#batman doesn't kill

Batman can't kill. Like, at all. He physically and mentally cannot bring himself to kill someone. This is because Batman witnessed the murder of his parents at such a young age, he saw them shot in front of him, sat there in that cold, dark alleyway as their blood pooled around him, all while he stared in shock and horror at the lifeless bodies of his parents.

He was eight years old, and he saw his parents brutally killed in front of his very eyes, after a fun night of watching his favourite movie in the theatre. By all means, that night should've been just like any other. They should've been able to see the movie and get home safely. That night, Bruce should've been tucked into bed by his loving parents, dreaming sweet dreams, as Thomas and Martha cuddled together in their own room.

Instead, Bruce had to talk to police officers about what just happened, probably having to repeat his words and replay the scene of his parent's death over and over in his mind, before finally being driven home in silence by Alfred, in bed far later than he should've been.

Bruce had his childhood snatched from him at such a young, and vulnerable age. He was still a child, a child that was all alone in a big empty manor from that day onwards.

But instead of letting that pain turn him into a vengeful and violent person, instead of letting it corrupt him (like Owlman for example), he turned his pain into hope. Hope that he could make an impactful change. Hope that he could help people like him. Hope that he could persevere.

And he did. He trained so hard to become Batman, pushing himself beyond his mental and physical limits to be in absolute peak human condition, all so he could help his city. And I don't doubt that Bruce constantly blames himself for his parent's deaths, thinking about what would've happened if maybe he hadn't insisted on going to the movies.

As Bruce Wayne he funds hospitals, gives jobs and housing to criminals just getting out of jail, and donating to charity. As Batman he takes to the streets at night, defending the defenseless, protecting Gotham City from not just the costumed criminals, but also the corrupt officials and the more serious mobsters.

But despite how Bruce may beat the shit out of the common criminal, he also wants to help them, reform them. Because while, again using him as an example, Owlman' loss turned him into a total nihilist, viewing mankind as a disease that needed to be destroyed while thinking that nothing matters, Bruce's loss taught him that all life is beautiful and deserves to be cherished and preserved. It taught him that no one deserves to be taken from the world as suddenly as his parents were. It taught him that, deep down at our core, we are all truly good, and want to do good, it's just our experiences in life that turn us bad.

Yes, sometimes it seems hopeless, sometimes things are bleak. I don't doubt that sometimes, Bruce finds himself considering the idea of permanently getting rid of someone like Joker or Professor Pyg. And I will admit, I dont personally believe that they can be reformed. But even if that's the case, should Batman be the one to decide their fates?

No.

Batman should not be judge, jury, and executioner. In the end, it's up to the justice system to give these criminals the death penalty. However, since the system has problems (problems that Bruce is trying his best to fix), that doesn't happen. Yet despite that, despite the hopelessness, despite everything, Bruce keeps going. He keeps striving towards his goal of helping people. He sees the good in everyone.

People like Harley Quinn, Arnold Wesker, Oswald Cobblepot, Harvey Dent, Edward Nygma, Jonathan Crane, and so, so many more, all have some semblance of good in them, and Bruce sees that. My point is proven in the many episodes of BTAS where Batman's rogues make at least somewhat an attempt to be reformed, but something causes them to go back to their old ways.

But again, despite that, Bruce keeps trying. He truly wants his foes to get better. He wants to help everyone. That's why Batman can't kill, because it'll break him.

It's also why Batman almost never uses a gun. I wonder why a man who had his parents horribly murdered by a mugher with a GUN in front of him as a young child wouldn't like guns..?

An example of Batman using a gun is in the newest animated Batman show, Batman Caped Crusader. So far, I have absolutely LOVED this show. Its take on Batman has been fantastic so far (PLEASE WATCH SERUM LAKE'S YOUTUBE VIDEOS ON IT), but there's one scene I want to talk about to end this rant. Spoilers for it, duh.

Harvey Dent is shot and killed by corrupt cop Arnold Flass. This is after Harvey became Two-Face, though they never call him that in the show for good reason, and it has been well established in the show that Bruce and Harvey are the best of friends. Flass goes to shoot lawyer Barbara Gordon, who was with Harvey, but Batman gets there in time and knocks the gun out of Flass' hands.

Bruce sees Harvey, his best friend who he's known for so long and who he's desperately been trying to help ever since the acid attack, now dead. Because Flass. I assume it brought back memories of seeing his parents dead. Also dead because a gun.

Bruce picks up Flass' gun and some it at the other man, who is now backed up against a wall, whimpering and cowering in fear.

Bruce fires the gun. But he doesn't shoot Flass. He shoots the wall around him. Bruce is implying that he could've killed Flass at any moment if he wanted to.

But he didn't.

This shocks the audience. Batman never uses a gun, yet he just did. I think that this is the ONLY example of Batman using a gun that's good. Because he doesn't kill Flass, he points out that he could've, but he didn't. I remember being shocked to silence by this scene, and I still don't know how I feel about it, but I know that it's far better than Bruce actually killing Flass.

In short, Bruce should never kill. It goes against everything Batman stands for. I'm going to end this rant with a quote that is, quite frankly very overused, but I still think fits very well.

So, my friends and I have this theory that Alfred rigged the cowl to ease Bruce’s conscience when he mindlessly murders people.

Okay, so real talk here - this is serious shit. Why do you dislike this version of Lex? I’m genuinely curious as to what other people thought of him because I’ve gotta say... I like him a lot (full disclosure - I have not watched the movie to the end yet)

I’ll admit up front that I am a very casual Batman fan, but this take on Lex Luthor struck me as actually being pretty original, and genuinely interesting. 

Before watching this film, I would have described Luthor as an immoral bald industrialist. It’s a good villain trope, but it feels a bit tired now. Eisenberg’s Luthor is a sort-of Millennial villain - Mark Zuckerberg dialled up to 1000. Sure, it’s still a stereotype, but it’s a more recognisable stereotype given the world we inhabit today. 

And he’s a very human villain too. The rage that simmers underneath the facade; the inability to interact socially; the vulnerability that his intellect can’t hide. Even his stated aim for wanting to destroy Superman - all of it tying back to a deeply dysfunctional childhood. I love it when you can look at a villain and just see how it all could have happened. There but for the grace of God and all that.

I can’t do that with KGBeast (not dissing the Beast - he is genuinely menacing when he first appears, and I actually shivered when he looks over at Bruce at the fight), but I also can’t do that with immoral bald industrialist Luthor either.