Off My Mind: Should Heroes that Kill Be Allowed in the Avengers?

The Avenger Roster is full of people who kill, so no doesn't stand to reason that they shouldn't allow wolverine.

real heroes

Gallery

It differs with me. Batman is a hero and his non compromising attitude sometimes makes me angry sometimes. If your villains are killing innocent people each and every time they get out and the justice system for what ever reason doesn't give them the death penalty the heroes NEED and I mean NEED to kill that villain. The only problem with this though is that your villains won't be as good like punisher who kills all his villains

@Mbecks14 and @TheHeat You are both fairly out of order, TheHeat, 1 The US Marines aren't the greatest killers on the earth, not even in the US Military, They're doing a job which doesn't always revolve around killing and most soldiers and Royal Marines, all of which are British that I have spoken too don't glorify killing. Mbecks, killing someone in battle is very rarely barbaric murder but i agree killing of any kind shouldn't be glorified. Finally Wolverine is a good hero which happens to kill people, he generally kills bad people that deserve it, and he regrets the others more than anyone. Cap is totally different, he was a soldier, sometimes soldiers have to kill, they have no choice. The morality of killing is that it's needed sometimes!

To address the actual article instead of the weirdness of many of the comments, I thought the number one rule for a superhero was "protect the innocent." I got over the infantile notion that heroes never kill by the time I was 8 years old. There is a difference between killing and murder. Many Avengers members have killed (including Steve Rogers), but few commit outright murder. I suppose the difference may be too subtle for people who prefer a more black and white morality.

KILL IF NECESSARY! Because sometimes depending on the villain wouldn't think twice killing if wounded or not, even with a dying breath. and its good to have someone like wolverine on the team because if the avengers won't kill if NEEDED to at least they can look to wolverine.

I am pretty sure Captain America killed some people during WWII. Black Widow probably killed some people as an assassin. Iron Man killed insurgents and what not (in first Iron Man movie, idk about the comics). So yes I think as long as it is self-defense and you don't kill out of malice or on purpose you can be in the Avengers.

Cops and soldiers kill, why not superheroes? In fact, they should have the most leeway because their enemies are the most dangerous.

@QuantomMan said:

real heroes

Gallery

this.

It's hard to imagine most of the DCU being ok with murder. The big guns ie Superman, Batman, Green Lantern etc never really go there. That said most of the Marvel universe seems very comfortable with killing people. Look at the united heroes versus the Skrull Empire in Secret Invasion. How many duplicates got killed by the end?

It's insulting and naive to say that "heroes don't kill". Many police officers and military service members have had to kill in the line of duty. Sometimes it's impossible to avoid it. The "no killing" thing is an artifact of the Comics Code Authority with no basis in reality. Plenty of killing in the Golden Age before it was put into place.

It would be good if they showed the toll of killing was having on the heroes...PTSD and so forth.

Perhaps in an ideal world, heroes would never have to kill; but in the real world, they most certainly would. Most of the super villains in comics would easily be deemed terrorists in reality. I believe in most situations, killing them would be unavoidable. Their deaths would save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people.

But Captain America was a soldier, trained to kill. Black Widow and Hawkeye are secret agents, who are also trained to kill. Thor is a viking God, a warrior-God, the god of freaking Vikings. Of course he's killed. And Ares was the God of War, he killed millions. So why peg just Wolverine?

@JonesDeini: Wow, you know I've never seen that movie before, I wish I would have thought of that speech first so I could have put it on here. lol I love being a dick......but I'm a nice dick. lol

this is similar to what happened in DC comics when Wonder Woman killed Max Lord.Heros should kill when its needed just like any military soldier.would we call any soldier a murderer or killer?

Perhaps the right to kill should be defined by whether The Avengers is considered a team of vigilantes with a similar moral code or a group of government agents following the orders of a political hierarchy. The latter would make The Avengers no different than S.H.I.E.L.D. and thus the permission to kill is implied and recruiting members such as Wolverine permissible.

