Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You know the drill:

Villain hurts innocents...superheroes comes in to save the day...they fight...both give longwinded speeches throughout their fight...villain loses and is sent to some prison where he is undoutdely able to escape and wreak havoc another day

superheroes (exceptions exist such as Frank Castle) generally have misgivings about killing, so in effect, they 'allow' villains to commit further crimes.

So, my question is, should they be held responsible for much of the killing committed by villains who otherwise could've been terminated previously?

No.

Originally posted by Starscream M
You know the drill:

Villain hurts innocents...superheroes comes in to save the day...they fight...both give longwinded speeches throughout their fight...villain loses and is sent to some prison where he is undoutdely able to escape and wreak havoc another day

superheroes (exceptions exist such as Frank Castle) generally have misgivings about killing, so in effect, they 'allow' villains to commit further crimes.

So, my question is, should they be held responsible for much of the killing committed by villains who otherwise could've been terminated previously? That's kinda that Batman/Joker thing Batman ponders in every second issue. I'd say no though. Now, the government for not executing psychotic mass murderers, that's another question.

Morality is relative to the observer and the situation. Without getting too philosophical, I don't believe that absolute yes/no answers to these questions exist.

That said, most of us would cross the line and kill when many heroes don't. I don't know if I'm among them, but I'm also glad I don't know. But I'd defy anyone, for example, to read "Maximum Carnage" and not second-guess Spidey in the series. Yet I don't condemn his logic either, since I think killing or simply trying to capture him would both be "moral" in my standing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Morality is relative to the observer and the situation. Without getting too philosophical, I don't believe that absolute yes/no answers to these questions exist.

That said, most of us would cross the line and kill when many heroes don't. I don't know if I'm among them, but I'm also glad I don't know. But I'd defy anyone, for example, to read "Maximum Carnage" and not second-guess Spidey in the series. Yet I don't condemn his logic either, since I think killing or simply trying to capture him would both be "moral" in my standing. I was exactly thinking of maximum carnage when I wrote this question

I remember Spiderman's argument against Venom, it seemed pretty idiotic to me. He seemed to be willing to potentially allow hundreds of innocents to be killed as long as he could stand on his high moral soap box preaching against killing.

Spider-Man wouldn't kill Carnage .... but he ATE Morlun.

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
No.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Spider-Man wouldn't kill Carnage .... but he ATE Morlun.

murder and cannibalization are not moral equivalents.

I actually applaud such logic because it speaks to the ideal, which is (again, ideally) what a hero represents....the most desirable action in a situation.

Yet if forced into a similar situation, my guess is that I'd be more than ok with killing.

So it's a double-edged sword. I see it as moral while simultaneously not agreeing with his decision. That requires a more comprehensive spectrum approach to morality, not a black and white yes/no answer. There are varying grades of morality. Spidey was moral, imo, but not as moral as he could have been.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Spider-Man wouldn't kill Carnage .... but he ATE Morlun.

You have the dilema of characters like Black Adam/Victor Von Doom.

If killing Black Adam/Victor Von Doom is the best thing thing to do since they're murderers. Then you affect the lives of citizens from their nations.

You also have the dilema on what is consider a villain or a threat.

Many Anti-mutant groups perceive all mutants as threats. So by all means killing The X-men would seem justified.

It's a tangle debate. Leave it as it is....

Regardless of the subjective nature of something like 'morality,' you cannot hold the superheroes any more responsible than the judge for not issuing capital punishment.

Actually, one would have to hold Superheroes LESS responsible.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You have the dilema of characters like Black Adam/Victor Von Doom.

If killing Black Adam/Victor Von Doom is the best thing thing to do since they're murderers. Then you affect the lives of citizens from their nations.

You also have the dilema on what is consider a villain or a threat.

Many Anti-mutant groups perceive all mutants as threats. So by all means killing The X-men would seem justified.

It's a tangle debate. Leave it as it is.... Punisher is awesome

Originally posted by llagrok
Actually, one would have to hold Superheroes LESS responsible. Not really. Judges have to operate by the laws of a country, Superheroes already chose to disregard at least parts of it.

Originally posted by Soljer
Regardless of the subjective nature of something like 'morality,' you cannot hold the superheroes any more responsible than the judge for not issuing capital punishment. but there are lots of places where capital punishment is not even allowed...so judges wouldn't even have that option

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Judges have to operate by the laws of a country, Superheroes already chose to disregard at least parts of it.

Exactly.

Originally posted by llagrok
Exactly.

...


Did I just convince you that you were wrong or did you misunderstand what I said?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Punisher is awesome

No

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No He is too, man. You read the Ennis stuff?

Originally posted by Bardock42
He is too, man. You read the Ennis stuff?

Ever since the death of Microchip the Punisher went down the hill for me.

Then again, it was a good thing since the character was too much adapted to image of Alfred Pennyworth.

This thread's been done before:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=468429&pagenumber=1
You even posted in it:
Originally posted by Starscream M
had batman killed joker or Spiderman killed carnage....thousands of innocents would have lived

i guess to me, innocent lives are worth more than the rehabilitation of a serial murderer...but that's just me

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's kinda that Batman/Joker thing Batman ponders in every second issue. I'd say no though. Now, the government for not executing psychotic mass murderers, that's another question.

