Should Wonder Woman kill villains?

[ElMinotoro]

I'm with Max Landis where he says the problem in MoS wasn't that Superman killed Zod, but that he didn't kill him early enough when it was obvious that murder was the only viable option to save thousands, if not millions of human beings.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

It's okay, mostly she'll be killing men, mostly. She was doing it in Justice League: The New Frontier.

I don't see a reason for her, or anyone else, to refrain from it. It doesn't matter.

You suck!

Okay but seriously I don't she shouldn't consider it but It won't be the first option and technically it would go against her warrior upbringing to not attempt to do so, actually there's a scene about this in the new 52

Which is why WW doesn't have that many "cool" villains XD

 

[Netrigan]

The problem I have with these moments is they don't really work unless the character has (explicit or implied) a Code Against Killing. The Punisher offing some guy who totally deserves is just business as usual. Wonder Woman or Superman kills someone and it becomes the entire story.

And that's what so horribly lame about it.

There are basic Good Guys rules when it comes to killing. Characters like James Bond and Han Solo stretch those rules a bit to include preemptive strikes, but generally speaking the hero only kills in self-defense, to protect someone, or in the heat of battle. At no point are we supposed to question their actions. Han shooting first isn't some morally tricky problem, it's just how he deals with these sorts of problems.

And if you look at a lot of super-hero movies, there's a decent amount of super-hero killing in them. Iron Man is blowing away terrorists. Captain America kills a lot of people in Winter Soldier. And because they follow the basic rules all Good Guys follow, we accept their actions without making a big deal out of them.

Man of Steel (and the story it's based on) wants to rub your nose in the wrongness of Superman killing. That Wonder Woman panel wants to rub our noses in the wrongness of Wonder Woman killing. And as they've proven time and time again, there's no where for that story to go. Either they just go "well, sometimes it's okay to kill" or they go "killing is bad, m'kay"... because these characters simply weren't designed to explore the moral and psychological implications of having to kill someone for the greater good. Without the ability to grow and change because of their actions, these kinds of stories are ultimately meaningless.

Kind of like all those "I feel really bad for killing this deer/person" in shooters. Twenty minutes later, you're standing atop a pile of corpses and your character is in full-on action hero mode. The level of violence these kinds of properties require makes commenting upon the violence extremely difficult to do well.

 

[Netrigan]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

The problem is a lot of writers want to go for that big dramatic moment where the hero makes the choice not to kill the villain... and that's what makes it come across as stupid.

As long as you write these characters where they don't across as being idiots, then it's not a problem. Batman catching the Joker and sent to Arkham works. Batman having to save the Joker to send him to Akrham doesn't.

Or one of my personal favorite Idiot Ball moments. Having Spider-Man get into a fight with Venom in order to save Carnage, allowing Carnage to escape and kill dozens more people in the same story... are you guys frakkin' high? Don't ever make your hero look like that. Actual moment early in the Maximum Carnage story from the mid-90s.

 

[Overhead]

I agree, but the question presented wasn't "Should Wonder Woman kill in the heat of the moment." It was just "Should she kill?" and others presented the broad statement of "No, none of them should kill because it's wrong"

And your argument was that Batman should kill to stop hypothetical people in the future from dying. I was writing there there is a distinction in the middle between the two extremes of killing in cold blood and never killing ever.

Really? Because the government as presented in Gotham is pretty freaking corrupt. That's one reason why crime is so bad, and someone like Bruce Wayne feels he has to take the law into his own hands.

Well I was assuming that such laws would be national in scope rather than local as they deal with fundamental issues that I think would have to be federal/constitutional, but even if it was local the politicians aren't really corrupt in a way that letting the Joker live would effect.

Do we actually know that? Last I recall, they've never stated the laws that are "real" in their fictional world. We can only assume they mirror our own. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the laws in and out, but I think after a certain amount of time, and continuous body count, the law has room to execute someone who is criminally insane, but also has a knack for breaking out of prison over and over, and killing more people. But also like I said, I understand that this is probably not like our real world, because they don't want to give up the Joker, and his usefulness as a villain. So he keeps getting out.

Yes, it's a comic book conceit because they'll never kill off the Joker, but it is a conceit of the justice system. It isn't the role of a cop or a super-hero to issue judgement on a criminal. The Joker has been convicted lots of times and rather than being killed he is sent to Arkham, an asylum for the insane. That is their choice of punishment rather than death. If they have such laws (I don't believe they do in Gotham) then they are choosing not to use them, which again places the burden on the justice system or rather the people who make decisions on how the justice system works.

