Batman vs Punisher: Who is right about killing?

I think you are not getting my point. what Im trying to say is whenever the kids die from a villain attack or something stupid, Bat's is all to blame, know why? Because he has the full responsibility for the kids and he would go to jail weather he like it or not

It is not irrelevant and it is a bad comparison. One has a human element as the main factor for the cause of death and the other has nature as the main cause of death.

You can't compare a humans actions to natural occurrences.

Batman could have said no and keep them from doing so. He is a control freak and has done things to people before, little success though.

killing is good, supes should killed lex a lon ago. 
same batman and joker

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

If you neglect your child and they die under your care it can be considered murder, not feeding them, taking them to a know place that people get killed in, sending them into places that will likely get them killed, and etc.

This is not neglect. I do not think you know what neglect is. A parent living in detroit cannot be charged with neglect and murder because they allow their kid to walk to school in a city where it is very likely that they will be gunned down in a drive by.

If that is not abuse and neglect than I wish to know what you believe those to be... A parent can't be charged for such and should not be, but that is still no comparison to what Batman does and thinking so is a bit silly in my opinion. Also if I was a parent I would not live in that pile and have my kid take a bus or drive them to school if it is far and depending on the age of the child and if he or she has other people with them.

@utotheg38 said:

@Jezer said:

Lock me in a room with Batman; I'd convince him his no-kill should be changed.

*nods head*

Dare I ask how?

I'd annoy him to the point that killing me is the only way he'd keep his sanity.

...Jk. That'd be my last resort. ;)

I think I'd argue on the basis that killing in and of itself is not morally wrong. Even the bible, a general basis for morality that a huge portion of the world follows, says "thou shall not murder?" in modern translations, taking note of the original word which distinguished between intentional killing without cause and unintentional(though some older translations simply translated it to "thou shalt not kill".

However, I doubt that's the base guideline for Batman's code of ethics. Either way, I'd question him to find out the moral essence of his aversion to killing.

And, I'd argue against that basis - citing different situations where killing is justified.

I mean, killing for the safety of society is legally justified when it comes to war and the death penalty. Killing for the safety of yourself, and others in danger, is justified when it comes to self-defense e.g. policeman shooting a gun toting maniac before he can kill more people.

Batman killing Joker, and other repeat offenders in the midst of their crimes, should be justified as self-defense to the extreme: self defense of the entire Gotham City.

I go with Punisher's stance on the underground crime and killing huge threats, however, I agree with Batman's stance on leaving the small stuff to justice.

@Erik said:

@eatmore_payless said:

I think you are not getting my point. what Im trying to say is whenever the kids die from a villain attack or something stupid, Bat's is all to blame, know why? Because he has the full responsibility for the kids and he would go to jail weather he like it or not

Irrelevant.

@VanTesla said:

It is not irrelevant and it is a bad comparison. One has a human element as the main factor for the cause of death and the other has nature as the main cause of death.

You can't compare a humans actions to natural occurrences.

Actually, it is irrelevant and is just a stupid a comparison as the ones you have been trying to force feed me. Driving at unsafe velocities is a human action, not natural occurrence.

@VanTesla said:

Batman could have said no and keep them from doing so. He is a control freak and has done things to people before, little success though.

Wrong. He could have said no but he could not have stopped anyone. If not for Batman, Jason would have starved to death or been killed in a hobo knife fight. Dick probably would have committed suicide. Tim would probably have tried to become a crime fighter without any kind of training and would have immediately been killed and so on.

I was talking about the patch of black ice, not the speeding... He could have still adopt both Dick and Jason and cared for them like a good father. He could have taugh Tim to be patient and wait till he was older, teach him how to investigate without brining him, and tell him how he would miss his childhood like he did because of what he went through.

I am not trying to force feed you anything, I am giving you my opinion on the matter as you are to me.

If that is not abuse and neglect than I wish to know what you believe those to be... A parent can't be charged for such and should not be, but that is still no comparison to what Batman does and thinking so is a bit silly in my opinion. Also if I was a parent I would not live in that pile and have my kid take a bus or drive them to school if it is far and depending on the age of the child and if he or she has other people with them.

I was talking about the patch of black ice, not the speeding...

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

Batman could have said no and keep them from doing so. He is a control freak and has done things to people before, little success though.

Wrong. He could have said no but he could not have stopped anyone. If not for Batman, Jason would have starved to death or been killed in a hobo knife fight. Dick probably would have committed suicide. Tim would probably have tried to become a crime fighter without any kind of training and would have immediately been killed and so on.

and yet he adopted them Robins and took the responsibility... man get my point! You can't just adopt someone and when after you done adopting you could just let them go do what they want, it's stupid and an unhumanly act.He took them, train them, gave them the chance to choose of what they are going to and lecture them about crime fighting.

