And then, my thing is everyone is constantly putting it onto superheroes, the public both in and out of universe, "Oh why don't such and such kill and just get it over with it'll be so much easier they're just as bad as they are" While also expecting them to work within and uphold the Law. The Law still considers charachters like Batman and even Superman, superheroes in general to be, "Dangerous Vigilantes" and constantly want them to keep thier power in check and bring up the notion of power dynamics in a myriad of talking points usually stemming along the lines of, "If they're so powerful or With thier power and skill they should be able to" But don't note this as counterintuitive to the question that they asked in the first place. You can't have it BOTH ways. The real question is, since it's been REPEATEDLY established time and time again that these superbeings ARE the only ones that can handle these villians then why doesn't the Government give them the OK to, or straight up TELL THEM to kill these villians and stop throwing them in jail?
That was kind of a point in DC Comics’ Kingdom Come, where the public hated superheroes for not killing or preventing escapes and repeat murders by supervillains, but how it ends is with the appointed heroes go too far and cause collateral damage deaths
@AdrianFahrenheitTepes That's on them for letting that kind of authority get into the wrong hands. You need the right people for the job, not just everyone going around willy nilly doing whatever they want. Which is why I made it a point to say Batman or Superman figures who can pull themselves back or have a support system that will make sure they don't go over the line. Personal responsibility comes into play. The powers that be have to play thier cards right. Just let wonder woman handle it, she'll get it done. 🤣
i personally don't think that a character like batman necessarily _need_ any sort of external validation for their no kill rule, though i agree with the reason that jupiter's legacy gives us if he was going to have one in a lot of versions of batman i see him as someone who does not _want_ to be seen as a role model for others, and that he sees his violent methods as something that only he should have to stoop down to, while recognizing that whether he wants to or not, he's still going to end up inspiring others to take action like he does, and so by drawing the line at things like killing or using guns, he can send a better message to those who look up to him
I never understand people who put the blame on Batman for the Joker repeatedly breaking out and killing people. Batman usually turns villains over to the court system to prosecute and sentence. The real blame is on the state legislators, city council members, prosecutors, and judges, that never sentence him to death or refuse to pass legislation making capital punishment possible/mandatory for someone like him. We had a guy in Seattle that was arrested over 50 times for a variety of crimes, some violent. He was released over and over and eventually committed a murder-suicide. I don't blame the cops who arrested him for not shooting him. I blame the courts for releasing him 50+ times! As for the no-kill rule generally, I think Superheroes should follow the same rules that would apply to any private citizen: non-deadly citizen's arrest is great, killing in self defense is permittable, homicidal vigilantism is unacceptable.
I think its a matter of competence. Nobody in real life thinks the justice system is living up to what it should, now imagine in a city with villains who use mind control and morph into clay. So when they see Batman, who's the only useful force for justice continue to rinse and repeat with a domestic terrorist, i would be pissed too.
Batman has the actual power to take Joker down, and he doesn't. That's the problem. His moral code has lead to the deaths of hundreds including Jason Todd.
@@inkchariot6147i don't know why you used the term "take the joker down" instead of just saying "kill the joker". Batman takes the joker down all the time. Batman has even been in situations where it looked like the joker died. As for killing him, any cop could also kill the joker. All it would take is to take him out to the edge of the city while he's in handcuffs or a straight jacket and shoot him with their sidearm.
@k.g.7591 there are a lot of euphemism used in this world anymore. It's easier to be violent at heart if you don't actually have to call a duck a duck
People blame Batman because he literally has the power to end it and bypass the horriblly ineffective "justice" system. Once it gets to a point where a dude has broken out and gone on a murdering spree you have the green light to off him. There is zero gray in that situation. If you think Batman is so mentally unstable that he will go rogue once killing one criminal then maybe put him in the psych ward with the Joker. 👍
so it isn't that killing will result in the hero becoming a tyrant or a mass murderer, it's more so about people whom these heroes are supposed to inspire (civilians or other aspiring heroes) seeing the act of killing and receiving the wrong message, thus spawning an entire generation of mass murderers (which is honestly worse).
@@nseven1117 Yes! I think "The Batman" actually expressed that idea well by having Riddler identify with Batman and his followers call themselves "Vengence". If one person starts executing criminals without any due process, why can't others? Pretty soon we're back to a society ruled by mob justice. Now, I'm fine with stories about characters who do take the vigilante route. Anti-heroes like Punisher or Ghost Rider that think extra-judicial killing is justified sometimes have a place. But it shouldn't be aspirational heroes like Batman or Superman. Different characters and stories have different philosophies and worldviews. They should each stay true to what they're about.
Basically. I think there is also some ideological argument for Heroes having to keep themselves beholden to the laws of Humanity, else they become the equivalent of gods smiting those they view as evil (which would inspire paranoia among humanity btw). Interestingly enough some of the Superheroes that most often treat themselves as being above the laws of humanity that I can think of are Wonder Woman, and Thor. Actual gods It’s also pretty fitting that one of the most fervent followers of the code, Batman, is also one of the most active in training the next generation of heroes
@@ShadowknightEX it applies to Superman too since he's one of the most high profile heroes in the DC universe and in real life. if you have so many people looking at you as an example to aspire, everything you say and do counts
If you’ve ever watched/read Superman, half his villains are working to discredit him or argue “he has too much power and if he decides to go rogue we can’t stop him”, ex Lex Luther , Amanda Waller, Batman (bvs). So if Superman DID kill people imagine how in the right lex would look, or the funding Amanda would get to develop anti Superman weapons. If Superman was killing people metropolis would turn against him, they already do that when he accidentally breaks stuff but if he’s killing it would be a full city on the lookout ready to call the military. So in summary you make a very good point, Superman (at least the good versions) is always in the right for not killing, and with that all arguments against him fall flat. A simple spell yet quite unbreakable.
Very spot on reasoning for super man code, which fits for him regardless being a foreigner and his upbringing and live for his city and people. Wanting to fit in but also be himself. He wouldn't want to do anything to distant himself from others
yeah, i really liked these series' and i have no idea why they flopped. the only reason i can imagine is people thought jupiters legacy was cheesy with some of the outfits and effect but you cant tell me that marvel and DC havent had some blunders like with the aquaman green mnt dew cave, the Jessica jones "super jumping" were shes obviously is pulled up by wires or literally every adaptation of kingpin (because of my weight). besides nothing wrong with a little cheese as long as its not distracting from the plot its always something to laugh at.
(Just started the video) Usually main characters are seeking balance while the villian seeks chaos or their own form of perverted balance. If Batman(modern batman that doesnt kill people) killed people then he can't work within the law or inspire the people of gotham. If batman didnt value life, would he still be someone to look up to and protect the home he was raised in? He's the dark KNIGHT. The honorable hero who thinks guns are for cowards (except Alfred), who believes in gathering evidence, and putting his enemies in the proper place. And yes, part of the reason the police, prisons, and courts can't deal with these bad guys is because the badguys need to escape and sell more stories but too many people forget that detail so they csn sound smart and talk about how batman is the real villian. Somehow.
Oddly enough I think Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance has the best reasoning for why a hero shouldn’t kill. Raiden understands that he’s not a good person and that he’s taking pleasure in killing. He also knows that he is ultimately right and he doesn’t care whether or not the ends justify the means. Raiden is a good guy but he’s not a hero.
Superheroes, should not kill unless they are like Punisher, or Thor, like antiheroes and reinterpretations of ancient heroes, while the modern ones should not, simply because they operate outside the law and they act when the police forces cannot. The issue is the justice problem in their fictional world and in the real world is the fear of editorials to create new villains, made the Classico ones die from death sentence,kill each other, or restoring. If most of the heroes kill then the goverment will have enough reason to take them out when the supercommunity does not dance to their song.
Exactly like the set of standards we have for police. It boggles the mind that people are having debates that someone who wears spandex can never k!ll but the police officer with like two months training is A OK.
@@AIartificalIntelligethe no kill superheroes are supposed to be better than us, they are supposed to find a solution that doesn't involve killing to show they care. There are also the superheroes that aren't in law enforcement and thus they want to let the government carry out the justice that the hero was not elected to carry legally.
@@AIartificalIntellige If you can dodge bullets and lift trains over your head there's not much a normal human can do to you so killing them isn't justifiable but if your are just a regular Joe with a gun then you really can't choose not to kill because trying to use non-lethal force will get you killed.
@otterfire4712 so but real life doesn't work like that. Politicians aren't held accountable and police are meant to also find a better solution. You just made a circular argument. You didn't answer my question. Why is it not okay for people who want to save lives to neutralise a threat that's actively harming innocents and is potentially more powerful hence the SUPER villain part.
@@AIartificalIntellige in the setting of comics, it is generally presumed by the heroes that judges and law enforcement will carry out proper justice on the super villains they fight. Normally the problems the super villains present is too great for that of law enforcement to handle and requires a super hero with the capacity to solve it for them. In real life, yes there is corruption within the system itself and that can be reflected in some comic stories where the authors can address such problems. Not killing a hostile and lethal foe is this Herculean task and it's what differentiates many super heroes from their super villains. To be able to neutralize violence so that they may face justice for their crimes on the innocent.
I think that Batman's no kill rule was actually made one year after Batman's release in 1940 not during the time of the CCA. However, I'm unsure of this.
Kido Shinji, aka Kamen Rider Ryuki, is one of my favorite heroes. A temp journalist who finds himself in a secret battle royale and battle with monsters, he is informed that the winner of this battle royale can make a single wish. Throughout the series we meet and interact with several of these other Kamen Riders, those who have their own desires that they want fulfilled. Shinji struggles with these other Riders as they have wishes of varying degrees, but Shinji doesn't really have a desire beyond wanting the fighting to stop, he's far more concerned with the monsters that attack civilians who attack from within the reflections of the world. His commitment to stopping the Rider conflict peacefully despite the other's insistence on fighting to fulfill their wish.
A nice parallel to Super Crooks is Ranger Reject. In a world where the Sentai have defeated the major villains 12 years prior. To maintain peace with the remaining minions, a peace ritual where minions would be publicly defeated by the Sentai on Sundays (weekly Tokusatsu shows air on Sundays). Fighter D, has grown tired of this and has decided to actually defeat the Sentai. In doing this, he initiates what takes place for the series, starting as a spy thriller (minions can regenerate most damage, can morph into people and objects, and has a smoke like property when damaged. A brilliant spy thriller and overwhelming Sentai powers that lead you to wondering how Fighter D can beat them and become the ruler of the world.
It would be funny if they give it to villains who either can't die by means they have (like Clayface) or to villains who can revive themselves (like Ras Al Ghul).
