Can some one really show me if he killed an innocent person? because I get tired of people say that when they know he hasn't. even the bat family has fought him on occasion and each time he could have shot and killed them but didn't. The only time he really tryed to kill a bat was in that piece of sh!t under the hood movie, were they changed the ending and make jason shoot at batman then batman dodges it. What really happend for all thoughs who don't know is that jason was about to shoot the joker and batman threw a batarang in his throught. best scene in the book, and they took it out! It showed what an a$$ batman is that he would rather save a god to honest demon like joker than kill the man who has ruinend every persons life he has come in contact with.

@redhoodx: Hence the reason I think Batman is an idiot. He captures the Joker and throws him into incarceration, knowing fully well that it would only be a short period of time before the Joker escapes again. The Joker gets back on the streets and commits a few more murders until he catches the attention of Batman, at which point the cycle of capture and release starts again. This just shows what a narcissistic a-hole Bruce Wayne really is. He would rather ride his moral high horse then save numerous civilians that occupy the city he swore to protect. Ironic much?

Ah, Jason Todd fans. Almost as entertaining as Storm fans.
 
If Batman kills, then his entire character becomes irrelevant. If Batman kills the Joker, then the Joker wins. Don't you guys see that? That is what Jason never understood. Killing is what separates 'us' from 'them'. Jason doesn't deserve to wear the Bat Symbol if he kills.

@redhoodx: Hence the reason I think Batman is an idiot. He captures the Joker and throws him into incarceration, knowing fully well that it would only be a short period of time before the Joker escapes again. The Joker gets back on the streets and commits a few more murders until he catches the attention of Batman, at which point the cycle of capture and release starts again. This just shows what a narcissistic a-hole Bruce Wayne really is. He would rather ride his moral high horse then save numerous civilians that occupy the city he swore to protect. Ironic much?

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

And I'll try and get through to you Jason-fans for the billionth time, THE COURTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE THE JOKER. BATMAN ISN'T INVOLVED.

I have to agree with this. The point of Batman is to operate only slightly outside the law, but still alongside it. Executing criminals himself would go outside this and probably kill the little bit of goodwill the police have towards him (they don't usually look to kindly on vigilantes). And it is important to realize that Batman is not the entire justice system for the city of Gotham. They still have police, judges, juries, prisons, etc. Joker not being sentenced to execution isn't really Batman's fault, it is more a failing of the criminal justice system. Why haven't any of the judges sentenced him to death yet? You'd think it would come up. Joker constantly escaping is more a failing of the prison/security system. After the first few times you'd think they would put him under pretty hefty lockdown.

But then again, does the Joker actually get tried and sentenced? I feel like a lot of times Batman just dumps him off at Arkham like a lost puppy or something.

In any case, the Joker constantly breaking loose is on more heads than just Batman's. Plus, if he was killed, we'd permanently be deprived of one of comic's greatest villains.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

And I'll try and get through to you Jason-fans for the billionth time, THE COURTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE THE JOKER. BATMAN ISN'T INVOLVED.

I have to agree with this. The point of Batman is to operate only slightly outside the law, but still alongside it. Executing criminals himself would go outside this and probably kill the little bit of goodwill the police have towards him (they don't usually look to kindly on vigilantes). And it is important to realize that Batman is not the entire justice system for the city of Gotham. They still have police, judges, juries, prisons, etc. Joker not being sentenced to execution isn't really Batman's fault, it is more a failing of the criminal justice system. Why haven't any of the judges sentenced him to death yet? You'd think it would come up. Joker constantly escaping is more a failing of the prison/security system. After the first few times you'd think they would put him under pretty hefty lockdown.

But then again, does the Joker actually get tried and sentenced? I feel like a lot of times Batman just dumps him off at Arkham like a lost puppy or something.

In any case, the Joker constantly breaking loose is on more heads than just Batman's. Plus, if he was killed, we'd permanently be deprived of one of comic's greatest villains.