*Blinks* what "no nonsense" solutions did I present? And actually your statement supports my view more I think. In a world of jet-powered apes and time travel, saying that they can't kill seems ridiculous. The threats they are going up against are above and beyond the stuff our real world people encounter as far as threats go. And in multiple instances in our world, with threats of far less lethality and menace, it's ok to kill them. So why say that when dealing with literally supernatural threats, it's not allowed to kill them? That seems very strange to me.

I was quoting Superman from an early JLA Classified where he talks about how the no-nonsense solution of killing criminals doesn't work.

And yes it is okay to kill people sometimes in the real world but only in the context of self-defence (or defence of others who are endangered), warfare as part of a military conflict (assuming it doesn't violate military law) or as a state sanctioned execution. The second and third types don't typically apply to a superheroes and some superheroes do use the first option and kill to protect themselves or others (although some obviously don't do this too).

Hell Batman has killed in modern times - he shot and killed/fatally wounded Darkseid the god of evil at the end of Final Crisis, which is pretty much the only time it would have made thematic sense for modern Batman to kill.

What should they be doing that they aren't?

 

[DANEgerous]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Batman apprehends Joker hands him over unharmed and the best case scenario is not going to be Joker serves his time and or dies in prison. Best case scenario is Joker escapes and kills more people. Once, fine we tried justice no harm no fowl. Twice, okay we thought it would work but he got out and killed yet more people. Thrice... well now perhaps Vaas of Farcry needs to teach you the meaning of insanity.

Worst case... well there are a lot. I had to make the absolute worst case I could think of The Joker being a wealthy criminal mastermind pays of or cons the jury. He is free of all charges. Immediately thereafter he and the jurors he manipulated kill everyone in the courthouse including Batman as he was there as Bruce Wayne. While clearly not predominantly at fault Batman's hands are not totally clean even in his own death. You just let someone who is arguably equally as powerful as Batman with a massive criminal network in the hands of average citizens and law enforcement who may me in said network and in this case are because while unlikely it is hardly impossible. The Joker is known for manipulating people that is actually a rather large part of he persona quite often. This is just a time where he wins.

 

[Solkard]

I think it's unfair to put this on just the heroes. While I agree they are at fault if they are more concerned with not killing a villain, than they are with protecting those the villain is about to kill, repeat offenders are also the fault of the system.

The Joker being a prime example, why don't all the outraged citizens or the legal system execute him? After the 3rd or 4th time he escapes or "reforms" and then commits mass murder, why doesn't the court sentence him to death, as opposed to blaming those who caught him for not doing it for them? In a fictional world where a corrupt judge can be bribed to convict innocent people and let guilty criminals go, why couldn't they also be 'compelled' to declare the Joker "not insane", competent to stand trial, and receive the death penalty?

I can understand the sentiment of a hero who hands a criminal over and says, "If you want them dead, execute them yourself."

 

[Flatfrog]

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Batman apprehends Joker hands him over unharmed and the best case scenario is not going to be Joker serves his time and or dies in prison. Best case scenario is Joker escapes and kills more people. Once, fine we tried justice no harm no fowl. Twice, okay we thought it would work but he got out and killed yet more people. Thrice... well now perhaps Vaas of Farcry needs to teach you the meaning of insanity.

But surely that's a failure of the justice system, and the solution isn't 'so a member of the public gets to unilaterally decide to execute him' but 'perhaps this might be a good case for capital punishment' or possibly 'isn't it about time they beefed up the security in Arkham FFS?'

It's a very, very bad idea to decide that the 'good guys' have the right to bypass the process of law and make their own decision as to who deserves to be killed. We've devoted many years of civilization to getting out of that trap. Yes, sometimes bad people get away, but the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

Except that in our societies today, there is room for people in extreme circumstances having to take another person's life, and it not being considered a crime. Self defense, or in situations where someone is threatening the lives of people, and someone stops them to prevent further loss of life. Both of these circumstances frequently end with the person who killed someone not being charged with any crime.

That's true but it is a very grey area with some pretty problematic examples over the years. Of course self defence is reasonable and sometimes the person you are defending yourself against is injured, but you still have a clear moral duty not to kill unless there is no alternative. 'Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not maim when hurting is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough' as the mantra goes from the Thomas Covenant books. In the case of super-beings like Superman or Wonder Woman, who could easily kill by accident if they don't constantly restrain their powers, a strict 'no killing' code seems like a very wise option.