Yeah, you’d think Joker’s “insanity plea” would be debunked since some vids show psychologists saying Joker isn’t insane. Link: ua-cam.com/video/Sbp_EeBk-As/v-deo.htmlsi=c-eMx-vLPUUkA7kX Psychopathic? Yeah but not insane. There’s a difference. No Kill Rule haters just keep blaming heroes when it should be the judge and jury’s job once the villains are behind bars and disarmed. Or the cops, seriously all those guns and no cop can get lucky and shoot the Joker in the head.
If you want to read a good discourse on why the no-killing rule is in place, read the "Kingdom Come" series by Mark Waid and Alex Ross (Also provides a discourse on just how _awesome_ comic book art can be!) "Kingdom Come" (written long before Super Crooks" basically shows an end result of your thesis. For a rebuttal, read the "Wanted" by Mark Millar -- Who also wrote "Jupyter's Legacy" with Frank Quitely -- (Also provides a discourse on problems that occur when a writer is too enamored with one of their characters, creating a Gary Stu) "Wanted" basically shows what happens if the crooks win.
@@icecoldtip8590 Jason Todd didn't become The Red Hood because The Lazarus Pit messed with his mind but because he no longer believed in Batman's way of doing things
@@bobkane432 true. But it's a common point that it does the more you use it and Im mainly referring to ras. Also I think it's somewhat implied that it's a little of both but that's just my interpretation.
There is the middle ground that you do not quite touch on. There is also the situation of self defense or defense of another. In the Jupyter's Legacy example, he was saving somebody's life. Leave it up to a Jury as to whether it was justified.
Ever thought why heros that don't kill have the best rogue gallery? If joker, was killed we would never get to have a Killing joke, If Magneto and Dr. Doom were killed marvel would never had their best villains.
@@graveyardshift2100 yeah but the guy just keep coming back I guess thats why Punisher, Blade and Ghost rider dont have a big rogues gallery, besides demons
I find superhero who refused to kill, or the very least do everything in their power to avoid killing unless necessary, far more interesting than heroes who will kill their enemies without a second thought
I honestly didn't know super crooks took place in Jupiter legacy verse that insane. I just finished Jupiter's legacy seeing it started to talk about it. I was like hold up let me watch it. I watched super crooks like last year or so crazy I wish I knew 😂
A rewatch will be something else with super crooks. I just thought super heroes were just like that bad apples there. Like that history of superhero code and utopian really adds to it seeing the downfall of superheroes
Pretty much summed up The entire plot of justice league kingdom come. People start criticizing Superman for not murdering the guy who blew up the daily planet and praising the new antihero who gutted him on the steps of the courthouse. Superman still grieving the death of his friends and loved ones while loosing all faith in humanity runs off to hide in the fortres of solitude for 30 years. The world becomes a darker more cynical place, the criminals are more violent than ever, the antiheroes aren’t much better themselves, everyone of the street is a complete asshole, and the country is on the brink of nuclear war.
It’s simple. Characters like Superman and Batman are meant to be aspirational characters. Meaning they set a standard. You aren’t meant to reflect them but to try and aspire for what they stand for. Characters like this want to make a better world within the boundaries they set for themselves. It’s their integrity that also makes them heroes. That isn’t to say no aspirational character shouldn’t kill but for them and other characters who hold on to similar principles, it’s a necessity. Also, the slippery slope theorem is proven as people will try and justify previous actions if the solution was simple. A lot of dissenters always think Joker is the only mass murdering psychopath Batman fights. Why only Joker and not Riddler or Bane, or Two-face, or Ra’s, or Penguin, etc. And it’s not like Batman is deputized. At that point he’s merely a vigilante, only concerned with cleaning up the streets.
Yeah, yall are right on this one, plus the people saying that cca was in the 50's. Overall the cca segment was an oversimplification on my part as I tried to keep the video as concise as possible it also wasn't even in the original script that I made for the video and I forced it in last second because I felt like if I didn't someone would mention it. While characters like Batman, Superman and various others had the no-kill rule before the CCA overall, there was more killing and overall violence before it. And I would certainly never say that the CCA had NOTHING to do with the no kill rule. While there is certainly plenty of characters that didn't kill, especially in DC. This video I am talking about superheroes as a whole and the no kill rule extends farther than DC. And since the CCA and other censorship, almost every superhero across the board has the no kill rule or at least tiptoes around the idea of them killing and it became the mainstream. I think that if the cca never existed that there would be many more edgier heroes and comics that had never been created and the State that superhero media is in now would happen a lot sooner. On top of that, I don't think people would question hero's killing nearly as much or even think about it. And I think some heroes would not be completely 100% tethered to having a code to kill or not to kill like Batman as Bob Kane who is the co-creator of Batman has came out before saying that he does not like Batman's. No kill rule. I'm sure we would get plenty of different variations of The same characters, some that killed and some that didn't and something like the Ben Affleck Batman wouldn't be as shocking and whether or not a hero kills would not be as tethered to the character as it is.
But as I said overall, The CCA segment was an oversimplification and wasn't even supposed to be in the video in the first place. And I could have gone into more detail about it but I didn't feel like it mattered all that much and I just didn't want people to mention it in the comments. I tried to keep it brief and concise as possible because I didn't want this video to be too long. I could easily make a 50-minute version of this one as I had already cut out about 20 minutes of content that I felt like wasn't necessary. Plus I also just wanted an excuse to show that image of Batman with a gun, Captain America punching Hitler, some balotro gameplay, and a CCA jumpscare.
I like the video but I am going to say this about the injustice universe the reason why I don’t like the comics and games is because they write every character out of character and it’s hard to believe that Superman of all people would become a tyrant after killing the joker and I’ve seen better Superman comics that show what Superman would do if he killed someone like he would do what the right thing and remove his powers/kill him self (in the comic it self it is ambiguous as to what happened to Superman but what happens is he goes in a room filled with gold Kryptonite) plus there’s another comic I believe Kingdom come Superman where the joker kills Lois and Superman doesn’t become a dictator( Haven’t Read the comic but I’ve heard about it)
I think what would help Batman's no killing rule is having him actively stop certain villains from killing people as well. Like it would make sense for Batman to stop Poison Ivy or Two-Face from killing someone so they don't go into the deep end. However villainsike Penguin and Joker are a different story.
this is something that Kingdom Come also tackled, and it did so by showing how despite the public seeing them as such, superheroes aren't gods, they're just people with special abilities and/or power that use that to help people and if Metahumans started to view themselves as Gods, they would naturally care a lot less about the damage they do to people, guilty or innocent and also you have the fact that generally speaking they could in theory get away with killing (Clark and Diana have superpowers and Bruce and Ollie are Rich) and I don't think I need to say that people who are able to get away with doing bad stuff just because they're untouchable aren't people you would consider heroes
I don't have a problem with the no killing rule, but I do have an issue with the way it's framed at times. Batman saving The Joker from the consequences of his own plans despite The Joker outright saying he has no remorse and will do it again is really uncomfortable, because it doesn't make Batman look particularly good, particularly when writers love to ramp up the heinousness of The Joker's actions and further undermine the positive of Batman's morals. I'm reminded of Arkham Knight bringing up how Joker murdered a whole kindergarten full of children for giggles, mutilated their corpses, and then stitched them back up and gave them back to their parents. This is the same Joker that goes on to murder dozens of doctors in Asylum, hundreds of people with tainted blood in City, Talia al Ghul, and even one of Bruce's adopted sons. He displays zero remorse and even taunts Batman about the fact that he knows Batman will save him in the end. And Batman still had every intention of doing it, if not for a last minute misunderstanding screwing Joker over.
I love Brandon line i realized i believed the words you taught me. I care for the people and the world that's why i keep the code. Like hearing someone rag on it made him want to defend it
I can't speak for others, but I know that if I were a superhero, I'd refrain from taking lives except in extreme situations (i.e. to save someone who's gonna die if I don't act or self-preservation in a battle). I like the discipline of having a no-kill rule, but I don't think all superheroes should be beholden to it.
I've honestly never worried about the nokill rule. I cant remember the issue but a single batman story explained it nicely. Youre a vigilante operating outside the law in a nervous scared populace barely tolerating you. If you escalate to killing it going to make those people nervous about what you (esp if youre a stranger or mysterious) are willing to do. It doesnt actually matter if you PERSONALLY wouldn't in nonextreme cases, or have a no kill rule for moral reasons. Pragmatically, it'd make doing your job much much harder when everyone inevitably comes after you (ironically, even if they liked you or agreed that one time, they're worried about later) so you don't do that.
With Batman, Spiderman, and especially the Flash. Their Villains are human beings, people that are incredibly flawed but deserve to live. A part of the killing argument is how edgy comics and stories have gotten after Watchmen. The more edgier and irredeemable the bad guy, the more you question why he's still breathing. But villains with depth and understanding you WANT them to be redeemed/get help or be stopped before its too late, just like the hero does.
Censorship; Marketing moves and lies; Mental retardation and immaturity of writers and readers; Media literacy; False knowledge or complete ignorance of the law; etc.
Disagree removing the no kill rule will give you a bunch of rogue super heros. They're not sleeper agents who'se switch will be flipped. Characters like Batman who have experienced the loss of loved ones due to violence would be much less inclined. Even other characters who have not experienced that maintain a code despite being given power of executioner. Using your police reference there are those that do good throughout their entire career so should the force not exist because some may use it for selfish/evil means? An interesting example would of been Dredd since he literally has that power (although maybe not an actual superhero). What is the point of a super hero if they don't defend the weak and let dangerous people run free? If they can't handle killing objective scum why should they even be superheroes? It's like kids playing who just want the enjoyment of the larp without having actual responsibility. Corrupt/psychopath superhero/normal people will exist with or without a no kill rule. They have no moral compass and will do what they want. A better question would be how many innocents are saved with the no kill rule vs without it? If a super hero did go rogue who would stop them exactly? Maybe with a "normal" superhero like Batman it would be easier. Even with other super hero aid someone like Homelander yea good luck.
OMG! This whole no kill rule argument is so stupid. The real reason why dc doesn't want their heroes killing villains is because villains like Joker and Lex Luthor sells. Their are many characters who are either superheroes or heroic who have killed and didn't go down a dark path or their actions didn't led to a world were heroes act like villains who make excuses to kill whenever they want. Thor kills, Captain America kills, Ghost Rider kills, Green Arrow kills, Wonder Woman kills, Optimus Prime kills, Link kills, Samurai Jack kills, Saitama kills, Goku kills, and Naruto has killed. This is why i can't stand dc comics. They try so hard to gaslight and justify why Batman doesn't kill the Joker and they fail to give a logically answer, because they can't. Their is so much proof from other media out their that killing an irredeemable monster is the right thing to do. No one is going to think Optimus prime killing Megatron is wrong. No one is going to say Link killing Ganon is wrong, No is going to say Captain America killing Nazi is wrong.
there's a reason why heroes that dont kill have the best rogues gallery, if you constantly kill off your villains shortly after they appear you wouldn't have a story, people who complain about heroes not killing are just trying so hard to come off as the intellectual 🤓guy.
