Batman's fault; Random topic

Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio
 
 

I was just thinking when you go back over Batman's history, isn't Joker's creation his fault? And wouldn't that mean Jason's death is his fault as well? I mean look at the facts; Batman caused the original Red Hood to fall into a chemical mix and become Joker. Then Joker beats Jason with a crow bar and then blows up the place he kept him. And finally Jason returns as Red Hood. So like isn't it kinda crazy how it went, right? It began with Red Hood and ended with Red Hood. Your thoughts
 
#1 Posted by ~Marauder~ (287 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman is responsible for all the pain that each of his enemies have cause 
 
Is his fault Jason died
Is his fault Babs is on a wheelchair 
Is his fault Two Face exist. 
 
If he would of killed the Joker none of these people would of been affected.

#2 Posted by xxSadisticSmilexx (61 posts) - - Show Bio

This is actually the point that is always pointed out in the tragic victims of the Joker.

#3 Posted by Bankstar21 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

the jokers origin has never been confirmed.. to blame batman is lame its easy to blame him you can say  gothams condition is his fault you can say that all the super powered criminals in that city are there to challenge him but we've seen gotham without him and it was chaos thats why dick took up the mantle bottom line gotham needs a batman. the people in the cross fire knew exactly what they were getting themselves into thats why he's so picky with whom he chooses.

#4 Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio
@Bankstar21:
No one is saying that Gotham doesn't need him, we're just saying that most of the tragic events are his fault. I mean I understand that you have an oath to never kill, but the thing is that if you asked the people of Gotham, the only person they'd want him to kill is the Joker. And because he hasn't, Jason was killed, Barbara was crippled, and Two-Face emerged.
#5 Posted by Calvin (3479 posts) - - Show Bio

The legal systems is based upon the fact that in the ultimate instance, people are able to decide. As long as freewill is preserved, every person is responsible for their own actions.

#6 Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio
@Calvin:
So........that means Batman is responsible right? 
#7 Posted by Son_of_Magnus (15258 posts) - - Show Bio

Joker being the original Red Hood is not set cannon Joker has a million origin stories and we will never know the true one

#8 Posted by Calvin (3479 posts) - - Show Bio
@SladeRogers said:
" @Calvin: So........that means Batman is responsible right?  "
No it means Joker and Jason are responsible for what they do! They have freewill, they only do bad things 'cause they choose to!
#9 Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio
@Calvin:
Aw, but if Batman killed him it wouldn't have been like that. 
#10 Posted by Silver Knight75 (1145 posts) - - Show Bio
@Son_of_Magnus said:
" Joker being the original Red Hood is not set cannon Joker has a million origin stories and we will never know the true one "
That is one thing about Joker that sort of bothers me. We don't know how he was actually came to be.
#11 Edited by Nighthunter (28580 posts) - - Show Bio
@Silver Knight75 said:

" @Son_of_Magnus said:

" Joker being the original Red Hood is not set cannon Joker has a million origin stories and we will never know the true one "
That is one thing about Joker that sort of bothers me. We don't know how he was actually came to be. "
The Joker is chaos incarnated, you don't understand chaos that is what makes it scary
#12 Edited by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmm well Jason kinda went psycho.

#13 Posted by The_Jokes_On_You (73 posts) - - Show Bio

I have always liked the idea of Batman creating the Joker.....but I hate the Red Hood origin with a freaking passion. Idk why...I just hate the Joker being Red Hood...it bothers me. 
#14 Edited by xxSadisticSmilexx (61 posts) - - Show Bio

Wait I am getting confused here.  Are people really stating that no one knows if he was the Red Hood or not?  Really guys?  That is the only part of the Joker's origin that is true.  That's a fact.  There has only been, not even a hand full of story arcs, that has said he was never the Red Hood.  As a matter of fact one of the only one's I can pull out of my mind at the moment is Batman Confidential.  The part of his origin that is not known is who he was before he put on that hood.