Obviously if Batman was in a fight with Joker and Joker's neck was accidentally snapped, I'm not saying Batman should be imprisoned for that (although there's a good argument that Batman's very existence as a vigilante is one of the reasons Joker's criminal escapades have escalated so far, so Batman does have quite a lot of culpability there). But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a deliberate decision to kill someone instead of handing them over to the authorities.

Also, as an extra-legal individual, he is deliberately putting himself in harm's way without any official sanction and so 'self-defence' doesn't really cut it as an excuse. The only reason Batman's activities would be even vaguely tolerable in a civilized society is because he is capable of restraint.

 

[llubtoille]

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

Well, I figure they're already breaking the law by being vigilantes, so if they do kill their victims its only a small step up from their current crimes - grievous bodily assault, kidnapping etc
Up to them really, they might more heat from the police but I doubt the public would care either way (in Gotham at least), but they're still criminals in either case so if apprehended should be punished for the misdeeds (despite their good intentions).

 

[Flatfrog]

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

Well, I figure they're already breaking the law by being vigilantes, so if they do kill their victims its only a small step up from their current crimes - grievous bodily assault, kidnapping etc
Up to them really, they might more heat from the police but I doubt the public would care either way (in Gotham at least), but they're still criminals in either case so if apprehended should be punished for the misdeeds (despite their good intentions).

It's an interesting question (and one I'm sure has been discussed many times) why comics have such a universal consensus that superheroes working *within* the legal process (as government employees or soldiers, for example) is worse than them working on their own recognisance as self-appointed guardians of justice. It is taken as an absolute certainty that any superhero coopted by the government into official service will be corrupt, or manipulated by corrupt people. SHIELD was a possible counterexample but not any more!

It seems to be a symptom of a fundamental mistrust of the power of law and government which strikes me as a very American worldview - a Pioneering spirit that venerates the individual over society. Obviously it makes for good stories too, but it's still intriguing.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

I was quoting Superman from an early JLA Classified where he talks about how the no-nonsense solution of killing criminals doesn't work.

Love that scene, Ed McGuinness is great.


But the reason Batman shouldn't end his villains by killing them is the same as why it wouldn't work as well in real life. Power vacuum.

I always here how Batman would solve all Gotham's crime with killing half or all the Super villains but in organised crime when you dethrone the one at the top people will cause chaos to take that place.

And really batman barely takles the level of corruption in the city to begin with but he can only do so much I suppose

 

[Darth_Payn]

The refusal to kill a villain that has killed and has intent to kill again has always been one of my gripes against heroes that said many have pointed out that there is no one set charter for Wonder Woman or just about any superhero for that matter so no it would not be. I will always totally side with the "Dexter" idea of this person has killed they plan to do it again kill them, yeah if you have to kill the guilty to save the innocent do so without hesitation.

I agree to a point on this. I've always been annoyed with the "zero body count" rule for superheroes, especially for ones like Batman. I understand his personal problem with killing, but the fact is, that his refusal to kill, has allowed the Joker to escape over and over and kill people in homicidal orgies of insanity. I get why, because they need to keep the character viable as a villain to sell comics, but it makes it less believable every time.

I personally know nothing about Wonder Woman's ethics on killing, but given that her signature weapon is a restraining device, and not a lethal weapon does say a bit about how she might prefer to solve problems.

I personally don't have an issue with finding a non-lethal resolution, as I think depending on the criminal, some can reform and stop being criminals. This is of course almost impossible in comic books, because they need antagonists, but the principle is still sound.

My only desire is if she does kill, that it's warranted. If the director and writer actually make it a valid moral choice, and not some heavy handed one like in Man of Steel, then I don't really have an issue with her killing someone to save the innocent.

Since the New52 began, Wonder Woman's been given a sword, which she uses without hesitation, along with the lasso.
Hmm, I can get behind the idea of killing one to save the many. Sounds like part of a worth-while code to live by, maybe even a Creed.

The problem is a lot of writers want to go for that big dramatic moment where the hero makes the choice not to kill the villain... and that's what makes it come across as stupid.

As long as you write these characters where they don't across as being idiots, then it's not a problem. Batman catching the Joker and sent to Arkham works. Batman having to save the Joker to send him to Akrham doesn't.