@FadeToBlackBolt: I don't think Joker would actually fit the criteria for being legally insane in real life. My understanding is that it requires proving the person in question is actually unaware of any difference between right and wrong, even conceptually. This is why guys like Bundy, Dahmer, and Manson couldn't get off on it; despite their personal views, they were still aware enough of reality to know that the rest of society would view what they were doing as "wrong" (or at least illegal). I think the insanity plea has actually only worked a small number of times in American history, despite the popular depiction of it being a kind of "get out of jail free" card. I don't have any legal background though, so I could be off on this.

Of course, this is comics. In real life Batman would have been shot to death ages ago, or killed himself jumping off a building (you have any idea how impossible it would be for a grown man to swing on a thin little line like he sometimes has from a dozen stories up? Between that and him dodging bullets, the idea of Batman being a "normal" human goes out the window pretty fast).

@RainEffect said:

Ah, Jason Todd fans. Almost as entertaining as Storm fans.

If Batman kills, then his entire character becomes irrelevant. If Batman kills the Joker, then the Joker wins. Don't you guys see that? That is what Jason never understood. Killing is what separates 'us' from 'them'. Jason doesn't deserve to wear the Bat Symbol if he kills.

i understand the situation batman is in. and I AM a jason todd fan. i did like his batman better but its not because i think hes a better batman but because i like jason todd and agree with his ideals moreso than i do bruce wayne. i feel that at times killing is necessary. should batman do it? no. itd change him too much, but i dont understand why he saves joker as much as he seems to have over the years? i mean, did he stop jason because he actually thought he could bring him around to bruce's way of thinking or does he actually value joker's life that much? and idk if anyone has ever asked this but dont you think bruce could put enough pressure on the judicial system in gotham to get joker executed? idk, i feel like its contradictory to say its the gotham justice systems job to execute joker because if the whole system really worked, there wouldnt be much need for batman in the first place. i just have a hard time seeing batman not finish off serious threats that cost many more lives later on because i dont agree with the views. but to each his own i guess. and please dont lump all jason todd fans together, there are fanatics for every character, even aquaman lol, so we just have to look past the crazy ones for good debates. and i dont mean to start an argument just state my opinion lol.

YOU KNOW WHY BATMAN DOESN'T LET PEOPLE DIE WHEN HE CAN SAVE THEM, OR WHY HE DOESN'T KILL?

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@yumyumbubblegum said:

@redhoodx: Hence the reason I think Batman is an idiot. He captures the Joker and throws him into incarceration, knowing fully well that it would only be a short period of time before the Joker escapes again. The Joker gets back on the streets and commits a few more murders until he catches the attention of Batman, at which point the cycle of capture and release starts again. This just shows what a narcissistic a-hole Bruce Wayne really is. He would rather ride his moral high horse then save numerous civilians that occupy the city he swore to protect. Ironic much?

And I'll try and get through to you Jason-fans for the billionth time, THE COURTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE THE JOKER. BATMAN ISN'T INVOLVED.

What made you think I was a fan of Jason? Did I mention "Jason" in my previous post? I did not. My point is, for a caped crusader to swore to protect his city from crime, Bruce is doing a lousy job by not killing the Joker (which will never happen as the Joker is an integral part of Batman's character) and letting him roam around and hurt innocent civilians. You can be a drone and say "if Batman kills then his entire character becomes irrelevant" (or some derivative of that), but personally, I'd rather live in a city with one less psychotic murderer.

Bottom line is, Bruce is a pussy who's afraid to get his hands completely immersed in blood. Plus he has a fetish for young prepubescent boys. That's not taking anything away from him of course, but I'm just stating the obvious. *Hears the tremors from the keyboards of a thousand greasy hands across the world*

Let me have it.

@yumyumbubblegum: he kills the joker, he becomes like him

the joker believes that life is meaningless, thus, you can do what you want, batman believes life has meanings, so u have to follow rules

he doesnt kill joker because, whether he likes it or not, he follows a rule not to kill, and he has to follow it, or else all he does is hypocritical

@Superguy0009e said:

@yumyumbubblegum: he kills the joker, he becomes like him

the joker believes that life is meaningless, thus, you can do what you want, batman believes life has meanings, so u have to follow rules

he doesnt kill joker because, whether he likes it or not, he follows a rule not to kill, and he has to follow it, or else all he does is hypocritical

If Batman truly believed that, then he wouldn't have let the Joker take the lives of Jason Todd, and countless others. People keep saying he has a rule not to kill, but there comes a point when Bruce's sworn responsibility to protect his city, must override his ethical dilemma. A hero doesn't let people die to justify his oath to not kill.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

YOU KNOW WHY BATMAN DOESN'T LET PEOPLE DIE WHEN HE CAN SAVE THEM, OR WHY HE DOESN'T KILL?