@@Blanktester685 are you an idiot? villains from Naruto & Shippuden are always being killed off, most of the time it's in the stroyline they are introduced in. They have been killed off and yet so many of them are still to this day memorable and great villains. You don't need to keep a villain around for them to be great or to tell a story, in fact killing off the villain most of the time enhances the story and makes it better. So that argument you made was beyond stupid. Hell it's not even Naruto, Dragon Ball those the same thing. Villains like King Piccolo, Cell, Kid Buu. They were all killed off in the arcs/sagas they were introduced in and those characters are way more popular and memorable than 98% of villains from DC who have been around for decades.
@@Blanktester685 You clearly have no idea what your talking about. Villains that are killed off in the storylines they are introduced have the best storylines in fiction. They not only have way better story's but are also way more popular and memorable than 99% of villains from DC or marvel comics. Villains like Unicron, Zabuza, King Piccolo, Cell, Kid Buu, Pain, Madara, even Ganon. It's funny that you actually thought for even a second that you had a good argument. Also you said heroes who don't kill their villains have the best rogues, then list ten Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, and Green Lantern villains each. That should be as easy as listening off 10 Spider-man or Batman villains right Because like you said heroes who don't kill their villains have the best rogues, right. Because I can easily list of 10 Dragon Ball and Naruto villains, and both series kill off their villains.
real world reason and the fictitious reason are separate topics and should not be conflated. these characters like lex and joker die all the time and still come back. i literally showed an image from the batman who laugh were batman kills joker and a clip from the Arkham games were joker dies but they are still put in. their are different iteration of characters that tell different stories and not a singular continuity and sometimes they die amd in that story they are dead but a different author makes a different story using the same characters in a different manner to tell a different story. on top off that the other stories you mention these characters kill and it does not matter and not the focus is that is not the story that the author wishes to tell and is not a focus nor a factor but in the case of jupiters legacy is the story the author wishes to tell and the main focus and point of contention to provide a reason for the no kill rule and what can result from allow lethal force to be permissible. That is the theme of the show and main point of contention and also the theme of many batman media as well such as the long Halloween, the killing joke, the dark knight returns, blah blah blah blah blah. The point is most batman media wrestle with this topic however all the ones that you have listed do not and are not the main theme of their media. What you should have brought up as a Counterpoint is The Punisher as Punisher is almost the opposite of Batman and a main theme of his character and his media is the reason why you should kill bad people. And this is the relationship that Daredevil and punish her often have as these two tend to like the swap spit a lot. Daredevil is very similar to Batman in many ways and he is well has a no kill rule. This was actually a segment that I cut out of my video which was Punisher and Daredevil's relationship but I felt like it was unnecessary and made the video too long. The only part of it that I regret not putting in and should have left at the end is in the first season of Daredevil, Daredevil struggles with the idea of killing Wilson Fisk and talks to his priest about it and his priest gives a good quote saying essentially going to kill and the priest ask are you going to kill Fisk because you have to or are you going to kill him because you want to and Daredevil struggles with this idea and cannot provide an answer. The priest then goes on to say that taking a life corrupts not only yourself but the people around you which was the exact point that Jupiter's Legacy makes as well as my video. Last thing is you say that I never provide a clear answer and why you should not kill "irredeemable monsters" such as the Joker but I guess that part went over your head because I do, so I will say it again for the ones in the back. The reason you do not kill "irredeemable monsters" is because if you do then this brings the option of killing which can grant these people too much power resulting in many "irredeemable monsters" looking for this power such as the praetorian to change teams and become Heroes for the wrong reasons. This was also the reason I brought up the issue of the Flash being chastised for doing sponsorships as being able to make exuberant amounts of money and becoming a rich celebrity results in people becoming Heroes for the wrong reasons and results in a society like the boys.
Very few superheroes have an explicit no killing rule, and most of the ones who do are fully capable of breaking it without it becoming a problem. Thor will kill absolutely. Captain America had to have killed while in the army. Wonder Woman again like Thor will simply do it, feel bad about it, and then get over it because it was necessary. Superman in a comic one off literally confirms he doesn't have a rule against killing, he is just a nice person that doesn't want to do it. I'm sick and tired of this bs narrative that heroes can't kill. Not only is it just not true for most of fiction, it's also just inherently stupid because the readers are smart enough to understand that it is a necessary action in some situations. The Punisher kills pedos.
Batman is the go to but justice league has backing from him Diana, Arthur (Aquaman) he rules Alantis, green lantern ring power, oliver backing, terrfic tech, Superman Kryptonian tech in his cave. Loke the personal back of league members and then galactic allies later on. Ferl like they got this
There was a dope edit about Jason Todd and Batman from Under the Red Hood where Jase killed the Joker and Batman was floundering for a response, I think you should react.
The people that say the “no kill rule sucks” have never played the Batman Arkham games. Killing is quick and easy, neutralizing a threat without killing them takes a ton of skill and precision (even under pressure)
Although this explanation may be understandable, it's still very hard to take the city of Gotham or any superhero serious when they let a murderer at in most cases a literal domestic terrorist just go to prison with no more than what maybe a few years to a sentence not even a life sentence depending on the series and what's Canon for that specific volume of issues? I don't know I have yet to catch up on everything in the comic books let alone TV shows and whatnot. But real life evil people have been put to death for less then half the shit joker has ever done.
As a security guard for a homeless shelter I just have to say. 99% of people don’t know the difference between self-defense and retaliation and proceeds to use retaliation instead of self-defense
WHAT!?!? NO WAY, REALLY!?!? 0: Serious response: Don't know where you're getting this from and I have no idea who said that but I know point do I ever make the argument that self-defense is wrong or not legal. What I'm assuming you're talking about is the part about police brutality but even then none of the examples here were self-defense. Also if you rewatch it I purposely tiptoe around what I believe and my opinion because I didn't want it moron like you to come into my comments and make this political. I purposely go out of my way to say "some people believe" and try to not give my own personal statement. Politics is Lame and stupid and I intentionally wanted to avoid it. But if you must know I agree with this general statement that self-defense is good as well as I believe in the Second Amendment and I believe in defending yourself with lethal Force Under the right CIRCUMSTANCES ( for the ones in the back this means not all the time). On top of that, I have no gripe with law enforcement nor do I wish to defend criminals or crime. However I believe this is a very big issue with a modern political landscape and that is on BOTH ( Yes, this means right and left) sides oftentimes their views are often black and white. Always defaulting to defend one side over the other depending on occupation, race, gender or sexual orientation and having a bias to one over the other. However every person is different as well as every scenario is different and to instantly default based on something as trivial as this instead of the facts at hand is dangerous and stupid. Things are not black and white and rarely is there a clear hero and a clear villain, and sometimes in a situation both people can be doing bad things and just because one side is in the wrong doesn't mean the other is in the right. The first example of police brutality I showed was a short clip and was really just the end of it but it was about 2 minutes long and it was three cops on one guy beating the absolute shit out of him on the ground. They are stomping and kicking and punching him while holding him down and for a while he is moving and while this could be seen "resisting arrest" it looks more like recoiling from pain. The three officers continue to hit him and then eventually the perpetrator stops moving and they still continue to keep hitting him. The officers do not stop until they realize someone is recording them and then proceed to point at the person recording and tell them to turn it off. This clearly shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong and they didn't want that video to get out. In no way shape or form was this self-defense. It was three on one and the man appeared to be unarmed. He had already been on the ground and they continued to hit him which is extremely dangerous and can lead to permanent serious damage especially after repeatedly hitting him while he already seems to be unconscious this is why in many states it is considered attempted murder to hit someone while they are on the ground. The second one is the one I'm going to assume you were talking about and referring to and I'll get to that one last cuz it has the most meat on it. The third one was the acorn incident which everyone is heard about and it's been talked about to death. DISCLAIMER I am not a lawyer or a journalist nor is this video about police brutality but superheroes I do not have all the facts nor do I wish to waste my time looking for police reports or rifling through articles to respond to some dumbass comment. But the acorn incident is obviously ridiculous. The officer mistaked and acorn falling onto a vehicle as a gunshot and starts to open fire on the prisoner who was already handcuffed and detained and put into the back of the police car. For starters this is ridiculous given that he did not hesitate at all the moment he heard it to start opening fire and should have realized something was strange at least took a second thought to think about it considering that the perp was already detained and should have been searched to see if he had any weapons and taken away and as well as his handcuffed making damn near impossible to shoot without getting out of them. However there is a very small chance that maybe if the officer forgot to give the prisoner the procedural Thug shaker to check his manhole for guns as well as if the prisoner could dislocate his thumbs or pick the lock of handcuffs then maybe this is plausible. While the odds of arresting the Reincarnation of Houdini are improbable they are not impossible. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he arrested the greatest magician of our time at a children's birthday party for showing his weewee around kids. This situation is still fucking and doesn't add up and still should have given a moment of doubt given that if he thought it came from the car and was the prisoner a gunshot would not have sounded like an acorn. Here's something that is a no-brainer, but guns are very very VERY loud an acorns are not and they would not sound the same ( by the same I mean not as loud). If for whatever reason you don't believe me that acorns are not as loud as gunshots, acorns fall on vehicles all the time but you don't hear them from blocks away. However when there is a gunshot you WILL hear it if it is anywhere close to you from blocks away and even if you're inside a building. I don't know about you and I don't know what kind of acorns you have around your place but I have never heard an acorn fall while inside my own house, I have on the other hand heard gunshots within my own house. Someone who maybe doesn't know might hear it and think it was a gunshot at first or someone who is already a bit jumpy( like the officer) but as a police officer he should have heard a gunshot before and should know how it just how loud they are. However I don't think this officer was necessarily trying to find an excuse to kill the man he wanted an excuse to abuse his power he likely would have done it before putting him in the car. However I don't know and I'm not Inside the Mind of the officer. But what I think the only plausible explanation for this and the most reasonable one is likely some kind of past trauma or PTSD that from when hearing the acorn caused a flight or fight response resulting in him going overboard and being irrational. However this does not make this action excusable and could have easily taken a life of someone who is complying and who would not deserve to die. If this is the case then someone like this should not be in a situation that could cause them to have some kind of episode possibly resulting in an innocent person dying.