#15 Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio
@xxSadisticSmilexx:
Thank you.
#16 Posted by xxSadisticSmilexx (61 posts) - - Show Bio
@SladeRogers:  Don't mention it my friend.  Every since the 50s the Red Hood Joker origin has been the continuity to the story of Batman.  It wasn't until the Killing Joke that his origins were given a face lift and from that point on the "millions", which are about a handful of six, origins came into play.  All in fact, aside from one that I know of, having to do with him as the Red Hood.
#17 Posted by gallagher410 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Batman as a superhero, but his biggest flaw is not doing what needs to be done. the role of a guardian, i believe, is to protect. his duty as guardian is to do whats necessary to protect his people. i can understand keeping your hands free of blood, but he must be willing to sacrifice parts of his humanity to save humanity, so i would say all the pain that's jokers caused is his fault. no matter how you look at it, Batman has never done what is necessary.
#18 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio
@gallagher410 said:
" I love Batman as a superhero, but his biggest flaw is not doing what needs to be done. the role of a guardian, i believe, is to protect. his duty as guardian is to do whats necessary to protect his people. i can understand keeping your hands free of blood, but he must be willing to sacrifice parts of his humanity to save humanity, so i would say all the pain that's jokers caused is his fault. no matter how you look at it, Batman has never done what is necessary. "
Total bullc***p, a true hero takes the high road and has no right to become judge, jury and executioner.
 
And the only reason the joker gets away with all the crap he does is because of broken comic universe writing logic that creates an impossible paradox that is evident to readers but supposed to be not true in the comic book universe.
#19 Posted by gallagher410 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

i think in circumstances he should be the judge, jury and executioner. how many times did he put Joker in Arkham Asylum, only to have him break out and kill more innocents, you present very good logic, but how much pain and suffering could have been avoided if Batman would have taken out only Joker? i get where you're comin from but if Batman would have taken out joker, maybe not even kill him, but maime him, things would have been better. but i do agree that the writing logic is illogical :)

#20 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8736 posts) - - Show Bio

 @gallagher410 said:

" i think in circumstances he should be the judge, jury and executioner. how many times did he put Joker in Arkham Asylum, only to have him break out and kill more innocents, you present very good logic, but how much pain and suffering could have been avoided if Batman would have taken out only Joker? i get where you're comin from but if Batman would have taken out joker, maybe not even kill him, but maime him, things would have been better. but i do agree that the writing logic is illogical :) "

The problem with your argument is that you are using real world logic and applying to it to a comic book world with broken mechanics. Which DC and Marvel both are guilty of in immense measure.  
 
To spell out the problem it goes something like this:
1-DC works on the assumption that for the most part, besides the super-heroes. The world works very much like our own.
2-In our world,a madman like joker would have been executed a long time ago
3-In our world, mundane people can and have designed prisons that even someone as brilliant as the joker could never escape
4-Because of premise 1, 2, 3 it is assumed those prisons exists in the DC world and it is assumed that the judicial systems works like in ours
5-But the writing portrays 2, 3, 4 as totally ineffective. Because otherwise, writers could not use the Joker again. And because it would mean that most villains would never get more then 1, 2, maybe 3 story arcs tops before they were put out of commission forever is they managed to get caught.
 
The inherent problem these facts create is that it means that the only way we can see and have fun reading the joker again is for the judicial system to be portrayed as moronic enough to justify joker continuing along  while at the same time accepting that the heroes and ourselves are supposed to believe it is actually not moronic and is in fact effective enough that a hero can trust the system.
 
Hence, the joker always returns because the permutations of writers and fans not wanting cool characters to be offed mean an illogical paradox of bad writing we just have to accept otherwise we can't read Batman.
#21 Posted by Dracade102 (8167 posts) - - Show Bio

It's Arkham's Fault for Keeping Joker off the Green Mile.
#22 Posted by xxSadisticSmilexx (61 posts) - - Show Bio
@Crom-Cruach:  Wow, well said!
#23 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio

Um...duh...that was kind of the point of making Jason the 2nd red hood...and the reason bats felt so bad (well more so) after Jason died...

