be considered “just as bad” as what the Joker has done from a purely ethical standpoint. Furthermore, I suspect that a judge and jury would be very, very lenient in this particular case.
1 Like
Pencil pushing bureaucrats == the law.
Batman was a vigilante in the 1970s. Does Batman every issue Miranda rights? No. So every collar he got as a “duly deputized” part of law enforcement is thrown out.
So if you murder one specific person that is not as bad as killing 12 chosen at random. Arguably, killing 12 people at random is not as ethically reprehensible because there is less specific malice a forethought involved in the taking of any specific life.
But coming from someone who exposed utilitarianism as a justification for murder, I should not be surprised by such situational ethics.
And it is worth noting, juries do not pass sentence, so the jury’s view is hardly relevant. As for the judge, the utilitarianism of murder should in no way affect a sentencing for murder. It shows a callous disregard for the law. (So plenty of judges would likely be more lenient, more is the pity.)
1 Like
I know i’m late to this, but reading the OP my response is that the idea is more nuanced than that simplification. I think the commitment to not kill is crucial to certain stories and characters. It adds weight to the arguments that are explored, and provides a level of conflict.
To specifically address your example, Batman not killing Joker isn’t to keep him better than the Joker, per se.
Depending on the story or version of the character, the motivation is more personal than blanket statement “good guys shouldn’t kill.” Batman’s explanation to Jason in “Under the Red Hood” illustrates that his commitment to his one rule is because he knows himself; its to keep him from killing the next villain, and the next villain. He knows how easy it would be to solve everything by killing once he steps across the line. It’s a choice to refrain from crossing it, especially with the one villain he wants to kill the most. He has also stated in other stories that it is part of his promise to his parents, as he won’t do what someone else once did to him; take away his family through killing. Again, a choice.
I think if I were placed in some of the situations Batman is, I don’t think I’d have the strength to stay committed to the no killing rule. I agree that in real life it is quite justified for a hero to take the life of a villain in some scenarios. War, an example which you sited, is a prime example of when it is appropriate to end life in order to save it. It is quite right that many lives would be saved if Batman just killed the Joker, and he considers this on several occasions, providing a better story with conflicted heroes. Bruce’s commitment to his rule makes for a more compelling character and story in my opinion, and some of the most iconic stories fall apart if he kills.
Prime example is the Titans show. Dick has no ground to stand on when getting upset about Kory killing or Jason being brutal, because he is the same. It lessens the tension there; the audience has no reason to side with who the story should lend us to side with; Dick. He can’t demand better from others when he doesn’t live up to his own standard. And if a member of the audience thinks Kory or Jason are fully justified, then the conflict is equally meaningless because the opposing point is moot coming from Dick, and not worth the screen time.
If all heroes kill, then they have to accept anyone and everyone who is like Frank Castle, as there’s little moral argument to say otherwise. The conflict and debate is meaningless for characters to have if there aren’t any standing in contrast. I have no problem with some heroes killing depending on their characterization and the type of story, but I think Batman and most of the Justice League are better served by keeping the no killing rule.
As such, I’ll be quick to call out adaptations that deviate.
2 Likes
From a story point it does raise questions. Like the ones we are exploring right now.
Indeed. I’m enjoying catching up on Desade-acolyte and AlexanderKnox’ exploration of this.
1 Like
Just as a point of order: You can argue that Batman, regardless of employment status with GCPD, is an agent of the government in that he works with them, accepts some direction/information/etc, towards a law enforcement end. So, Gotham can’t get around any abuse of civil rights by simply saying “Batman did it” when he in fact is acting on their behalf.
msgtv, I think that is why the argument that Gordon would have to publicly denounce Batman makes sense. It strengthens their argument that they simply utilize the the evidence or apprehend the criminal that they happened upon. Just because the Batman helped them doesn’t mean the GCPD was guilty of any wrong doing. They didn’t beat the criminal. They didn’t unlawfully search or seize. To argue that Batman is an agent of the government becomes a harder sell in court if they denounce him left and right.
1 Like
The Bat-Signal pretty much shoots down any room to claim that he’s not functioning as a government agent. Sure, he’s not working for the FBI as he was in the 1943 serial, nor is he even deputized now as he was for about half of his existence, but no matter how much the GCPD may want to claim a lack of collusion, there’s no getting around the big searchlight on the roof with a bat on it. They’re better off acknowledging Batman as an independent contractor.
1 Like
I agree that the bat-signal is problematic; perhaps place it somewhere that it can’t be easily connected to the GCPD or ditch it all together. Making Batman a contractor would do one of two things:
- Make all the evidence he gathers inadmissible in court and allow criminals he apprehends to go free due to unconstitutional actions.
or - limit Batman to significantly altering his methods to better align with required standards as an agent of the government.
Both would drastically affect Batman’s war on crime, and negate his effectiveness in his mission. This is why the most recent season of Arrow on the CW was so silly. Dancing around the reality that you can’t do what Batman and Arrow do AND be a recognized agent of the government. Evidence would be excluded left and right. Criminals would walk free. Law suits galore.
If there is any level of cooperation between vigilante and law enforcement, it must be indirect or they’ll have little progress in the legal system.