Why do people complain that Batman kills in BvS...
but he also kills in The Dark Knight movies and in Michael Keaton's movies such as Batman Returns?
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fce0de312d774786f9eeae53267fa380
Personally it DOENS'T bother me in the Burton films or BVS since they never establish those versions of Batman have a no killing rule. It DOES bother me in the Nolan films because they won't shut up about Bale's Batman refusing to kill but then just goes and kills his bad guys.
shareTo me something that does bug me about fans saying he never murders anyone in Nolan's films is that in Batman Begins him leaving Ra's Al Ghul on the train to die is the same thing as killing him imo. In fact if something similar happened in real life the cops would want to arrest that person and a judge would sentence them to quite a few years behind bars. And yet the Nolan fans vehemently insist that it isn't the same thing as killing him.
sharehe never murders anyone in Nolan's films
It wouldn't be murder even if The Dark Knight did kill someone in the line of duty. After all, he's in essence deputized by Commissioner Gorden to protect the citizens of Gotham City from the various "super"villains & their criminal personnel, not to mention thugs in general. The fact that he's commissioned by police authority (with a veritable "bat signal") means he's not a vigilante. If he were to kill someone it would more accurately be execution of justice. share
So, if I get this right, he's a killer but not a murderer.
It would depend in what jurisdiction/state/country he kills, I think. Wouldn't he risk the same fate as Derek Chauvin if he killed someone in Minnesota, for example?
Or am I just getting lost in semantics here?
Justified killing and murder are not synonymous. The state has the power to execute heinous criminals if their crime warrants it. Commissioner Gordon represents the city/state as head of police enforcement in Gotham City and Batman is deputized by Gordon to fight crime & protect citizens. Thus if Batman is righteously compelled to kill a thug in the line of duty it would be justified execution, not murder. Murder, by contrast, occurs due to carnal reasons, like someone robs you of your valuables & shoots you dead.
shareOk. 2 things still. Correct me if I'm wrong about them.
1) Since he's deputized by Gordon, he couldn't get away with it outside of Gotham City.
2) Batman didn't really get righteously compelled to kill Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. Let's be honest here... it was a personal revenge thing. Not a justified execution.
1) Yes, areas outside of Gotham City would be outside of Batman's jurisdiction (which shouldn't be a problem anyway since he goes out of his way not to kill in the line of duty). However, citizens have the lawful right to protect themselves and other threatened citizens from thugs with wicked intent. So, even if Batman killed someone outside of Gotham for righteous reasons, it wouldn't make him guilty of murder.
2) The line between personal revenge and justified execution can be blurry. Since Batman's a superHERO trusted by the Gotham police force and therefore noble of character -- generally speaking -- I would assume any killing in the line of duty, even indirectly, would be justified. I can't comment further on this particular aspect because I haven't seen the movie for a dozen years and the details are fuzzy.