I'm having a sort of epiphany. At this point (or any point), the people who think Batman should be willing to use lethal force and the people who think he never should, are unlikely to ever switch points of view. Batman, like most mythic characters, is extremely open to interpretation. It stems from a lot of things. How do you feel about capital punishment? How do you feel about the law vs natural justice? What defines a hero? People like to talk about what it is Batman "stands for," but they rarely say what that is, and treat it as though it's self evident. They throw it out as a catch-all debate-winner, but it's not that clear. How important the no-kill code is has varied greatly across the years. Sometimes Batman is willing to cause indirect death, dodging a gunman to make him shoot another, in the Dark Knight Returns I'm pretty sure he beats the Mutant Leader to death in the mud hole. Other times he's entirely unwilling to let even the most vile degenerate die.
I'm one of the people who thinks it's become a far too emphasized part of the character and isn't an essential element. There are probably some people who after reading that are itching to tell me that I don't understand Batman at all and should go read Punisher if I want a hero who kills. Those people are missing the point entirely. Also, I happen to like the Punisher, thank you very much.
The point is that like Hercules, Odysseus, Beowulf, Samson, and all the other mythic heroes who came before, Batman is open to different takes and interpretations, and can mean many things to many people, and that should be okay. Has he got pointy ears and a scalloped cape? Is he a master detective? Does he brood? Does he protect the people of Gotham with his life? Is he vengeance? Is he the night? Then he is Batman.