However, Spider-Man working alone and of his own volition would adhere to a moral code as defined by his personality which has the freedom to be separate from politics. What's ironic is that fictional characters who tend to break the law by turning to vigilantism tend to live by strong moral ethics whereas those who work for government agencies tend to disregard ethics altogether.

@TheGeekCritique said:

Perhaps the right to kill should be defined by whether The Avengers is considered a team of vigilantes with a similar moral code or a group of government agents following the orders of a political hierarchy. The latter would make The Avengers no different than S.H.I.E.L.D. and thus the permission to kill is implied and recruiting members such as Wolverine permissible.

Thats what I was going to say .... while the Avengers might call themselves 'Earth's Mightiest Heroes' I think thats more of a PR move. In reality, they should probably be called 'Earth's Mightiest Soldiers' or the 'Dont $%*& With Us Aliens/Villians Team'. Also, before anyone flames me, yes I base the majority of my knowledge about the Avengers off the movie and the small amount I know about the individual characters and their origins. So troll away!

Also, not directly pertaining to the Avengers, in my book heroes can kill. Its more about why they killed and how they feel afterwards that affects their status as a hero.

Cap has killed people, he's a soldier and will do it if its his only option

The movie could not have a more different perspective.

The no killing rule is a nice one...but not realistic.

No matter what universe they are in, reality being what it is in comics or the real world...if your always in a situation of Life or Death that deals with someone that keeps coming back with even more darker schemes to get you, the people around you or people...They can't survive every attack or counter attack you give them.

Some of these crazies will die. Someone dying in self defense is going to happen and some situations will require a strong hand to end a high probability for Death of a civilian.

I think the soilders like Black Widow, Hawkeye and Wolverine and even Cap have been around long enough to know when its in the wrong & right. They should be the ones and other like them that hold the true voice of reason behind such actions.

The whole heroes not killing thing is so stupid. It's just a contrivance so that the same villains can just be used over and over and over and over and over again.

@Teerack: The Secret Avengers are also SECRET. One of the main points presented in this article is how public the main Avengers are and that that's not a good public image.

I see no problem heroes taking lives.

@notarandomguy said:

@Grim said:

Not killing is not a must. Most of the people who say "absolutly no killing" have a reason. Batman doesnt want to commit murder to stop murder's. Superman wants the people to trust him, so he stays non-lethal so no one fears him. But Captain America had to have killed people in the war. Wonder Woman is a trained warrior, and the only reason she doesnt kill is because other heroes frown upon it. But she carries a sword and has no problem doing it if necessary. Thor is a trained warrior who has had many battles during Oden Sleep. Im pretty sure people died in those. The articled mentioned Black Widow.

some heroes have a no killing code, but they tend to have some outstanding reason. But the warriors and trained killers and other worldly heroes all CAN and probably HAVE killed. The Avengers CAN say no killers... but then they would be short a few key players.

I think you could have mention a ''little someone'' that says it all ad was't even mentioned in this article.

lol truth. The born and raised "i would kill you except then my dad wont let me be Batman" Superninja.

I think the female hitler scarlet witch is the best example, no people like her should not be on the team.

I think that heros like black widow and wolverine are "heros" ! Because they do what`s necessary sometimes. They accept that they will be hated and chased as criminals. And as they kill one they save thousands

@G-Man I love this issue. Arguably my favourite "Off My Mind" I've ever read. We can all see where you stand very clearly on this issue of heroes killing. And I am on your side 100% percent. Simple: heroes don't kill. If they kill, they lose distance between themselves and the very villains they try to defend the world against. And these heroes are supposed to be role models, symbols of hope, of ideals. And when they kill, they abandon those ideals.