BECAUSE HE'S BETTER THAN YOU.

Cyclops would be disappointed in you after this statement.

Jason Todd's method is not more effective than Batman's because of what Gordon mentioned at the end of Batman Begins, escalation. The harder Jason tries to put criminals down, the harder the criminals will strike back. Comic books don't work in real life. There is a limit to how far things can go in the real world. A criminal organization in real life is not going to be able to wage a full scale war against the US government. There are no limits in a comic book universe. Think about this for a second, in the DC universe, it is possible for someone to gain the powers of hell or make an alliance with galaxy conquering alien warlords to supply their gang with some of the most advanced technology in the universe.

Putting down the bad guys won't help because not only do they become like martyrs but there will always be someone worse to take their place. The Joker does die but what happened after that? He inspired an entire gang of Jokerz that run rampant across Gotham for the next 50 years. You think killing Black Mask will be any different? Criminals aren't going to think, "hey, if a guy that's as bad as Black Mask got taken down, maybe I'm not safe either. I better go legit." They're going to think, "Black Mask was a punk. He was too weak and that's why he got rubbed out. If I want to make it in this town I have to be 10 times more violent and ruthless."

I hate it when a tangent discusion consumes the main topic. So i'll ask again. Can some one really show me if he killed an innocent person? because I get tired of people say that when they know he hasn't. even the bat family has fought him on occasion and each time he could have shot and killed them but didn't.

@nightwing91: thanks for staying on topic! to reply, he did not kill tim. he is a master assasin I think he would know if tim was dead. there for, he let him live. As for the gaurds I thought it was scarlet that killed them but i could be wrong on that one.

Batman doesn't kill the joker the same reason Superman doesn't kill Lex Luthor or Green Lantern kill Sinestro or Spiderman kill Norman Osborn or Frank Castle Jigsaw... oh wait...

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

YOU KNOW WHY BATMAN DOESN'T LET PEOPLE DIE WHEN HE CAN SAVE THEM, OR WHY HE DOESN'T KILL?

BECAUSE HE'S BETTER THAN YOU.

Another major copout.

@yumyumbubblegum said:

Bottom line is, Bruce is a pussy who's afraid to get his hands completely immersed in blood.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Actually, it's not. Batman lives in a world full of death and despair, and he rises above it. Sure, he's an Omen of the Night, but he also respects life, all life, far more than any other hero.

Yet another Copout. Even a well known DC writer like Greg Rucka is on record for stating it making no sense why Batman hasn't killed Joker.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Batman kills, Superman picks him up within 3 seconds.

Then why isn't the Joker, Lex Luthor, Penguin, etc all not picked up and put back in jail in 3 seconds then?

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

The only reason guys Jason and the Punisher roam free is because of PIS.

Yet Shield, the FBI, and superheroes have failed to capture Frank several times. Not to mention other heroes being busy doing something else. Now granted Frank operating as long as he has in NYC you think the heroes their would try and capture him more often then they do though.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Steve Rogers should beat the crap out of Frank and drop him off in the Raft.

Back in the 90's series Steve Rogers did try and capture the Punisher and failed.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

But why he doesn't kill? There's a clear answer; it's not his duty.

Again, another copout. If Bruce is so concerned about the safety of the people of Gotham he would've killed the Joker years ago to insure their safety instead of letting him get away with killing sprees.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

The police are ill-equipped to deal with supercriminals, so Bruce brings them in. It is not his responsibility to execute, that falls on the courts, on the public.