( and for the ones that ride the short bus by innocent I do not mean that they aren't criminals, I mean that they shouldn't be killed) The third one was the one that look like it was in some kind of convenience store or gas station, this certainly was not self defense and was just straight up police brutality. The man was complying and on the ground with his hands up and not moving and the officers stomped on him and shoved their guns into him and we're unnecessarily rough. If someone is complying and they are not a resisting arrest this kind of behavior is unacceptable. NOT self-defense And finally the one that I think you are referring to which was the second one, which can be argued that it is self-defense and in a way kind of is however lethal Force here was not acceptable. As I said I am not a journalist or someone who has all the facts on this information and I'm not going to spend hours looking for some kind of police report or article to respond to your dumbass comment but the description of where I found this video stated that the man on the ground was unarmed. However given that this is the age of the internet and we have unlimited information at our fingertips it is hard to find the truth these days. But let's just assume that this man is unarmed which it does appear that way as if the perpetrator wasn't and had some kind of gun he likely would have used this before being put onto the ground and fighting from that position. But if he did have a weapon in the officer saw the weapon I understand that action is faster than Reaction and that a preemptive shot may be permissible. As well as if the roles were reversed and the officer was the one on his back on the ground and was getting the shit be out of him then a case can be made here too. Because if he felt like there was no way in order to escape and no way to retreat then this is self-defense. That is not what is happening in this scenario and is the exact opposite. What is happening here is the officer is fighting and wrestling with the perpetrator on the ground and the perpetrator is resisting arrest( which he SHOULDN'T) the officer cannot get him to stop fighting him and cannot subdue him and starts to become frustrated he immediately results to lethal Force without hesitation. That's a No No. Now you could try to make the argument saying" well what if the perpetrator was reaching for his gun we're trying to take it from him, would lethal force be acceptable then?" maybe if they were wrestling for it and the gun was already out of the holster however the officer clearly had control of his gun over the whole time and was able to easily stand back, draw it and then fire. On top of that, while I am not sure what kind of holsters this officer has or what they have issued there are many holsters that are specifically designed not to be drawn from the front in order to avoid situations like this. This should be a standard but as I said I do not have all the facts. If he had a solid good holster then this would make it nearly impossible for the perpetrator to steal the gun from him while it is in his holster. But as I said even if he did have a shitty holster that could be drawn from the front it doesn't matter as he was able to control his gun the whole time and they were not wrestling over
(read after first response) What should have happened here was not lethal Force. What should have happened is the moment that the officer felt like he could not subdue the man or was a losing fight he should have backed off as he did and drawn his gun but NOT shoot. At this point there's completely changes the scenario making this altercation no longer a fight but a command. The officer should then tell him to stand down, make no sudden movements ,put his hands behind his head, and on his knees ( or whatever position the officer prefers to detain him in). The vast majority of people in this situation would realize that shit has just got real and death is now a possibility for them and if they are reasonable they will stand down. BOOM, situation over without lethal Force. However it is very likely that this may not be a reasonable person, I do not know this man and he could just as easily be mentally ill or be whacked out on drugs resulting in him doing something stupid like trying to rush the officer. However the officer has plenty of room and is not in an enclosed space and should have plenty of room to shoot the man. Now a lot of stupid people argue that in other situations why don't police just shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot them in the leg. The kinds of people who say this are dumbass journalists, politicians and overall bunch of pencil pushers and have never been in a life or death scenario before or any high stress situation that can result in Adrenaline. However I understand what fear and adrenaline can do to the human mind and body and when a situation like this happens even if you are trained to shoot someone in the leg or even if you are so good that you can shoot a weapon out of someone's hand( which is absolutely cartoony and stupid) even if you have trained for that situation and are a very good shot when push comes to shove and you are under a lot of stress in a short period of time and possibly shock it is hard to perform this. In this moment if the man does not comply at gunpoint and decides to rush the officer the officer should shoot once at Center of mass. If you shoot someone once they are likely going to go down and unless you accidentally hit them in the heart( which would be unfortunate) they should live with immediate medical attention. Law enforcement should not be trained to shoot to kill. They should not be trained to double tap or shoot vital Parts like the heart or head and lethal Force should be a last resort if a resort at all. but as I said this person could easily be whacked out on drugs and pain and fear may not be a factor. In this unfortunate situation then lethal force is acceptable. At this point you had given them more than three chances to stand down making each one more serious in the last and at the point where they are hit they still choose not to comply there's absolutely nothing that you can do or say to make them and at that point that person has no other intention but to take your life. However that is certainly not what happened in that video and the officer did not hesitate for a second to result to lethal Force. But as I said I know what fear and panic can do to a person and in that scenario the officer may have felt like he had no choice even though he certainly did and In the Heat of the Moment it is sometimes hard to see all of your options. But as the point I was making in this video, the man who kills unnecessarily because he is scared and felt like he had no other options will say the exact same thing as the man who kills unnecessarily because he wanted to. And at the end of the day the result will be exactly the same. I believe that both should be held accountable just as much and saying that oops it was an accident is not okay. There's this strange double standard when it comes to police with some people that they can say oops it was an accident and people will defend them. However if you are let's say an electrician and you provide faulty electrical work resulting in a house fire causing immense amount of property damage and people to die then you are still held accountable. If you did faulty work because you did not know or because you did not care the result is the same and saying "oops it was an accident" does not cut it. Many jobs are like this and when you apply for a job where people's lives could be lost then you should be prepared for this and take every measure you can in order to avoid casualties( with exception of the military towards non civilians) . However if you do not feel like you are capable of doing this and do not feel like you will be able to handle being in such a situation under pressure then you should not have the job. Regardless people seem to have become very desensitized to death and when you see a video like this on the internet many people don't think anything of it because you never knew that person and you have no idea who that is and when some people see a statistic or a video does not seem real to them and it is all too often that people are heartless and cruel to real lives being lost over the internet. However regardless if this guy was scum or not this was still a human being with a life and goals and family and the truth is this man died unnecessarily( he may have lived but I doubt it). But in conclusion this was not self defense and this was not okay. But as a general response, yes, self-defense is legal... ... ... Dipshit... ... As well as self-defense is okay but people should not be so quick to literally jump the gun and then claim self-defense. In a scenario like a house robbery especially if the police will likely not get to you in time, then fuck yes, Light Em Up. But in the situation of an unarmed man resisting arrest, hell no.
Only real problem with this video, is the talking fact and not quite scripted under the mask. There are times you're hard to understand. No problem with the mask, but youll need to enunciate more. If not, lose the mask so your otherwise good points are better heard.
Does supercrooks take place in the future? I have read the comic and super crooks should be placed in the past. Not to spoil the comic but you'll see once you read it that super crooks would not be in the future.
not sure. they never give any dates and i just assumed super crooks was the future given how nonchalant they are about killing and how killing was such a big deal in Jupiter's legacy. i think it makes sense for super crooks to take place after and tells the story really well.
@@icecoldtip8590 You did a great job addressing this issue! This also Makes Flash’s Rogue Gallery all the more Interesting when you look at how he handles them in Justice league! They Are ONLY AFTER HIM! And it’s pretty cool seeing how he handles characters like the Trickster, or Captain Cold and Captain Boomerang! And funny enough, they do tend to do Good On Occasion! Especially so when the World is in danger.
the argument in favor for the no killing rule is a good one but still isnt fool proof. i argue that any other superhero that starts killing because another hero HAD to do it. is not a hero at all. we have guns in america but the only people using guns against others are gangs and people who obtained them illegally. leading back to my first comment
Great video. But I would argue even the standard model where the traditional superhero like Bats goes bats and goes crazy megalomaniacal for the no kill rule is strong without Jupiter's Legacy or attendant shows. People are just normie dogs who don't understand mercy based principles or long term ramifications for individuals or society at large. They also really want to get even either political and ideological opponents and just can't outright say it.
No it isn't. We've had heroes who kill long before the no-kill code was made. And said code was only made to please the trigger-happy censors who didn't want kids reading up on heroes that kill. Heroes that kill are so old, they're in the Bible. Which included heroes like Samson, David, and even God Himself.
I don't know if it's the mask or your speed of speaking but it was a bit hard to understand you at times. Not a big deal, but I can't be the only one who thought so. Meaning only as constructive criticism.
And then, my thing is everyone is constantly putting it onto superheroes, the public both in and out of universe, "Oh why don't such and such kill and just get it over with it'll be so much easier they're just as bad as they are" While also expecting them to work within and uphold the Law.
The Law still considers charachters like Batman and even Superman, superheroes in general to be, "Dangerous Vigilantes" and constantly want them to keep thier power in check and bring up the notion of power dynamics in a myriad of talking points usually stemming along the lines of, "If they're so powerful or With thier power and skill they should be able to" But don't note this as counterintuitive to the question that they asked in the first place.
You can't have it BOTH ways.
The real question is, since it's been REPEATEDLY established time and time again that these superbeings ARE the only ones that can handle these villians then why doesn't the Government give them the OK to, or straight up TELL THEM to kill these villians and stop throwing them in jail?
That was kind of a point in DC Comics’ Kingdom Come, where the public hated superheroes for not killing or preventing escapes and repeat murders by supervillains, but how it ends is with the appointed heroes go too far and cause collateral damage deaths
@AdrianFahrenheitTepes That's on them for letting that kind of authority get into the wrong hands. You need the right people for the job, not just everyone going around willy nilly doing whatever they want. Which is why I made it a point to say Batman or Superman figures who can pull themselves back or have a support system that will make sure they don't go over the line. Personal responsibility comes into play. The powers that be have to play thier cards right. Just let wonder woman handle it, she'll get it done. 🤣
@@cortezlucious95 Or Lobo. That would wreck just about every one of Batman’s normal villains in Gotham just from Lobo doing it
@AdrianFahrenheitTepes See I was thinking Lobo too, but then again.......we gotta constantly keep an eye on Lobo ass
Beautifully said.
i personally don't think that a character like batman necessarily _need_ any sort of external validation for their no kill rule, though i agree with the reason that jupiter's legacy gives us if he was going to have one
in a lot of versions of batman i see him as someone who does not _want_ to be seen as a role model for others, and that he sees his violent methods as something that only he should have to stoop down to, while recognizing that whether he wants to or not, he's still going to end up inspiring others to take action like he does, and so by drawing the line at things like killing or using guns, he can send a better message to those who look up to him
I never understand people who put the blame on Batman for the Joker repeatedly breaking out and killing people. Batman usually turns villains over to the court system to prosecute and sentence. The real blame is on the state legislators, city council members, prosecutors, and judges, that never sentence him to death or refuse to pass legislation making capital punishment possible/mandatory for someone like him.