This is the biggest issue I had wit the Avengers film. An amazing movie overall. But when I left the theatre after watching it a second time, it occurred to me: they were killing those alien warriors. And the viewers don't really give it a second thought, neither do the characters. Because they do not resemble humans, the Avengers seem to have no troubles with taking those lives. If they were machines, that would be different. But these beings seemed to be organic, sentient, conscious. And that sentience, that consciousness, that life is being taken away. I can't help but wonder if there may have been another way to save the world. I'm especially surprised with Captain America. Even the Shield agents manipulated by Loki - he had no problem fighting them on the Helicarrier, and letting one fall to their doom

The X-Men films, as well, don't seem to highlight Xavier's strict rule of peace, because the movies focused so much on Wolverine. First Class, however, really highlights Charles' refusal to kill in any circumstances. That's why the X-Men are heroes. They could kill, but they choose not to. And that makes them examples. That makes them beacons of hope.

I think it depends on the characters view of what justice is, and the characters history, take Mr. Justice for example what he stands for is in the name and he is a spectral entity that has a different view of justice then the police he associates with and has killed criminals in the name of justice (at least in the Blue Ribbon Comics 1980s) and the commissioner in the comic actually confessed that the crime rate improved because of his brand of justice. An example for who the character is, is easily Batman he doesn't kill because (at least this is my understanding of it) he doesn't want to take life, like his parents killer did.

That why they are called antiheroes genius.

When i first read the topic I knew they will start messing with religion

Doesnt matter from whatever view you wanna see it Killing and all variations of murder are wrong. Although we are discussing if killing should be allowed for heroes. I answer you that if you want to stay in reality then yes heroes do kill as a last resort or well depending of who were talking just see Batman he kill and not kill depend of what Batman were talk about. Batman kill in comics for adults and the reason is that adults live in reality and theres the Batman that will always spare the life of villains good wishes and idealism for kids. There are heroes and vigilantes in whatever stage of life you are. Lets be realistic do you think that a profession of hero will not end in a kill during their career

If youre traing to separate real heroes from idealistic heroes then youre denying good and evil coexist

When i was kid I used to like Batman, Superman spiderman and know I found more interesting Batman, Wolverine, Punisher.

I'm sure alot of other posters already said, in spirit, what I'm about to say, and they've probably said it better as well. But I still wanna put in my thoughts.

Killing shouldn't be the first choice, obviously, but if there is no other way, then yes a hero must make that descision (and sacrifice), for example Captain America hasn't just killed during the war, he's also killed after it, was it his first choice? Never, was it something he hesitated in doing when there was no other choice? You be the judge.

The bottom line is there IS a difference between KILLING and MURDER, obviously a hero should never do the latter, but should they do the former? In my opinion, yes, when there is no other choice.

Anyone remember Mallen from Extremis?

The good ol' days when Wolverine wasn't a hypocrite...

No killing is a Comic-Code, kid friendly, idea that occurred when comics left their roots of pulp and wanted to appeal to children, and this somehow got legitimized as part of a "moral code" when the writers could not explain why Batman wasn't shooting people in cold blood anymore. Circumcision was a gentile mutilation practice, that became big with the Jewish sect, and that was also legitimized by most American healthcare professionals for being "cleaner".

You can beat a guy into a coma, mutilate, and paralyze him, and subject him to all sorts of torture, but the second he flat-lines and you can't revive him you've gone too far. The idea of brutal violence is somehow justified, and yet the ramifications are deemed acceptable if the "villian" shows minimal signs of life. Harm a child? No. Circumcise. Well, yes.

I'm sure alot of other posters already said, in spirit, what I'm about to say, and they've probably said it better as well. But I still wanna put in my thoughts.

Killing shouldn't be the first choice, obviously, but if there is no other way, then yes a hero must make that descision (and sacrifice), for example Captain America hasn't just killed during the war, he's also killed after it, was it his first choice? Never, was it something he hesitated in doing when there was no other choice? You be the judge.

The bottom line is there IS a difference between KILLING and MURDER, obviously a hero should never do the latter, but should they do the former? In my opinion, yes, when there is no other choice.