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

Batman could have said no and keep them from doing so. He is a control freak and has done things to people before, little success though.

Wrong. He could have said no but he could not have stopped anyone. If not for Batman, Jason would have starved to death or been killed in a hobo knife fight. Dick probably would have committed suicide. Tim would probably have tried to become a crime fighter without any kind of training and would have immediately been killed and so on.

and yet he adopted them Robins and took the responsibility... man get my point! You can't just adopt someone and when after you done adopting you could just let them go do what they want, it's stupid and an unhumanly act.He took them, train them, gave them the chance to choose of what they are going to and lecture them about crime fighting.

@VanTesla said:

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

@eatmore_payless said:

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

@Erik: In the movies he has killed, in the JLU he has killed Black Manta (he was possessed by Dead Man though), He killed Darksied, he has killed in alternate versions of himself, his creations of AI have killed humans though he did not want that, having young teenagers like Jason fight with him and dieing is his fault, no sane person would have a kid risk their life and witness such vile.

Movies are not canon to the comics. He did not kill Darksied. He shot him to weaken him. He did endanger the lives of his Robins but he did not kill them.

what he mean is that lives of his Robins lies in his fateful hands, if im not mistaken

Exactly. It can be considered as abuse and endangerment. Those are considered in court as murder.

No they are not. If you endanger someone's life by taking them on some dangerous endeavor, you might get charged with manslaughter at worse if they die.

If you neglect your child and they die under your care it can be considered murder, not feeding them, taking them to a know place that people get killed in, sending them into places that will likely get them killed, and etc.

This is semi-true.

"A defendant's duty is established when it can be said that it was foreseeable that his act or omission to act may cause harm to someone. A party is negligent when he commits an act when some harm to someone is foreseeable. Once negligence is established, the defendant is liable for unforeseeable consequences as well as foreseeable ones. In addition, he is liable to unforeseeable plaintiffs. Once it is determined that a negligent act has been committed and that the act is a substantial factor in causing the harm, the question of duty is irrelevant and a finding of nonliability can be made only in terms of public policy."

In Wisconsin at least. He even has fiduciary duty of care to them, on top of this.

@Erik: read what I said dude@Erik said:

@eatmore_payless said:

and yet he adopted them Robins and took the responsibility... man get my point! You can't just adopt someone and when after you done adopting you could just let them go do what they want, it's stupid and an unhumanly act.He took them, train them, gave them the chance to choose of what they are going to and lecture them about crime fighting.

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

I was talking about the patch of black ice, not the speeding...

Fine. Say your speeding and crash because you are just a terrible driver. Are you then a murderer?

Going by logic the person should not be driving then...

I would have to say that this would be a stalemate. But if it had to come down to it, I think Frank would be able to convince Bruce sooner then Bruce could convince Frank. And as to which one is right, I agree with most and say that they are both wrong, and I believe the right choice is middle ground. Don't go around killing everyone, but if killing them is the only way to prevent countless deaths, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

I was talking about the patch of black ice, not the speeding...

Fine. Say your speeding and crash because you are just a terrible driver. Are you then a murderer?

Going by logic the person should not be driving then...

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

@Erik said:

@VanTesla said:

I was talking about the patch of black ice, not the speeding...

Fine. Say your speeding and crash because you are just a terrible driver. Are you then a murderer?

Going by logic the person should not be driving then...

Going by your logic yes.

should I go with my logic too?

should I go with my logic too?

Punisher. 

@Erik said:

@eatmore_payless said:

should I go with my logic too?

Do what feels right I guess.

I was just joking Erik haha xD

@Erik said:

Punisher in Gotham would equal no more Joker or any other bad guy stupid enough to make a name for himself. It would not stop crime but it would curb the big stuff.

Where's K4tz? Now we can say Jason was right :D.

@Erik said:

Punisher in Gotham would equal no more Joker or any other bad guy stupid enough to make a name for himself. It would not stop crime but it would curb the big stuff.

Where's K4tz? Now we can say Jason was right :D.

Punisher would win. There is no reasoning with him. As someone said " Punisher may kill you for selling weed or robbing a bank. Punisher could also use the fact that by not killing, Batman is actually allowing many more deaths. What happened to Jason Todd, barbara gordan etc would weigh on Bruce's mind and Bruce would become Batnisher. Sorry

@Erik: -Fist raises in righteous victory-

@Erik: -Fist raises in righteous victory-

Batman is incapable of being wrong. True story.