We had a guy in Seattle that was arrested over 50 times for a variety of crimes, some violent. He was released over and over and eventually committed a murder-suicide. I don't blame the cops who arrested him for not shooting him. I blame the courts for releasing him 50+ times!
As for the no-kill rule generally, I think Superheroes should follow the same rules that would apply to any private citizen: non-deadly citizen's arrest is great, killing in self defense is permittable, homicidal vigilantism is unacceptable.
I think its a matter of competence. Nobody in real life thinks the justice system is living up to what it should, now imagine in a city with villains who use mind control and morph into clay.
So when they see Batman, who's the only useful force for justice continue to rinse and repeat with a domestic terrorist, i would be pissed too.
Batman has the actual power to take Joker down, and he doesn't. That's the problem. His moral code has lead to the deaths of hundreds including Jason Todd.
@@inkchariot6147i don't know why you used the term "take the joker down" instead of just saying "kill the joker". Batman takes the joker down all the time. Batman has even been in situations where it looked like the joker died. As for killing him, any cop could also kill the joker. All it would take is to take him out to the edge of the city while he's in handcuffs or a straight jacket and shoot him with their sidearm.
@k.g.7591 there are a lot of euphemism used in this world anymore. It's easier to be violent at heart if you don't actually have to call a duck a duck
People blame Batman because he literally has the power to end it and bypass the horriblly ineffective "justice" system. Once it gets to a point where a dude has broken out and gone on a murdering spree you have the green light to off him. There is zero gray in that situation. If you think Batman is so mentally unstable that he will go rogue once killing one criminal then maybe put him in the psych ward with the Joker. 👍
so it isn't that killing will result in the hero becoming a tyrant or a mass murderer, it's more so about people whom these heroes are supposed to inspire (civilians or other aspiring heroes) seeing the act of killing and receiving the wrong message, thus spawning an entire generation of mass murderers (which is honestly worse).
Bingo!!
@@nseven1117 Yes! I think "The Batman" actually expressed that idea well by having Riddler identify with Batman and his followers call themselves "Vengence". If one person starts executing criminals without any due process, why can't others? Pretty soon we're back to a society ruled by mob justice.
Now, I'm fine with stories about characters who do take the vigilante route. Anti-heroes like Punisher or Ghost Rider that think extra-judicial killing is justified sometimes have a place. But it shouldn't be aspirational heroes like Batman or Superman.
Different characters and stories have different philosophies and worldviews. They should each stay true to what they're about.
Basically. I think there is also some ideological argument for Heroes having to keep themselves beholden to the laws of Humanity, else they become the equivalent of gods smiting those they view as evil (which would inspire paranoia among humanity btw). Interestingly enough some of the Superheroes that most often treat themselves as being above the laws of humanity that I can think of are Wonder Woman, and Thor. Actual gods
It’s also pretty fitting that one of the most fervent followers of the code, Batman, is also one of the most active in training the next generation of heroes
@@oliviastratton2169 agreed. what was one of my favorite aspects of The Batman
@@ShadowknightEX it applies to Superman too since he's one of the most high profile heroes in the DC universe and in real life.
if you have so many people looking at you as an example to aspire, everything you say and do counts
If you’ve ever watched/read Superman, half his villains are working to discredit him or argue “he has too much power and if he decides to go rogue we can’t stop him”, ex Lex Luther , Amanda Waller, Batman (bvs). So if Superman DID kill people imagine how in the right lex would look, or the funding Amanda would get to develop anti Superman weapons. If Superman was killing people metropolis would turn against him, they already do that when he accidentally breaks stuff but if he’s killing it would be a full city on the lookout ready to call the military. So in summary you make a very good point, Superman (at least the good versions) is always in the right for not killing, and with that all arguments against him fall flat. A simple spell yet quite unbreakable.
Very spot on reasoning for super man code, which fits for him regardless being a foreigner and his upbringing and live for his city and people. Wanting to fit in but also be himself. He wouldn't want to do anything to distant himself from others
Jupiter's Legacy and Super Crooks were so underrated. The Utopian was such a good original take on superman without being a parody or evil version.
yeah, i really liked these series' and i have no idea why they flopped. the only reason i can imagine is people thought jupiters legacy was cheesy with some of the outfits and effect but you cant tell me that marvel and DC havent had some blunders like with the aquaman green mnt dew cave, the Jessica jones "super jumping" were shes obviously is pulled up by wires or literally every adaptation of kingpin (because of my weight). besides nothing wrong with a little cheese as long as its not distracting from the plot its always something to laugh at.
(Just started the video)
Usually main characters are seeking balance while the villian seeks chaos or their own form of perverted balance. If Batman(modern batman that doesnt kill people) killed people then he can't work within the law or inspire the people of gotham. If batman didnt value life, would he still be someone to look up to and protect the home he was raised in? He's the dark KNIGHT. The honorable hero who thinks guns are for cowards (except Alfred), who believes in gathering evidence, and putting his enemies in the proper place.
And yes, part of the reason the police, prisons, and courts can't deal with these bad guys is because the badguys need to escape and sell more stories but too many people forget that detail so they csn sound smart and talk about how batman is the real villian. Somehow.
Peacekeeper "Because he's a pussy!"
Thank you! Everybody on here talking like these characters are REAL people.
Oddly enough I think Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance has the best reasoning for why a hero shouldn’t kill. Raiden understands that he’s not a good person and that he’s taking pleasure in killing. He also knows that he is ultimately right and he doesn’t care whether or not the ends justify the means. Raiden is a good guy but he’s not a hero.
I have always said this and what an amazing example
Put on some socks bro😭🙏🏾
Sorry, I forgot people gotta pay for those nowdays.
Your getting free content that some people pay top dollar for.
@@icecoldtip8590thank you
@@icecoldtip8590no one paying top dollar for this bro
No. Let bro cook. Socks are an oppressive social construct.
@@icecoldtip8590 🤣🤣🤣
Superheroes, should not kill unless they are like Punisher, or Thor, like antiheroes and reinterpretations of ancient heroes, while the modern ones should not, simply because they operate outside the law and they act when the police forces cannot. The issue is the justice problem in their fictional world and in the real world is the fear of editorials to create new villains, made the Classico ones die from death sentence,kill each other, or restoring. If most of the heroes kill then the goverment will have enough reason to take them out when the supercommunity does not dance to their song.
batman came out in 1939
but in 1940 few issues after robin was introduced
the no kill rule was enforced
I believe that superheroes should kill only when necessary. I mean in the mist of battle.
Exactly like the set of standards we have for police. It boggles the mind that people are having debates that someone who wears spandex can never k!ll but the police officer with like two months training is A OK.
@@AIartificalIntelligethe no kill superheroes are supposed to be better than us, they are supposed to find a solution that doesn't involve killing to show they care.
There are also the superheroes that aren't in law enforcement and thus they want to let the government carry out the justice that the hero was not elected to carry legally.
@@AIartificalIntellige If you can dodge bullets and lift trains over your head there's not much a normal human can do to you so killing them isn't justifiable but if your are just a regular Joe with a gun then you really can't choose not to kill because trying to use non-lethal force will get you killed.
@otterfire4712 so but real life doesn't work like that. Politicians aren't held accountable and police are meant to also find a better solution. You just made a circular argument.
You didn't answer my question. Why is it not okay for people who want to save lives to neutralise a threat that's actively harming innocents and is potentially more powerful hence the SUPER villain part.
@@AIartificalIntellige in the setting of comics, it is generally presumed by the heroes that judges and law enforcement will carry out proper justice on the super villains they fight. Normally the problems the super villains present is too great for that of law enforcement to handle and requires a super hero with the capacity to solve it for them.
In real life, yes there is corruption within the system itself and that can be reflected in some comic stories where the authors can address such problems.
Not killing a hostile and lethal foe is this Herculean task and it's what differentiates many super heroes from their super villains. To be able to neutralize violence so that they may face justice for their crimes on the innocent.
I think that Batman's no kill rule was actually made one year after Batman's release in 1940 not during the time of the CCA. However, I'm unsure of this.
Kido Shinji, aka Kamen Rider Ryuki, is one of my favorite heroes. A temp journalist who finds himself in a secret battle royale and battle with monsters, he is informed that the winner of this battle royale can make a single wish. Throughout the series we meet and interact with several of these other Kamen Riders, those who have their own desires that they want fulfilled. Shinji struggles with these other Riders as they have wishes of varying degrees, but Shinji doesn't really have a desire beyond wanting the fighting to stop, he's far more concerned with the monsters that attack civilians who attack from within the reflections of the world. His commitment to stopping the Rider conflict peacefully despite the other's insistence on fighting to fulfill their wish.
A nice parallel to Super Crooks is Ranger Reject. In a world where the Sentai have defeated the major villains 12 years prior. To maintain peace with the remaining minions, a peace ritual where minions would be publicly defeated by the Sentai on Sundays (weekly Tokusatsu shows air on Sundays). Fighter D, has grown tired of this and has decided to actually defeat the Sentai. In doing this, he initiates what takes place for the series, starting as a spy thriller (minions can regenerate most damage, can morph into people and objects, and has a smoke like property when damaged. A brilliant spy thriller and overwhelming Sentai powers that lead you to wondering how Fighter D can beat them and become the ruler of the world.
How about the police and law give bad villains the death penalty?
It would be funny if they give it to villains who either can't die by means they have (like Clayface) or to villains who can revive themselves (like Ras Al Ghul).
Yeah, you’d think Joker’s “insanity plea” would be debunked since some vids show psychologists saying Joker isn’t insane. Link: ua-cam.com/video/Sbp_EeBk-As/v-deo.htmlsi=c-eMx-vLPUUkA7kX
Psychopathic? Yeah but not insane. There’s a difference.
No Kill Rule haters just keep blaming heroes when it should be the judge and jury’s job once the villains are behind bars and disarmed. Or the cops, seriously all those guns and no cop can get lucky and shoot the Joker in the head.
That's called due process?
@@VunderGuy whats that? sounds made up
i dont believe in the death penalty.
this is a really well constructed video , keep up the work
If you want to read a good discourse on why the no-killing rule is in place, read the "Kingdom Come" series by Mark Waid and Alex Ross (Also provides a discourse on just how _awesome_ comic book art can be!) "Kingdom Come" (written long before Super Crooks" basically shows an end result of your thesis.
For a rebuttal, read the "Wanted" by Mark Millar -- Who also wrote "Jupyter's Legacy" with Frank Quitely -- (Also provides a discourse on problems that occur when a writer is too enamored with one of their characters, creating a Gary Stu) "Wanted" basically shows what happens if the crooks win.