#24 Posted by Retro_Metro (368 posts) - - Show Bio
@Sydpart2 said:
" Um...duh...that was kind of the point of making Jason the 2nd red hood...and the reason bats felt so bad (well more so) after Jason died... "
#25 Posted by ComicStooge (12004 posts) - - Show Bio
@SladeRogers:
Bruce tried to save Red Hood (Joker), it's Joker's fault, he chose to be a criminal. He brought it on himself.
Online
#26 Posted by SladeRogers (291 posts) - - Show Bio

No, Red Hood (Joker) was just a wannabe who Batman chased and when he advanced toward him, fell into the chemical that bleached his skin. Maybe, people debate on whether that should be held against Bats. But, I still think he should've let Jason kill the Joker. I wanna see Joker get killed and have a kinda "Joker goes to hell" thing. Lol.
#27 Posted by J1ml33 (518 posts) - - Show Bio
@Crom-Cruach said:
"  @gallagher410 said:

" i think in circumstances he should be the judge, jury and executioner. how many times did he put Joker in Arkham Asylum, only to have him break out and kill more innocents, you present very good logic, but how much pain and suffering could have been avoided if Batman would have taken out only Joker? i get where you're comin from but if Batman would have taken out joker, maybe not even kill him, but maime him, things would have been better. but i do agree that the writing logic is illogical :) "

The problem with your argument is that you are using real world logic and applying to it to a comic book world with broken mechanics. Which DC and Marvel both are guilty of in immense measure.  
 
To spell out the problem it goes something like this:
1-DC works on the assumption that for the most part, besides the super-heroes. The world works very much like our own.
2-In our world,a madman like joker would have been executed a long time ago
3-In our world, mundane people can and have designed prisons that even someone as brilliant as the joker could never escape
4-Because of premise 1, 2, 3 it is assumed those prisons exists in the DC world and it is assumed that the judicial systems works like in ours
5-But the writing portrays 2, 3, 4 as totally ineffective. Because otherwise, writers could not use the Joker again. And because it would mean that most villains would never get more then 1, 2, maybe 3 story arcs tops before they were put out of commission forever is they managed to get caught.
 
The inherent problem these facts create is that it means that the only way we can see and have fun reading the joker again is for the judicial system to be portrayed as moronic enough to justify joker continuing along  while at the same time accepting that the heroes and ourselves are supposed to believe it is actually not moronic and is in fact effective enough that a hero can trust the system. Hence, the joker always returns because the permutations of writers and fans not wanting cool characters to be offed mean an illogical paradox of bad writing we just have to accept otherwise we can't read Batman. "
yeah but what about say Superman and his Rogues gallery , also the Flash and diffidently his merry band of  ''Rogues ''  are they accountable  for what they have become , should Lex Luthor should have been walking the green mile after the first time  after one of his destroy the wold type plans   that involved trying to kill superman , should superman should have killed him the first chance he got in order to end what future deaths and loss of innocent lives . should have the flash(Barry Allen ) have killed all of his rogues (namely reverse flash
) , also should wonder woman have do the same to all of her rogues in order to end their seemly brutal  and Bloody reign of terror in her city . But I do agree with your comment about why in comic books that the real world rules are bended to such an extended  to keep said villain alive for the writers convenience in future stories . but the say someone writes a true to life Batman story or any story where justice  and the currernt american judicial system really does it job and executrices offenders via the electric chair or lethal injection or some inhumane form of capital punishment then that would be an sad yet interesting day when we all see the jokers final appearance as written by Grant Morrison . with art by Frank Quietly  and Frank Miller .
but ask yourself this do you believe the current state if every city in comics (both marvel and Namely DC comics or Image comics the savage dragon universe mostly Chicago and its high right of superhuman  crimes and mass murder  on a weekly basis ) should Gotham City be free of crime forever , no rogues , no mob , no nothing and the myth of batman should be no more ? you tell me alright !
#28 Posted by Mainline (1129 posts) - - Show Bio
@SladeRogers said:

"I was just thinking when you go back over Batman's history, isn't Joker's creation his fault? And wouldn't that mean Jason's death is his fault as well? I mean look at the facts; Batman caused the original Red Hood to fall into a chemical mix and become Joker. Then Joker beats Jason with a crow bar and then blows up the place he kept him. And finally Jason returns as Red Hood. So like isn't it kinda crazy how it went, right? It began with Red Hood and ended with Red Hood. Your thoughts "

Reposted from Superman board, tweaks at the end: 

====
 No. 
 