Batman is incapable of being wrong. True story.

Punisher won't ever change his mind. Batman's gone darker before (Jason's death), and could probably be broken by Punisher after a while. Punisher win.

Kill the bad guys. 

Punisher. His only problem is that he can be a bit too quick to kill. Batman's code has cost millions of innocent lives. Punisher's hasn't.

Punisher is right. the crossover? when he was about to blow off joker's head? that was the first time i ever really thought about it.

I found myself actually hoping he would. lol Even though it would never be allowed.

@Valkaad said:

I think Batman is smarter and a better speaker so on the surface it would seem Batman would win the debate. That being said, I think Batman is a man on the edge. Punisher could probably point out how many innocent lives have been lost as a result of The Joker alone. Add in all of Batmans other psycho rogues gallery and you are looking at thousands of innocent deaths that could have been prevented by taking the criminals life. In the end I think batman would see Franks side easier than Frank would see his.

This .

Batman will convice Punisher to not kill again.

@god_spawn said:

@Erik said:

Punisher in Gotham would equal no more Joker or any other bad guy stupid enough to make a name for himself. It would not stop crime but it would curb the big stuff.

Where's K4tz? Now we can say Jason was right :D.

Flamingo dsagrees.If anyone like Jason ends up in Gotham their corpse will be seen in the following days.Sure he might kill some but when the loons get their act together it's bye,bye.

We need Bane,controllled crime and dictatorship =win.

@entropy_aegis said:

@god_spawn said:

@Erik said:

Punisher in Gotham would equal no more Joker or any other bad guy stupid enough to make a name for himself. It would not stop crime but it would curb the big stuff.

Where's K4tz? Now we can say Jason was right :D.

Flamingo dsagrees.If anyone like Jason ends up in Gotham their corpse will be seen in the following days.Sure he might kill some but when the loons get their act together it's bye,bye.

We need Bane,controllled crime and dictatorship =win.

Damn you entropy and your all things batman knowledge. You couldn't let me have this one moment could you?

@god_spawn said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@god_spawn said:

@Erik said:

Punisher in Gotham would equal no more Joker or any other bad guy stupid enough to make a name for himself. It would not stop crime but it would curb the big stuff.

Where's K4tz? Now we can say Jason was right :D.

Flamingo dsagrees.If anyone like Jason ends up in Gotham their corpse will be seen in the following days.Sure he might kill some but when the loons get their act together it's bye,bye.

We need Bane,controllled crime and dictatorship =win.

Damn you entropy and your all things batman knowledge. You couldn't let me have this one moment could you?

I have been seeing spoilers of the big battle between Batman and Bane in NY,on Bane's side are his mercs and the ENTIRE people of Gotham on Batman's side is guy named Nixon(confirmed villain) who's leading the police,SWAT,special forces etc.

Some of Gotham's citizens have posters calling for end to corruption.

@entropy_aegis: You ruined my moment.

Interesting.

@god_spawn said:

@entropy_aegis: You ruined my moment.

Interesting.

That's what i do best.LOL,if you want the pics of the spoilers then i can send then through PM.

Punisher is the only winner ... but doubtful. Punisher will never change his ways as his family was killed and is extremely ... extremely passionate about what he does. Not down playing batman ... as I doubt there is a winner but if one must be it is punisher.

@entropy_aegis: Please do.

Well, batman's people keep getting out and doing bad stuff again, but punisher is a mean guy. Punisher's way stops repeaters, but isn't the most nice way to go about it. Some of batman's bad guys have reformed and become a force for good.

Batman talks Punisher into committing suicide

Punisher explains his logic, Batman disagrees...Frank shoots him in the face
 
Really though does the Punisher even have a moral code these days? I have always thought of him as a serial killer with purpose...at least Batman has a code of ethics

this is hard because batmans will is to hard to break, however frank would be able to throw it in his face about all the times he didn't kill a villian and it came back to bite him in the A. If anyone such have a reason to change then it would be batman, but his sense of justice is to great.

Really though does the Punisher even have a moral code these days?

yeah, maybe frank will just break their spines like shadow hawk use too. lol

@cattlebattle said:

Really though does the Punisher even have a moral code these days?

He does =)
 

@cattlebattle:

He has one rule: Kill everyone.

Logically, Punisher. Morally, Batman.

Batman will point out that killing is wrong, and Punisher will point out Jason Todd, Barbara Gordon, Stephanie Brown, and countless others who have been killed, or severely injured thanks to Batman's rogue gallery, that Batman could have killed at any time and stop them, permanently. I say Punisher wins.