Don't forget that The Lazarus Pit exists in this universe
It doesn't always revive people though.
@@bobkane432 bro acts like the Lazarus pit is a respawn station that every body can uses and doesn't fuck with your mind
@@icecoldtip8590 Jason Todd didn't become The Red Hood because The Lazarus Pit messed with his mind but because he no longer believed in Batman's way of doing things
@@bobkane432 true. But it's a common point that it does the more you use it and Im mainly referring to ras. Also I think it's somewhat implied that it's a little of both but that's just my interpretation.
There is the middle ground that you do not quite touch on. There is also the situation of self defense or defense of another. In the Jupyter's Legacy example, he was saving somebody's life. Leave it up to a Jury as to whether it was justified.
Ever thought why heros that don't kill have the best rogue gallery? If joker, was killed we would never get to have a Killing joke, If Magneto and Dr. Doom were killed marvel would never had their best villains.
The X-men actively tried to kill Magneto early on.
@@graveyardshift2100 yeah but the guy just keep coming back
I guess thats why Punisher, Blade and Ghost rider dont have a big rogues gallery, besides demons
I find superhero who refused to kill, or the very least do everything in their power to avoid killing unless necessary, far more interesting than heroes who will kill their enemies without a second thought
My Argentinian friend told me his grandfather was the biggest yahtzee player in the world.
Just once I wanna see a superhero universe where prisons aren't easy to escape😂😂😂
use google my friend
“No one cared until I put on the mask.”
The legend begins.
Robot chicken already solved this problem, capital punishment, bruce Wayne has more than enough money to push for that in gothan
I honestly didn't know super crooks took place in Jupiter legacy verse that insane. I just finished Jupiter's legacy seeing it started to talk about it. I was like hold up let me watch it. I watched super crooks like last year or so crazy I wish I knew 😂
A rewatch will be something else with super crooks. I just thought super heroes were just like that bad apples there. Like that history of superhero code and utopian really adds to it seeing the downfall of superheroes
Pretty much summed up
The entire plot of justice league kingdom come. People start criticizing Superman for not murdering the guy who blew up the daily planet and praising the new antihero who gutted him on the steps of the courthouse. Superman still grieving the death of his friends and loved ones while loosing all faith in humanity runs off to hide in the fortres of solitude for 30 years. The world becomes a darker more cynical place, the criminals are more violent than ever, the antiheroes aren’t much better themselves, everyone of the street is a complete asshole, and the country is on the brink of nuclear war.
It’s simple. Characters like Superman and Batman are meant to be aspirational characters. Meaning they set a standard. You aren’t meant to reflect them but to try and aspire for what they stand for. Characters like this want to make a better world within the boundaries they set for themselves. It’s their integrity that also makes them heroes. That isn’t to say no aspirational character shouldn’t kill but for them and other characters who hold on to similar principles, it’s a necessity.
Also, the slippery slope theorem is proven as people will try and justify previous actions if the solution was simple. A lot of dissenters always think Joker is the only mass murdering psychopath Batman fights. Why only Joker and not Riddler or Bane, or Two-face, or Ra’s, or Penguin, etc. And it’s not like Batman is deputized. At that point he’s merely a vigilante, only concerned with cleaning up the streets.
Honestly if Batman killed the Joker the writers would just bring him back from the dead. Its a comic book
wrong the cca had nothing to do with the no kill rule
the no kill rule is DC's decision
Yeah, yall are right on this one, plus the people saying that cca was in the 50's.
Overall the cca segment was an oversimplification on my part as I tried to keep the video as concise as possible it also wasn't even in the original script that I made for the video and I forced it in last second because I felt like if I didn't someone would mention it.
While characters like Batman, Superman and various others had the no-kill rule before the CCA overall, there was more killing and overall violence before it.
And I would certainly never say that the CCA had NOTHING to do with the no kill rule. While there is certainly plenty of characters that didn't kill, especially in DC. This video I am talking about superheroes as a whole and the no kill rule extends farther than DC. And since the CCA and other censorship, almost every superhero across the board has the no kill rule or at least tiptoes around the idea of them killing and it became the mainstream.
I think that if the cca never existed that there would be many more edgier heroes and comics that had never been created and the State that superhero media is in now would happen a lot sooner. On top of that, I don't think people would question hero's killing nearly as much or even think about it. And I think some heroes would not be completely 100% tethered to having a code to kill or not to kill like Batman as Bob Kane who is the co-creator of Batman has came out before saying that he does not like Batman's. No kill rule. I'm sure we would get plenty of different variations of The same characters, some that killed and some that didn't and something like the Ben Affleck Batman wouldn't be as shocking and whether or not a hero kills would not be as tethered to the character as it is.
But as I said overall, The CCA segment was an oversimplification and wasn't even supposed to be in the video in the first place. And I could have gone into more detail about it but I didn't feel like it mattered all that much and I just didn't want people to mention it in the comments. I tried to keep it brief and concise as possible because I didn't want this video to be too long. I could easily make a 50-minute version of this one as I had already cut out about 20 minutes of content that I felt like wasn't necessary. Plus I also just wanted an excuse to show that image of Batman with a gun, Captain America punching Hitler, some balotro gameplay, and a CCA jumpscare.
You have no idea how mad i was and still am with Jupiters Legacy not getting a second season. Underated and needs to be continued
Amazing video bro.
I like the video but I am going to say this about the injustice universe the reason why I don’t like the comics and games is because they write every character out of character and it’s hard to believe that Superman of all people would become a tyrant after killing the joker and I’ve seen better Superman comics that show what Superman would do if he killed someone like he would do what the right thing and remove his powers/kill him self (in the comic it self it is ambiguous as to what happened to Superman but what happens is he goes in a room filled with gold Kryptonite) plus there’s another comic I believe Kingdom come Superman where the joker kills Lois and Superman doesn’t become a dictator( Haven’t
Read the comic but I’ve heard about it)
Sorry for the wall of text but I would like to hear y’all’s thoughts I could be wrong who knows just take what I’m saying with a grain of salt
well catwoman should be in jail
theft is a crime
I'm pretty sure she has a decent kill count too Bruce gives her way too much leadway even more than the Robin's
bro knows what he wants and knows how to get, so what if he's a little bias. Game is game
@@icecoldtip8590 A game that would probably make Bruce's life a little easier if he didn't play
I think what would help Batman's no killing rule is having him actively stop certain villains from killing people as well. Like it would make sense for Batman to stop Poison Ivy or Two-Face from killing someone so they don't go into the deep end. However villainsike Penguin and Joker are a different story.
this is something that Kingdom Come also tackled, and it did so by showing how despite the public seeing them as such, superheroes aren't gods, they're just people with special abilities and/or power that use that to help people
and if Metahumans started to view themselves as Gods, they would naturally care a lot less about the damage they do to people, guilty or innocent
and also you have the fact that generally speaking they could in theory get away with killing (Clark and Diana have superpowers and Bruce and Ollie are Rich) and I don't think I need to say that people who are able to get away with doing bad stuff just because they're untouchable aren't people you would consider heroes
I don't have a problem with the no killing rule, but I do have an issue with the way it's framed at times. Batman saving The Joker from the consequences of his own plans despite The Joker outright saying he has no remorse and will do it again is really uncomfortable, because it doesn't make Batman look particularly good, particularly when writers love to ramp up the heinousness of The Joker's actions and further undermine the positive of Batman's morals.
I'm reminded of Arkham Knight bringing up how Joker murdered a whole kindergarten full of children for giggles, mutilated their corpses, and then stitched them back up and gave them back to their parents. This is the same Joker that goes on to murder dozens of doctors in Asylum, hundreds of people with tainted blood in City, Talia al Ghul, and even one of Bruce's adopted sons. He displays zero remorse and even taunts Batman about the fact that he knows Batman will save him in the end. And Batman still had every intention of doing it, if not for a last minute misunderstanding screwing Joker over.
I think the real question is are there super humans in the military in this sort of setting.
I love Brandon line i realized i believed the words you taught me. I care for the people and the world that's why i keep the code. Like hearing someone rag on it made him want to defend it
It's sad like the code failed in the end
Great stuff bro!
I can't speak for others, but I know that if I were a superhero, I'd refrain from taking lives except in extreme situations (i.e. to save someone who's gonna die if I don't act or self-preservation in a battle). I like the discipline of having a no-kill rule, but I don't think all superheroes should be beholden to it.
I've honestly never worried about the nokill rule. I cant remember the issue but a single batman story explained it nicely. Youre a vigilante operating outside the law in a nervous scared populace barely tolerating you. If you escalate to killing it going to make those people nervous about what you (esp if youre a stranger or mysterious) are willing to do. It doesnt actually matter if you PERSONALLY wouldn't in nonextreme cases, or have a no kill rule for moral reasons. Pragmatically, it'd make doing your job much much harder when everyone inevitably comes after you (ironically, even if they liked you or agreed that one time, they're worried about later) so you don't do that.
With Batman, Spiderman, and especially the Flash. Their Villains are human beings, people that are incredibly flawed but deserve to live.
A part of the killing argument is how edgy comics and stories have gotten after Watchmen. The more edgier and irredeemable the bad guy, the more you question why he's still breathing. But villains with depth and understanding you WANT them to be redeemed/get help or be stopped before its too late, just like the hero does.
Good video dude. The no kill rule can be criticized, but people forget why certain heroes have it in the first place.
Censorship; Marketing moves and lies; Mental retardation and immaturity of writers and readers; Media literacy; False knowledge or complete ignorance of the law; etc.
@@mcspctr7726Wow I never thought I'd be quoting Jake Skywalker but
"Everything you just said... Is wrong"
Disagree removing the no kill rule will give you a bunch of rogue super heros. They're not sleeper agents who'se switch will be flipped. Characters like Batman who have experienced the loss of loved ones due to violence would be much less inclined. Even other characters who have not experienced that maintain a code despite being given power of executioner. Using your police reference there are those that do good throughout their entire career so should the force not exist because some may use it for selfish/evil means? An interesting example would of been Dredd since he literally has that power (although maybe not an actual superhero).
What is the point of a super hero if they don't defend the weak and let dangerous people run free? If they can't handle killing objective scum why should they even be superheroes? It's like kids playing who just want the enjoyment of the larp without having actual responsibility.
Corrupt/psychopath superhero/normal people will exist with or without a no kill rule. They have no moral compass and will do what they want. A better question would be how many innocents are saved with the no kill rule vs without it?
If a super hero did go rogue who would stop them exactly? Maybe with a "normal" superhero like Batman it would be easier. Even with other super hero aid someone like Homelander yea good luck.