This is a tough call. My initial instinct is to say killers should never be avengers, at least not ones who have not changed their ways. It is the main reason I do not like Wolverine being an Avenger. On the other hand, looking back at the roster, even some of the classic Avengers have either always been killers, or have been retconned to kill over time. Black Panther as written by Priest clearly didn't have a problem with killing, although while in America he refused to murder because it would be against the laws of a foreign nation. Under Bendis, Hawkeye may never have killed but he was every bit willing to in the case of Norman Osborn. Quicksilver undoubtedly has killed people I'm sure. The JLA is an equivalent team in DC Comics, ans Wonder Woman as one of the founders is a killer as well. So I really don't know if there is an evergreen answer to this conundrum but for what it's worth I tend to find characters more interesting when they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than their enemies and do not kill .

SIMPLY YES :D

Forgive me if I say anything redundant, but after a while I had to just skip to the end.

I agree that there is a distinction between killing and murder and sometimes for the greater good (and if no other choices exist) killing may have to take place. Think of a wild west shootout, kill or be killed. That being said, I was never the biggest fan of Wolverine on the Avengers because of his sorted past but also because he's freakin' everywhere already! However, the pasts of characters like Wolverine have made some interesting plot points during the current run on Avengers as the public is questioning their roster and who do they answer too. Norman Osborn sure exploited that.

At the end of the day, could it be argued that countless lives could have been saved if Batman or someone had taken out the Joker? I saw that some other had said that justice and killing aren't the same, but what about the death penalty? In South Dakota we recently had an inmate, who upon a failed escape plan horrifically took part in the murder of a guard, ask for the death penalty because he feared that he would never be able to change. Perhaps comic book "heroes" should look at extraditing to states with a death penalty?

Most heroes don't kill the baddies because if the Joker was killed at the end of "The Killing Joke", then how upset would fans have been? DC would more than likely found a lame way to retcon it or explain away the death. Death rarely sticks in the comic universe and since that's the case, how concerned can we truly be about it? Characters like Wolverine intrigue readers, one of the reasons the ol' Canucklehead pops up everywhere. We like a little dark in our heroes and that leads to them doing some pretty serious and sometimes "wrong" things.

Also, David versus Goliath isn't "mythology". Even if someone doesn't believe in the religious portions of the Bible, there is more than enough history documentation of that battle.

Heroes are meant to protect the innocent. Period. No matter what it takes to complete that task. Heroes like wolverine and the punisher (and ghost rider back when he used to be either blaze or ketch, and used to actually avenge the innocent) have every right to kill, because at the end of the day, more innocent lives are preemptively saved than those that are taken from the guilty. And what are the AVENGErs named for? To AVENGE people, and that doesn't happen when you give super villains a slap on the wrist and send them back to therapy, they're just going to escape and kill more people unless someone has the balls to do something about it.

The Avengers Movie showed why it is necessary to kill super-villains. If the Chitauri were imprisoned they would escape. The only reason Loki wasn't killed by Hulk or anyone with the means to do so was because Thor wouldn't allow it. It is the permanent solution to their growing roster of villains.

Wolverine & Widow kill. @venomoushatred1001 said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

There's a difference between killer and psychopath.

I concur.

Right

@Oscars94:

Yeah......., No. But Thor said Loki was adopted for me that means that he wash his hands and tell: accidents could happen.

We should see the reality and the business here, probably the mainly reason that heroes - antiheroes do not kill the main villains in their personal agenda is because if procedded that way heroes will end facing regular mediocre thieves and thugs what would be Batman without Joker, penguin,Mr Freeze, Two face, Croc, Bane, The riddle Scare crow etc.. or spiderman without green goblin, Carnage, Venom, Wolverine without all marvel. Of course it sporadically happens but then they are revived such the case of Magneto, bullseye , Apocalypse, Darkseid etc..

A hero is defined by their villains thats way Batman can defeat even the guy who is reading him