I'm going to use a legal argument under the "natural law" theory (but the argument is substantively the same without it... using law is just easier given pre-existing terminology with precise meaning). 
 
Fault for something like this would generally fall under something like recklessness or negligence.  It means the actors owed a duty, there was a breach of that duty, the breach was the actual cause-in-fact AND the proximate cause... of provable damage. 
 
Here, you have damages (villains attacking, collateral, people dying, etc)... but everything else is arguable and you definitely do not have proximate cause. 
 
The duty differs based on the risk, but in general it is to act like a reasonable person would based on their knowledge.  Superman does not have any knowledge that people will use him to make Bizarro to justify a duty that would cause him to act any differently, just as Jor-El should not reasonably be expected under emergency conditions (the destruction of Krypton) to account for the far future actions of Brainiac.  Most people would determine there was no duty or breach thereof. 
 
Even if you could argue there is a breach, the only kind of causation you have is "cause-in-fact".  That means there is a factual string of causation resulting in the damages.  For example, your girlfriend gives you a wakeup call while you're interviewing abroad and because you are on time you get the job which ten years later results in a car accident based on your daily commute killing a family of four.  As a matter of fact your girlfriend is a cause for the death of the family... if she hadn't called, you would've been late to your interview, not been hired, not commuted, and not killed the family.  But do you assign moral condemnation or blame?  Of course not, because the second factor- or "proximate cause" fails... generally it's a measure of how closely in time, space, relevance, and likelihood one action is to another... foreseeability... or fairness.  It would hardly be fair to hold your girlfriend accountable for the deaths of the family just because she gave you a phone call... that's too distant in time, geography, and hardly an expected outcome.  The same holds true for Superman's presence.  
=== 
 
The discussion above was just about Superman's presence, but now that the legal standard for fault is in play, we can apply it directly to Batman's circumstances and the questions asked.  To give you the bottom line up front first: 1) Joker's accident is Batman's fault, Joker's creation is not;  2) Jason's death is arguably Batman's fault but Joker is a superseding cause which mitigates the fault some
 
1) As a vigilante, Batman breaches the standard of care of an ordinary person and could foreseeably anticipate his reckless actions would, one day, cause a criminal to get hurt or have an accident.  The degree to which that accident takes shape is going to be limited by proximate cause.  For example, if you run a light and hit a car killing the driver you will be reasonably held liable for that because it is foreseeable.  However, if you hit a mad bomber's car and it goes off killing a hundred people (yet you survive), you will not be liable for all those deaths because it is unforeseeable.  At least with the Joker, it is unreasonable for Batman to have anticipated the depth of his madness post accident and thus not responsible. 
 
2) As the guardian of Jason, Batman breaches the standard of care of an ordinary person by letting him be a sidekick... but we can argue in the DCU and in Batman's own life, the standard of care is different because many sidekicks flourish.  Assuming there was a breach, the reasonable anticipated outcome is injury or death... and since that happened, Batman is arguably liable or at fault.  The issue of intervening cause means that when some other willful actor enters the picture, your liability is cut off.  For example, if I am reckless and fumbling with a lighter but before I can have an accident someone burns down the establishment with a flame thrower, obviously they would be a fault not me for my recklessness.  The problem for Batman is that his recklessness, if any, involves criminals.  You can't send someone into the threat of foreseeable intentional crime and then blame the criminals (for example, dropping someone off naked in a "bad neighborhood" would leave you liable for any foreseeable consequences that occur, you can't claim those acts were done by others and you just dropped them off).  So under our standards, Batman would be at fault, but the sidekick thing seems to go by a different standard in the DCU. 
#29 Posted by AMS (1387 posts) - - Show Bio

What about Superman getting slapped and blamed by some woman cause her husband died of a brain tumour.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.