OMG! This whole no kill rule argument is so stupid. The real reason why dc doesn't want their heroes killing villains is because villains like Joker and Lex Luthor sells.
Their are many characters who are either superheroes or heroic who have killed and didn't go down a dark path or their actions didn't led to a world were heroes act like villains who make excuses to kill whenever they want.
Thor kills, Captain America kills, Ghost Rider kills, Green Arrow kills, Wonder Woman kills, Optimus Prime kills, Link kills, Samurai Jack kills, Saitama kills, Goku kills, and Naruto has killed.
This is why i can't stand dc comics. They try so hard to gaslight and justify why Batman doesn't kill the Joker and they fail to give a logically answer, because they can't. Their is so much proof from other media out their that killing an irredeemable monster is the right thing to do.
No one is going to think Optimus prime killing Megatron is wrong. No one is going to say Link killing Ganon is wrong, No is going to say Captain America killing Nazi is wrong.
Yeah!! Or Master Chief gunning down hordes of invading covenant forces, or DOOM GUY FIGHTING HELL!!!
there's a reason why heroes that dont kill have the best rogues gallery, if you constantly kill off your villains shortly after they appear you wouldn't have a story, people who complain about heroes not killing are just trying so hard to come off as the intellectual 🤓guy.
@@Blanktester685 are you an idiot? villains from Naruto & Shippuden are always being killed off, most of the time it's in the stroyline they are introduced in. They have been killed off and yet so many of them are still to this day memorable and great villains. You don't need to keep a villain around for them to be great or to tell a story, in fact killing off the villain most of the time enhances the story and makes it better. So that argument you made was beyond stupid.
Hell it's not even Naruto, Dragon Ball those the same thing. Villains like King Piccolo, Cell, Kid Buu. They were all killed off in the arcs/sagas they were introduced in and those characters are way more popular and memorable than 98% of villains from DC who have been around for decades.
@@Blanktester685 You clearly have no idea what your talking about. Villains that are killed off in the storylines they are introduced have the best storylines in fiction. They not only have way better story's but are also way more popular and memorable than 99% of villains from DC or marvel comics.
Villains like Unicron, Zabuza, King Piccolo, Cell, Kid Buu, Pain, Madara, even Ganon.
It's funny that you actually thought for even a second that you had a good argument.
Also you said heroes who don't kill their villains have the best rogues, then list ten Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, and Green Lantern villains each. That should be as easy as listening off 10 Spider-man or Batman villains right Because like you said heroes who don't kill their villains have the best rogues, right.
Because I can easily list of 10 Dragon Ball and Naruto villains, and both series kill off their villains.
real world reason and the fictitious reason are separate topics and should not be conflated. these characters like lex and joker die all the time and still come back. i literally showed an image from the batman who laugh were batman kills joker and a clip from the Arkham games were joker dies but they are still put in. their are different iteration of characters that tell different stories and not a singular continuity and sometimes they die amd in that story they are dead but a different author makes a different story using the same characters in a different manner to tell a different story.
on top off that the other stories you mention these characters kill and it does not matter and not the focus is that is not the story that the author wishes to tell and is not a focus nor a factor but in the case of jupiters legacy is the story the author wishes to tell and the main focus and point of contention to provide a reason for the no kill rule and what can result from allow lethal force to be permissible. That is the theme of the show and main point of contention and also the theme of many batman media as well such as the long Halloween, the killing joke, the dark knight returns, blah blah blah blah blah. The point is most batman media wrestle with this topic however all the ones that you have listed do not and are not the main theme of their media. What you should have brought up as a Counterpoint is The Punisher as Punisher is almost the opposite of Batman and a main theme of his character and his media is the reason why you should kill bad people. And this is the relationship that Daredevil and punish her often have as these two tend to like the swap spit a lot. Daredevil is very similar to Batman in many ways and he is well has a no kill rule. This was actually a segment that I cut out of my video which was Punisher and Daredevil's relationship but I felt like it was unnecessary and made the video too long. The only part of it that I regret not putting in and should have left at the end is in the first season of Daredevil, Daredevil struggles with the idea of killing Wilson Fisk and talks to his priest about it and his priest gives a good quote saying essentially going to kill and the priest ask are you going to kill Fisk because you have to or are you going to kill him because you want to and Daredevil struggles with this idea and cannot provide an answer. The priest then goes on to say that taking a life corrupts not only yourself but the people around you which was the exact point that Jupiter's Legacy makes as well as my video.
Last thing is you say that I never provide a clear answer and why you should not kill "irredeemable monsters" such as the Joker but I guess that part went over your head because I do, so I will say it again for the ones in the back. The reason you do not kill "irredeemable monsters" is because if you do then this brings the option of killing which can grant these people too much power resulting in many "irredeemable monsters" looking for this power such as the praetorian to change teams and become Heroes for the wrong reasons. This was also the reason I brought up the issue of the Flash being chastised for doing sponsorships as being able to make exuberant amounts of money and becoming a rich celebrity results in people becoming Heroes for the wrong reasons and results in a society like the boys.
I say the "No Kill" has become obsolete and it ultimately makes the heroes the bad guy. They are keeping this endless cycle going.
Finally someone who gets it
Very few superheroes have an explicit no killing rule, and most of the ones who do are fully capable of breaking it without it becoming a problem.
Thor will kill absolutely. Captain America had to have killed while in the army. Wonder Woman again like Thor will simply do it, feel bad about it, and then get over it because it was necessary. Superman in a comic one off literally confirms he doesn't have a rule against killing, he is just a nice person that doesn't want to do it.
I'm sick and tired of this bs narrative that heroes can't kill. Not only is it just not true for most of fiction, it's also just inherently stupid because the readers are smart enough to understand that it is a necessary action in some situations. The Punisher kills pedos.
Batman is the go to but justice league has backing from him Diana, Arthur (Aquaman) he rules Alantis, green lantern ring power, oliver backing, terrfic tech, Superman Kryptonian tech in his cave. Loke the personal back of league members and then galactic allies later on. Ferl like they got this
There was a dope edit about Jason Todd and Batman from Under the Red Hood where Jase killed the Joker and Batman was floundering for a response, I think you should react.
The solid jj collaboration
The people that say the “no kill rule sucks” have never played the Batman Arkham games. Killing is quick and easy, neutralizing a threat without killing them takes a ton of skill and precision (even under pressure)
Ben Affleck Batman kills people, fans boo! 😅
I prefer to call him fatfleck
Although this explanation may be understandable, it's still very hard to take the city of Gotham or any superhero serious when they let a murderer at in most cases a literal domestic terrorist just go to prison with no more than what maybe a few years to a sentence not even a life sentence depending on the series and what's Canon for that specific volume of issues?
I don't know I have yet to catch up on everything in the comic books let alone TV shows and whatnot. But real life evil people have been put to death for less then half the shit joker has ever done.
If Batman didn’t have the no kill rule he’d be boring.
Self defense is perfectly legal.
As a security guard for a homeless shelter I just have to say.
99% of people don’t know the difference between self-defense and retaliation and proceeds to use retaliation instead of self-defense
WHAT!?!? NO WAY, REALLY!?!? 0:
Serious response:
Don't know where you're getting this from and I have no idea who said that but I know point do I ever make the argument that self-defense is wrong or not legal.
What I'm assuming you're talking about is the part about police brutality but even then none of the examples here were self-defense. Also if you rewatch it I purposely tiptoe around what I believe and my opinion because I didn't want it moron like you to come into my comments and make this political. I purposely go out of my way to say "some people believe" and try to not give my own personal statement. Politics is Lame and stupid and I intentionally wanted to avoid it.
But if you must know I agree with this general statement that self-defense is good as well as I believe in the Second Amendment and I believe in defending yourself with lethal Force Under the right CIRCUMSTANCES ( for the ones in the back this means not all the time).
On top of that, I have no gripe with law enforcement nor do I wish to defend criminals or crime. However I believe this is a very big issue with a modern political landscape and that is on BOTH ( Yes, this means right and left) sides oftentimes their views are often black and white. Always defaulting to defend one side over the other depending on occupation, race, gender or sexual orientation and having a bias to one over the other. However every person is different as well as every scenario is different and to instantly default based on something as trivial as this instead of the facts at hand is dangerous and stupid. Things are not black and white and rarely is there a clear hero and a clear villain, and sometimes in a situation both people can be doing bad things and just because one side is in the wrong doesn't mean the other is in the right.
The first example of police brutality I showed was a short clip and was really just the end of it but it was about 2 minutes long and it was three cops on one guy beating the absolute shit out of him on the ground. They are stomping and kicking and punching him while holding him down and for a while he is moving and while this could be seen "resisting arrest" it looks more like recoiling from pain. The three officers continue to hit him and then eventually the perpetrator stops moving and they still continue to keep hitting him. The officers do not stop until they realize someone is recording them and then proceed to point at the person recording and tell them to turn it off. This clearly shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong and they didn't want that video to get out. In no way shape or form was this self-defense. It was three on one and the man appeared to be unarmed. He had already been on the ground and they continued to hit him which is extremely dangerous and can lead to permanent serious damage especially after repeatedly hitting him while he already seems to be unconscious this is why in many states it is considered attempted murder to hit someone while they are on the ground.
The second one is the one I'm going to assume you were talking about and referring to and I'll get to that one last cuz it has the most meat on it.
The third one was the acorn incident which everyone is heard about and it's been talked about to death. DISCLAIMER I am not a lawyer or a journalist nor is this video about police brutality but superheroes I do not have all the facts nor do I wish to waste my time looking for police reports or rifling through articles to respond to some dumbass comment.
But the acorn incident is obviously ridiculous.
The officer mistaked and acorn falling onto a vehicle as a gunshot and starts to open fire on the prisoner who was already handcuffed and detained and put into the back of the police car. For starters this is ridiculous given that he did not hesitate at all the moment he heard it to start opening fire and should have realized something was strange at least took a second thought to think about it considering that the perp was already detained and should have been searched to see if he had any weapons and taken away and as well as his handcuffed making damn near impossible to shoot without getting out of them.
However there is a very small chance that maybe if the officer forgot to give the prisoner the procedural Thug shaker to check his manhole for guns as well as if the prisoner could dislocate his thumbs or pick the lock of handcuffs then maybe this is plausible.
While the odds of arresting the Reincarnation of Houdini are improbable they are not impossible. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he arrested the greatest magician of our time at a children's birthday party for showing his weewee around kids. This situation is still fucking and doesn't add up and still should have given a moment of doubt given that if he thought it came from the car and was the prisoner a gunshot would not have sounded like an acorn.