Which is blatant PIS but leaving that aside if Batman is suppose to be such a great protector he would've killed Joker or let him die at the hands of others instead of saving him like an idiot each time failing to protect people that Joker is going to kill in the future.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Batman kills, Superman picks him up within 3 seconds. The only reason guys Jason and the Punisher roam free is because of PIS. Steve Rogers should beat the crap out of Frank and drop him off in the Raft. The argument for why Bruce doesn't cripple his enemies is a fair one, and falls purely on meta-contextual circumstances. But why he doesn't kill? There's a clear answer; it's not his duty. The police are ill-equipped to deal with supercriminals, so Bruce brings them in. It is not his responsibility to execute, that falls on the courts, on the public.

1. That already happened in Civil War if I'm not mistaken. Plus Frank is a hero, a blood tainted one, but nonetheless a hero. It's not PIS, because if you throw Frank into a cell indefinitely, then you might as well write off the character....
2. Bruce knows completely well that no cell or jurisdiction will hold the Joker, yet he tries to turn a blind eye towards the obvious; every time the Joker escapes people he swore to protect will die. His duty as Gotham's protector must take precedence over his hesitation to deal the death blow.

He's mellowed out..kinda.

Why blame the cop that arrested a murderer if the murderer escaped from jail. Makes no sense, we should blame the prison system.

@entropy_aegis said:

@Shotgun said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@Shotgun:

Lost Days was more of a fan fiction than Morrison's Red Hood arc.While I do agree that he gave Jason a shitty design and hair do BUT his Jason was more of an antihero than Winicks who last time I checked smiled when he saw the people of Bludhaven getting nuked and even planted bombs on a railway track.Yup hero indeed(rolls eyes),Morrison's version wen't straight after the criminals and even tried to inspire the people of Gotham to use his methods.

"Let the punishment fit the crime" what do you think this means?that was his theme in Morrison's run.

Now lets look at Lost Days:

Barely any story,just Jason kicking ass,having sex with Talia(which contradicted continuity) and thrashing the Joker AGAIN.You wan't a fan fic take a good look at Lost Days.It screams favourtism.

Lost Days was just an arc to show what Jason was up to after he 'came back from the dead' and the training he had before he confronted Bruce. He's supposed to have kicked ass. Just about every vigilante in the DCU kicks ass. Joker's thrashing was something that anyone should've seen coming. Jason was able to do it because he'd been planning the event and Joker put up a good a fight as any skinny madman could. Also, the Lost Days is supposed to be centered on Jason, so I wouldn't really call it favoritism.

But you do have a point with the surprise sex from Talia, I don't understand it myself and am still wondering why Judd chose to throw that in there. Page quotas perhaps?

And yet on the very day Lost Days #6 was released Morrison's Batman and Robin #16 was also published.The former had Joker getting owned in a pathetic fight while the latter had Joker holding Damian hostage,creating his own nuke,burying Doc Hurt alive and killing the entire Black Glove.

Winick had no reason to throw Joker in to the story(a Russian in England told Jason his location in an attempt to save himself and yet he had no clue who Jason was WTF?).

The point is pretty simple,some writers and fans like to see Joker getting his ass kicked by killer vigilantes to satisfy some weird fantasies,Winick had shown Joker getting owned by Jason previously in UTRH.This was completly unnecessary.

Winick simply had no story to tell,he never did outside of UTRH.All he did after that was write lame stories where he pulled things out of his A$$.The last arc in Batman and Robin made that blatantly obvious.

I loved Lost Days,but everything else I agree on.You are also right because Winick did say Jason wasn't gonna live on after UTRH

@cody1984 said:

@RainEffect said:

Ah, Jason Todd fans. Almost as entertaining as Storm fans.

If Batman kills, then his entire character becomes irrelevant. If Batman kills the Joker, then the Joker wins.

That is such a copout. It makes no logical sense for Batman to let Joker live...hell he didn't have to do the deed himself he could've just let others do it instead of interfering saving the Joker which makes Batman look like a complete retard every single time.

@RainEffect said:

Don't you guys see that?

No because its BS.

@RainEffect said:

That is what Jason never understood. Killing is what separates 'us' from 'them'.

Their are so many characters in comics that kill and don't go over to the dark side becoming "evil" from doing so.

@RainEffect said:

Jason doesn't deserve to wear the Bat Symbol if he kills.

I disagree Jason should wear it as a F****** to Batman.

You should come around here more often cody