Or one of my personal favorite Idiot Ball moments. Having Spider-Man get into a fight with Venom in order to save Carnage, allowing Carnage to escape and kill dozens more people in the same story... are you guys frakkin' high? Don't ever make your hero look like that. Actual moment early in the Maximum Carnage story from the mid-90s.

Oh Jaysus, that was stupid. I once saw a panel from that story with Captain America himself telling Spider-Man that if all of New York's to be saved, Carnage( who's so one-note he makes Ben Stein sound like an opera singer) had to die, and Spider-Man getting in a fight with him. *****, he's Captain goddamn America! When he says "Jump!" you ask how high, and it better be at least Chrysler Building high!
And if you think that's a dumb Idiot Ball moment, you should read the issues of Superior Spider-Man (when Otto Octavius's mind took over Peter's Body) where he blows this other one-note villain's brains out in the middle of Grand Central Station, and his fellow Avengers don't take kindly to that. Even though everyone on the Avengers has killed somebody at some point, which makes why none of them like the Punisher even less sense. OK, that's the end of my griping for today.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

If batman killed the Joker, then we wouldn't have had a joker for decades unless someone copy-cats Joker, or Joker comes back from the dead, or something. Not unheard of, but still, where would DC, or batman be without his villains as he's killed them all?

Having to create new villains over, and over again after almost every issue, or even every arc will be tiresome, and people will likely complain that one villain is too derivative of the other.

Lets go back to the Copy-cats. Maybe Batman's Scarface villain would be an example as he's gone through multiple ventriloquists.

Going back to the whole coming back from the dead, thing, lets look at Lord Death Man. I don't know how seriously he's taken.

Comics, and perhaps especially Marvel get a lot of flack for killing, an bringing people back from the dead. Maybe rightfully so as it takes a lot of the sting of killing.

Captcha: nercolas cerg

<youtube=h06cSTAqAYk>

 

[Overhead]

For example, in Superman vs. The Elite, Superman doesn't like to kill because he's a believer of alternative, more creative/productive solutions to a problem.

What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way. Great, great comic.

It's an interesting question (and one I'm sure has been discussed many times) why comics have such a universal consensus that superheroes working *within* the legal process (as government employees or soldiers, for example) is worse than them working on their own recognisance as self-appointed guardians of justice. It is taken as an absolute certainty that any superhero coopted by the government into official service will be corrupt, or manipulated by corrupt people. SHIELD was a possible counterexample but not any more!

It seems to be a symptom of a fundamental mistrust of the power of law and government which strikes me as a very American worldview - a Pioneering spirit that venerates the individual over society. Obviously it makes for good stories too, but it's still intriguing.

It isn't always the case that the government sponsored hero is the worst. A lot of the time the Avengers and JLA, the two big teams, are both funded by the US government or SHIELD or some other national/international organisation. Captain America certainly does plenty of work for SHIELD, for instance - even formerly running it.

Love that scene, Ed McGuinness is great.

But the reason Batman shouldn't end his villains by killing them is the same as why it wouldn't work as well in real life. Power vacuum.

I always here how Batman would solve all Gotham's crime with killing half or all the Super villains but in organised crime when you dethrone the one at the top people will cause chaos to take that place.

And really batman barely takles the level of corruption in the city to begin with but he can only do so much I suppose

You create a power vacuum when you take the boss away and put him in prison too.

The reason superheroes don't typically kill criminals is because killing is wrong.

Also, I liked Batman Inc as an alternative and more mature approach to fighting crime in Gotham.

 

[DANEgerous]

Given that most superheroes are already vigilantes acting outside the law, often with godlike powers, do you think it's morally right that they should also act as judge, jury and executioner?

If villains are apprehended, it is right that they should have some kind of legal process. We can discuss the rights and wrongs of capital punishment in those circumstances, but a world with superheroes that take life at their own whim is definitely not one I would approve of. If Batman killed the Joker, whatever the Joker's crimes I'd say Batman should be imprisoned.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Batman apprehends Joker hands him over unharmed and the best case scenario is not going to be Joker serves his time and or dies in prison. Best case scenario is Joker escapes and kills more people. Once, fine we tried justice no harm no fowl. Twice, okay we thought it would work but he got out and killed yet more people. Thrice... well now perhaps Vaas of Farcry needs to teach you the meaning of insanity.