No GDFers allowed! durhulk

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
No GDFers allowed! durhulk I'm not a GDFer. I'm one of you. I swear.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Judges have to operate by the laws of a country, Superheroes already chose to disregard at least parts of it.

Unless they register with SHIELD.

"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."

No heroes aren't responsible for the villains they let live. 95 percent of heroes are doing there thing voluntarily, so they're not obligated to do anything other than watch out for civilians.

Originally posted by Starscream M
You know the drill:

Villain hurts innocents...superheroes comes in to save the day...they fight...both give longwinded speeches throughout their fight...villain loses and is sent to some prison where he is undoutdely able to escape and wreak havoc another day

superheroes (exceptions exist such as Frank Castle) generally have misgivings about killing, so in effect, they 'allow' villains to commit further crimes.

So, my question is, should they be held responsible for much of the killing committed by villains who otherwise could've been terminated previously?

Some villains like Carnage and the Joker should be executed by the government, or find a better jail, in question to Carnage, you could always kill the symbiote, there are no laws on killing alien life....but villains not on a such a high scale should be allowed to live.

Heroes do a job without them the Villains would never be stopped (temporally of course) and would kill far more people etc.

in the case of carnage the smart-ass reed can seperate them launch the damned symbiot into the sun and put that skinny bastard into a jail cell with someone like Hyde. he deserves death only after a decent amount of time as a prison B*tch.

heroes shouldnt be held responsible unless its some sort of superfight like doomsday VS superman where a whole city comes down. and even then it would have to be a issue of excessive force. but most times excessive force is either something done by rookies or those who dont give a damn in the first place and fall into the gray-ish area and arnt considered heroes so i guess this convo dont apply to them.

seriously the system just needs a update. hell if just going over the basics.. something.. ya know not over the top like prison planets and negative zone jails.

Originally posted by darthgoober
they're not obligated to do anything other than watch out for civilians.
Are they even obligated to that?

Originally posted by SevenShackles
heroes shouldnt be held responsible unless its some sort of superfight like doomsday VS superman where a whole city comes down.
Terrible example . . .
Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
Are they even obligated to that?
Not to the level they typically do.

Okay, let's say Badguy breaks into your house at night. He wakes you up, and you immediately go for your Sig Sauer. You catch him from behind, have your gun trained on him and have two options; shoot him in the head, or try to get him to surrender.

Let's say you go for the latter, have him surrender, call the cops, testify in trial.

But...what?! He gets off! The police forgot to read him his Miranda rights, and he goes off scott free to break into another house, rob, rape and/or murder another family.

Is it your fault for not shooting him in the head? .

Originally posted by Soljer
Okay, let's say Badguy breaks into your house at night. He wakes you up, and you immediately go for your Sig Sauer. You catch him from behind, have your gun trained on him and have two options; shoot him in the head, or try to get him to surrender.

Let's say you go for the latter, have him surrender, call the cops, testify in trial.

But...what?! He gets off! The police forgot to read him his Miranda rights, and he goes off scott free to break into another house, rob, rape and/or murder another family.

Is it your fault for not shooting him in the head? .

No it's all his fault

...

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s132/Erik_Magnus_Lensherr/th_KillorNot.jpg http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s132/Erik_Magnus_Lensherr/th_KilorNot1.jpg

No. They did their job, they transfer any responsibility for the criminal's actions, legally and literally, to the justice system when they turn them in.

Now, if they punish them and then let them go, that's their fault.

Me, I say kill 'em all, the world's overpopulated anyways.

Originally posted by Soljer
Okay, let's say Badguy breaks into your house at night. He wakes you up, and you immediately go for your Sig Sauer. You catch him from behind, have your gun trained on him and have two options; shoot him in the head, or try to get him to surrender.

Let's say you go for the latter, have him surrender, call the cops, testify in trial.

But...what?! He gets off! The police forgot to read him his Miranda rights, and he goes off scott free to break into another house, rob, rape and/or murder another family.

Is it your fault for not shooting him in the head? . in this example, the answer is no

that's because 1) he's a first time offender, at least as far as you know
2) all he did so far was breaking into your house

I don't think that applies to mass murderers like Carnage

The Punisher is the man yes...his method solves this problem. Villians are put through a revolving door system, there is usually only one door when u face Frank, and ur not coming back.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Judges have to operate by the laws of a country, Superheroes already chose to disregard at least parts of it. So therefore superheroes are equally as responsible for not killing as judges?

Because a person chooses to apprehend a criminal is no reason to assume he should decide the criminal's life.

Is every cop that's ever arrested a criminal, or retired from crime fighting, a potential mass murderer?

Especially those cops that aren't being paid and sworn to the line of duty, and are only volunteering to put on a spandex outfit because they can lift a semi.

Realistically, if you remove the inevitability of a villain's escape, this question is ridiculous, because applying real world logic (which is the mindset our heroes are supposed to adopt), there's no reason to assume their escape.

And, if you're going to say kill them because they're obviously just going to escape.... if they're popular enough to be written out of jail, they'll easily be popular enough to be written out of death. Making the superheroes nigh useless.

We can't judge Superman because comics need recurring villains.

They don't need recurring villains.

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too hard to get a law passed to have super villains executed in the Marvel or DC universe. I mean, given the huge body counts they have, public opinion would have to be for it. So no, heroes are not responsible for other deaths.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Ever since the death of Microchip the Punisher went down the hill for me.


What with the MAX comics

wow thats like the first story and it went downhill for you..