DOES BATMAN KILL?
First, just looking at BvS
As in: the previous history of Batman doesn't matter, just what's onscreen in BvS
“He doesn’t necessarily plan on killing anyone which is why he isn’t “armed to the teeth with guns from the jump” but if they get in his way.. so be it…” they say.
Except the Batmobile literally has twin .50 cal turrets that straight up Swiss Cheese a fleeing SUV (after he's affixed a tracking device to the truck, so they're not gonna slip away) and his Batwing strafes the outside of the warehouse, making lotsa guys blow up real good. That right there is Bats straight up murdering guys who are not in his way. Not "if they get in his way". There are thugs DIRECTLY in his way when he assaults the warehouse but he goes to the trouble of DISARMING them with some kind of magnetic disruptor so he can then punch the mercenary out of them. Why does he gun-murder the outdoor thugs but disarm and incapacitate the indoor ones?
And then he brands criminals which the news tells us is a death sentence once in prison.
Which is a) non-fucking-sensical, cuz it's more likely to be a badge of honour amongst criminals than a death sentence but the movie tells us it happens so...
b) indicates Bats is a vicious, cowardly sadist who lets scum do his dirty work for him
Snyder is only interested in maximizing the "coolness" of the given scene but not earning the moment.
Proof? Snyder himself stated:
”I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun… I took that little vignette from a scene in ‘The Dark Knight Returns, ‘and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun.”
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/04/06/movie-legends-revealed-did-batman-actually-kill-anyone-in-the-dark-knight-returns/
Except that he doesn't. Definitely not on-panel. And when Commissioner Yindel reads off the charges they're after him for, murder isn't on it. And it would be, if he had.
Furthermore the above article references Bats inner monologue leading up to the fight with the Mutant Leader:
And there’s only one thing to do about him that makes any sense to me — just press the trigger and blast him from the face of the Earth. Though that means crossing a line I drew for myself, thirty years ago…I just can’t think of a single reason to let him live.
So if he hasn't crossed that line yet, he certainly didn't do it with the machine gun moment that Snyder referenced. And even after the Leader defeats him, he comes back and beats him hand-to-hand. No guns, no kill.
Proving once again, Snyder doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, what the fuck he's referencing or who the fuck he's fucking with.
The Comprehensive History of Batman's Kills (and why you're wrong about his Rule)
“I get that Batman has a “rule” to not kill people but it seems to be a pretty flexible rule that has been broken numerous times in the books as well as tv and film”
Yeah. He killed when he started . He also wore purple gloves when he started. And the first iteration of Bats was very clearly trying to emulate the success of 30s radio and comic serial hero The Shadow, complete with cape, .45 pistols and a willingness to kill (and also racism). Before the writers cohered him into the recognizable character that stayed, in the very least, hyper-reluctant to kill for 75 years.
"By 1940’s Batman #4, in a story by co-creators Bill Finger and Bob Kane — which is about as definitive as you can get — Batman reminds Robin that “we never kill with weapons of any kind.”"
http://comicsalliance.com/batman-kills/
It's actually been a fairly inflexible rule in the books. The very few and extremely far between instances post-1940 were always in self-defense or to directly prevent the imminent harm of another. And even more rarely has he shrugged it off without mention. You have to admit it's an established, commonly known trait that became synonymous with him, even when he broke it. It had weight when he did it.
Now movies are different. My ideal Batman has never made it to the big screen. Batman Begins came close but that "I don't have to save you" garbage kinda ruined it. That and the utter lack of legit detectiving.
People think Bats is just a billionaire who likes beating up poor people but that fundamentally misunderstands his mission.
He's peak human. But not out of a test tube like Cap. He's the pinnacle of human possibility if one was unrelentingly motivated by inescapable psychic trauma. Imagine taking your worst, most painful wound and using the memory of it to unmercifully, punishingly craft your mind, body and spirit into a weapon against said trauma’s repetition, in order to save lives and prevent others from experiencing it. If he smashes a scumbag threatening to create that fate for some innocent, he's not picking them by their fucking tax bracket. And the money just provides the means. Class warfare this ain’t.
His unswerving dedication (and considerable resources) produce skills which are unquestioned: in martial prowess, investigative deduction, logical reasoning and overall general awareness of Everything. He applies these skills in pursuit of the meaningful reduction of harm to innocent civilians. Either by pro-actively targeting organized crime or intercepting active perpetrators of robbery, murder and intimidation. But to maintain the distinction between himself and his adversaries, he does not kill. Death removes all chance at redemption, and Bats wants to reduce trauma, not increase it.
If we really want to get into it, 1989 Batman is kind of a terrible version of Batman. A quite un-Batman Batman. He spends most of the movie running away, allows dozens of people to die at the museum, allows lots more to die on the steps of city hall, kills lots with machine guns, missiles and bombs, has somehow fostered a working relationship where Alfred bringing Vicki Vale into the Batcave isn't a fireable offense, has a super-weird "wanna get nuts?" scene half way through and full-on tries to kill the Joker by punching him off a cathedral, then does murder him by batroping him to a gargoyle. But that's Burton and the pre-internet days. Guaranteed there were hard-core fans that were bursting their brains cuz they were so happy their hero was getting the big screen treatment semi-seriously but also vexed cuz he was so different. But no internet, no outrage. So that's a moot point.
And Batman's barely even in Batman Returns. There's a lot wrong with that movie. Murder and the enjoyment of said murder? Yeah, decidedly un-Batman.