But surely that's a failure of the justice system, and the solution isn't 'so a member of the public gets to unilaterally decide to execute him' but 'perhaps this might be a good case for capital punishment' or possibly 'isn't it about time they beefed up the security in Arkham FFS?'

It's a very, very bad idea to decide that the 'good guys' have the right to bypass the process of law and make their own decision as to who deserves to be killed. We've devoted many years of civilization to getting out of that trap. Yes, sometimes bad people get away, but the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

Except that in our societies today, there is room for people in extreme circumstances having to take another person's life, and it not being considered a crime. Self defense, or in situations where someone is threatening the lives of people, and someone stops them to prevent further loss of life. Both of these circumstances frequently end with the person who killed someone not being charged with any crime.

That's true but it is a very grey area with some pretty problematic examples over the years. Of course self defence is reasonable and sometimes the person you are defending yourself against is injured, but you still have a clear moral duty not to kill unless there is no alternative. 'Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not maim when hurting is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough' as the mantra goes from the Thomas Covenant books. In the case of super-beings like Superman or Wonder Woman, who could easily kill by accident if they don't constantly restrain their powers, a strict 'no killing' code seems like a very wise option.

Obviously if Batman was in a fight with Joker and Joker's neck was accidentally snapped, I'm not saying Batman should be imprisoned for that (although there's a good argument that Batman's very existence as a vigilante is one of the reasons Joker's criminal escapades have escalated so far, so Batman does have quite a lot of culpability there). But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a deliberate decision to kill someone instead of handing them over to the authorities.

Also, as an extra-legal individual, he is deliberately putting himself in harm's way without any official sanction and so 'self-defence' doesn't really cut it as an excuse. The only reason Batman's activities would be even vaguely tolerable in a civilized society is because he is capable of restraint.

Nope sorry, still disagree in the fullest extent. If you can kill a killer and refuse to do so blood is on your hands. That is just the way I see it and i have gone into debates about this for me it comes down to this scenario. A person come into your house and kills someone you love. You catch them and they notice this they say it was a hit and will be paid 50 million dollars go with them and you can split it 50/50 and in good faith the slide you their gun. Even if I accept the offer to he with that I going to see their brains become a fine mist, pick up the gun and shot to kill. If you can be Judge, Jury and Executioner then why not at their court date? Why can a man point a gun at a cop and be shot dead and that be called "Suicide by cop" yet the same instance be pulled on a civilian where the civilian is (who had the gun pulled on them) be convicted of murder? No one agrees to an absolute necessity of trial by jury unless they are barking mad, if there is a madman in a crowded building and someone shoots said man no one will say "He deserved a trial" and if they do they are as insane as the gunner.

 

[Overhead]

Nope sorry, still disagree in the fullest extent. If you can kill a killer and refuse to do so blood is on your hands. That is just the way I see it and i have gone into debates about this for me it comes down to this scenario. A person come into your house and kills someone you love. You catch them and they notice this they say it was a hit and will be paid 50 million dollars go with them and you can split it 50/50 and in good faith the slide you their gun. Even if I accept the offer to he with that I going to see their brains become a fine mist, pick up the gun and shot to kill. If you can be Judge, Jury and Executioner then why not at their court date? Why can a man point a gun at a cop and be shot dead and that be called "Suicide by cop" yet the same instance be pulled on a civilian where the civilian is (who had the gun pulled on them) be convicted of murder? No one agrees to an absolute necessity of trial by jury unless they are barking mad, if there is a madman in a crowded building and someone shoots said man no one will say "He deserved a trial" and if they do they are as insane as the gunner.

Your post doesn't make much sense and I think you need to rewrite it.

From what I can understand though, you're trying to compare a cop shooting a criminal who pulls a gun on them to a person getting a gun and killing an unarmed criminal out of revenge rather than because they're a threat.

It is because they are completely different rationales. Both cops and civilians can defend themselves with deadly force if the situation requires it, which is to say they or someone else will probably die if they don't. Choosing to kill someone because you want them dead rather than to protect yourself is not self-defence though, it's just killing someone.