Here's something that is a no-brainer, but guns are very very VERY loud an acorns are not and they would not sound the same ( by the same I mean not as loud). If for whatever reason you don't believe me that acorns are not as loud as gunshots, acorns fall on vehicles all the time but you don't hear them from blocks away. However when there is a gunshot you WILL hear it if it is anywhere close to you from blocks away and even if you're inside a building. I don't know about you and I don't know what kind of acorns you have around your place but I have never heard an acorn fall while inside my own house, I have on the other hand heard gunshots within my own house.
Someone who maybe doesn't know might hear it and think it was a gunshot at first or someone who is already a bit jumpy( like the officer) but as a police officer he should have heard a gunshot before and should know how it just how loud they are.
However I don't think this officer was necessarily trying to find an excuse to kill the man he wanted an excuse to abuse his power he likely would have done it before putting him in the car. However I don't know and I'm not Inside the Mind of the officer.
But what I think the only plausible explanation for this and the most reasonable one is likely some kind of past trauma or PTSD that from when hearing the acorn caused a flight or fight response resulting in him going overboard and being irrational. However this does not make this action excusable and could have easily taken a life of someone who is complying and who would not deserve to die. If this is the case then someone like this should not be in a situation that could cause them to have some kind of episode possibly resulting in an innocent person dying.( and for the ones that ride the short bus by innocent I do not mean that they aren't criminals, I mean that they shouldn't be killed)
The third one was the one that look like it was in some kind of convenience store or gas station, this certainly was not self defense and was just straight up police brutality. The man was complying and on the ground with his hands up and not moving and the officers stomped on him and shoved their guns into him and we're unnecessarily rough. If someone is complying and they are not a resisting arrest this kind of behavior is unacceptable. NOT self-defense
And finally the one that I think you are referring to which was the second one, which can be argued that it is self-defense and in a way kind of is however lethal Force here was not acceptable.
As I said I am not a journalist or someone who has all the facts on this information and I'm not going to spend hours looking for some kind of police report or article to respond to your dumbass comment but the description of where I found this video stated that the man on the ground was unarmed. However given that this is the age of the internet and we have unlimited information at our fingertips it is hard to find the truth these days. But let's just assume that this man is unarmed which it does appear that way as if the perpetrator wasn't and had some kind of gun he likely would have used this before being put onto the ground and fighting from that position. But if he did have a weapon in the officer saw the weapon I understand that action is faster than Reaction and that a preemptive shot may be permissible.
As well as if the roles were reversed and the officer was the one on his back on the ground and was getting the shit be out of him then a case can be made here too. Because if he felt like there was no way in order to escape and no way to retreat then this is self-defense. That is not what is happening in this scenario and is the exact opposite.
What is happening here is the officer is fighting and wrestling with the perpetrator on the ground and the perpetrator is resisting arrest( which he SHOULDN'T) the officer cannot get him to stop fighting him and cannot subdue him and starts to become frustrated he immediately results to lethal Force without hesitation.
That's a No No.
Now you could try to make the argument saying" well what if the perpetrator was reaching for his gun we're trying to take it from him, would lethal force be acceptable then?" maybe if they were wrestling for it and the gun was already out of the holster however the officer clearly had control of his gun over the whole time and was able to easily stand back, draw it and then fire. On top of that, while I am not sure what kind of holsters this officer has or what they have issued there are many holsters that are specifically designed not to be drawn from the front in order to avoid situations like this. This should be a standard but as I said I do not have all the facts. If he had a solid good holster then this would make it nearly impossible for the perpetrator to steal the gun from him while it is in his holster.
But as I said even if he did have a shitty holster that could be drawn from the front it doesn't matter as he was able to control his gun the whole time and they were not wrestling over
(read after first response)
What should have happened here was not lethal Force. What should have happened is the moment that the officer felt like he could not subdue the man or was a losing fight he should have backed off as he did and drawn his gun but NOT shoot. At this point there's completely changes the scenario making this altercation no longer a fight but a command. The officer should then tell him to stand down, make no sudden movements ,put his hands behind his head, and on his knees ( or whatever position the officer prefers to detain him in).
The vast majority of people in this situation would realize that shit has just got real and death is now a possibility for them and if they are reasonable they will stand down. BOOM, situation over without lethal Force. However it is very likely that this may not be a reasonable person, I do not know this man and he could just as easily be mentally ill or be whacked out on drugs resulting in him doing something stupid like trying to rush the officer. However the officer has plenty of room and is not in an enclosed space and should have plenty of room to shoot the man.
Now a lot of stupid people argue that in other situations why don't police just shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot them in the leg. The kinds of people who say this are dumbass journalists, politicians and overall bunch of pencil pushers and have never been in a life or death scenario before or any high stress situation that can result in Adrenaline. However I understand what fear and adrenaline can do to the human mind and body and when a situation like this happens even if you are trained to shoot someone in the leg or even if you are so good that you can shoot a weapon out of someone's hand( which is absolutely cartoony and stupid) even if you have trained for that situation and are a very good shot when push comes to shove and you are under a lot of stress in a short period of time and possibly shock it is hard to perform this.
In this moment if the man does not comply at gunpoint and decides to rush the officer the officer should shoot once at Center of mass. If you shoot someone once they are likely going to go down and unless you accidentally hit them in the heart( which would be unfortunate) they should live with immediate medical attention.
Law enforcement should not be trained to shoot to kill. They should not be trained to double tap or shoot vital Parts like the heart or head and lethal Force should be a last resort if a resort at all. but as I said this person could easily be whacked out on drugs and pain and fear may not be a factor. In this unfortunate situation then lethal force is acceptable. At this point you had given them more than three chances to stand down making each one more serious in the last and at the point where they are hit they still choose not to comply there's absolutely nothing that you can do or say to make them and at that point that person has no other intention but to take your life.
However that is certainly not what happened in that video and the officer did not hesitate for a second to result to lethal Force. But as I said I know what fear and panic can do to a person and in that scenario the officer may have felt like he had no choice even though he certainly did and In the Heat of the Moment it is sometimes hard to see all of your options. But as the point I was making in this video, the man who kills unnecessarily because he is scared and felt like he had no other options will say the exact same thing as the man who kills unnecessarily because he wanted to. And at the end of the day the result will be exactly the same. I believe that both should be held accountable just as much and saying that oops it was an accident is not okay. There's this strange double standard when it comes to police with some people that they can say oops it was an accident and people will defend them. However if you are let's say an electrician and you provide faulty electrical work resulting in a house fire causing immense amount of property damage and people to die then you are still held accountable. If you did faulty work because you did not know or because you did not care the result is the same and saying "oops it was an accident" does not cut it. Many jobs are like this and when you apply for a job where people's lives could be lost then you should be prepared for this and take every measure you can in order to avoid casualties( with exception of the military towards non civilians) .
However if you do not feel like you are capable of doing this and do not feel like you will be able to handle being in such a situation under pressure then you should not have the job.
Regardless people seem to have become very desensitized to death and when you see a video like this on the internet many people don't think anything of it because you never knew that person and you have no idea who that is and when some people see a statistic or a video does not seem real to them and it is all too often that people are heartless and cruel to real lives being lost over the internet. However regardless if this guy was scum or not this was still a human being with a life and goals and family and the truth is this man died unnecessarily( he may have lived but I doubt it).
But in conclusion this was not self defense and this was not okay. But as a general response, yes, self-defense is legal...
...
...
Dipshit...
...
As well as self-defense is okay but people should not be so quick to literally jump the gun and then claim self-defense. In a scenario like a house robbery especially if the police will likely not get to you in time, then fuck yes, Light Em Up. But in the situation of an unarmed man resisting arrest, hell no.
Punisher is not a hero and no one can convince me otherwise
Only real problem with this video, is the talking fact and not quite scripted under the mask. There are times you're hard to understand. No problem with the mask, but youll need to enunciate more. If not, lose the mask so your otherwise good points are better heard.
Does supercrooks take place in the future? I have read the comic and super crooks should be placed in the past. Not to spoil the comic but you'll see once you read it that super crooks would not be in the future.
not sure. they never give any dates and i just assumed super crooks was the future given how nonchalant they are about killing and how killing was such a big deal in Jupiter's legacy. i think it makes sense for super crooks to take place after and tells the story really well.
Is this by any chance a response to Razorfists video on the topic?
@@tommyfishhouse8050 nah, But I have seen it.
I just had this video written out for a while and thought it was a good topic.
@@icecoldtip8590
You did a great job addressing this issue!
This also Makes Flash’s Rogue Gallery all the more Interesting when you look at how he handles them in Justice league!
They Are ONLY AFTER HIM!
And it’s pretty cool seeing how he handles characters like the Trickster, or Captain Cold and Captain Boomerang! And funny enough, they do tend to do Good On Occasion! Especially so when the World is in danger.
Danny should just stick to politics
the argument in favor for the no killing rule is a good one but still isnt fool proof. i argue that any other superhero that starts killing because another hero HAD to do it. is not a hero at all. we have guns in america but the only people using guns against others are gangs and people who obtained them illegally. leading back to my first comment
Perpetual circle of violence
@@AgnesBooth-zu7tw Irrelevant, as long as there are two people left on the planet, some one is gonna want some one else dead
the cca was created in the 50's
I know
(:
Thank you for this video
Great video. But I would argue even the standard model where the traditional superhero like Bats goes bats and goes crazy megalomaniacal for the no kill rule is strong without Jupiter's Legacy or attendant shows. People are just normie dogs who don't understand mercy based principles or long term ramifications for individuals or society at large. They also really want to get even either political and ideological opponents and just can't outright say it.
Slooooooww dowwwnnn lol was this at 1.5 speed?
Where did you get that mask?
@@Scoonertuna where do you get everything from these days? Amazon
Doesn’t Kingdom come do all of this?
No it isn't. We've had heroes who kill long before the no-kill code was made. And said code was only made to please the trigger-happy censors who didn't want kids reading up on heroes that kill.
Heroes that kill are so old, they're in the Bible. Which included heroes like Samson, David, and even God Himself.
Thanks.
I don't know if it's the mask or your speed of speaking but it was a bit hard to understand you at times. Not a big deal, but I can't be the only one who thought so. Meaning only as constructive criticism.
Ngl, correct me if I’m wrong but that just sounds like the slippery slope argument which you just said is not really a good argument.
Batman fan try not to talk about prep time, no kill rule, or bat family challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
pot meet kettle
wonderful video, but I mean no offense when saying but could you slow down a bit while explaining something you're talking a bit too fast.
0715 Tina Lake
Jupiter’s Legacy was a boring show.