 

[DANEgerous]

Nope sorry, still disagree in the fullest extent. If you can kill a killer and refuse to do so blood is on your hands. That is just the way I see it and i have gone into debates about this for me it comes down to this scenario. A person come into your house and kills someone you love. You catch them and they notice this they say it was a hit and will be paid 50 million dollars go with them and you can split it 50/50 and in good faith the slide you their gun. Even if I accept the offer to he with that I going to see their brains become a fine mist, pick up the gun and shot to kill. If you can be Judge, Jury and Executioner then why not at their court date? Why can a man point a gun at a cop and be shot dead and that be called "Suicide by cop" yet the same instance be pulled on a civilian where the civilian is (who had the gun pulled on them) be convicted of murder? No one agrees to an absolute necessity of trial by jury unless they are barking mad, if there is a madman in a crowded building and someone shoots said man no one will say "He deserved a trial" and if they do they are as insane as the gunner.

Your post doesn't make much sense and I think you need to rewrite it.

From what I can understand though, you're trying to compare a cop shooting a criminal who pulls a gun on them to a person getting a gun and killing an unarmed criminal out of revenge rather than because they're a threat.

It is because they are completely different rationales. Both cops and civilians can defend themselves with deadly force if the situation requires it, which is to say they or someone else will probably die if they don't. Choosing to kill someone because you want them dead rather than to protect yourself is not self-defence though, it's just killing someone.

Okay let me me go back. You find someone sobbing clearly upset and try to calm them they say something you do not make out and pull a gun on you (Here lie the difference) Cop: SHOOT TO KILL! You are 100% guaranteed innocence this was suicide by cop. Citizen: you are likely guilty. You and the now deceased are likely now rivals despite having no contact, what did you do to them? Nothing! What did you say? Are they okay! LIES! Did you murder them? No! BULLSHIT YOU ARE GUILTY! Life in Prison!

 

[Flatfrog]

Your post doesn't make much sense and I think you need to rewrite it.

From what I can understand though, you're trying to compare a cop shooting a criminal who pulls a gun on them to a person getting a gun and killing an unarmed criminal out of revenge rather than because they're a threat.

It is because they are completely different rationales. Both cops and civilians can defend themselves with deadly force if the situation requires it, which is to say they or someone else will probably die if they don't. Choosing to kill someone because you want them dead rather than to protect yourself is not self-defence though, it's just killing someone.

Okay let me me go back. You find someone sobbing clearly upset and try to calm them they say something you do not make out and pull a gun on you (Here lie the difference) Cop: SHOOT TO KILL! You are 100% guaranteed innocence this was suicide by cop. Citizen: you are likely guilty. You and the now deceased are likely now rivals despite having no contact, what did you do to them? Nothing! What did you say? Are they okay! LIES! Did you murder them? No! BULLSHIT YOU ARE GUILTY! Life in Prison!

I agree with overhead that this is making less and less sense.

First, if someone pulls a gun on you and you respond in kind and kill them, that is a good case for self defence and you might well get away with it, but there might still be questions - why did you have a gun on you? Did you deliberately goad the person into pulling a gun on you? Did you have genuine fear for your life? etc. It's also the kind of thing that varies from country to country - in the UK, we're quite a bit more strict about these kinds of things than in the US.

Second, of course things are different for a police officer. They go through many years of training in how to diffuse these kinds of situations, in how to use firearms safely without endangering bystanders, and in the details of the law, which means that if they say they had no other choice, in general we give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, their job requires them to put their lives in danger and we want to support them where possible. But even if a police officer kills someone, there is always an investigation and sometimes they are indeed convicted.

The reason we have police, courts and the whole principle of due process is because attitudes like yours, left unchecked, lead to complete breakdown of public order. I don't want to be surrounded by people who are armed and paranoid because there is a huge risk of them killing in anger, or out of a misunderstanding, and then that leads to cycles of death and revenge that are destructive for everyone. That's how we get gang warfare, vendettas, and ultimately country-wide civil wars like Ireland or Israel. So yes, take the law into your own hands and expect to be punished. You don't have the right to decide who deserves to die.

 

[mecegirl]

Wonder Woman does kill on occasion, but normally in extreme situations (like your Maxwell Lord example), or if she is in a war. Though it could be argued that the Maxwell Lord situation, and its aftermath, wasn't particularly well written.

Anywho Wonder Woman is supposed to be equally ruthless and compassionate. This is a chracter that blinded herself in order to have the upper hand against Medusa(then proceed to lop of Medusa's head right on national television). After that she continued to fight with the Justice League while blind as well as defeat numerous monsters. And when Athena offered her the opportunity to regain her sight she asked that a pair of kids that had been turned to stone by Medusa would be restored instead. Of course selflessness wins the day. The kids are brought back to life and Wonder Woman's sight is restored.