Gotham Central: that one time when they shot Batman (whoops)

[wordswordswords.insanejournal.com]

If I recall correctly: when the Joker was sniping people in an earlier arc, he also kidnapped a female news anchor, tied her up, and hung her upside down with a camera pointing at her with a bomb nearby. Detective Nate Patton tried to disarm the bomb. Meanwhile, Batman showed up and managed to rescue the woman, but not the detective. The ensuing explosion put Patton in a coma, and eventually his family chose to pull the plug. Nate's partner was Romy. The police department took down the signal and then instructed the officers to treat him as a hostile.













Aaaaaand if it matters, Romy does get her gun back before she gets in trouble, thanks to some diplomatic work from Robin and Stacy the receptionist.

Comments

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

If the situation warrants physical force the gender of the person being hit should not matter.

[jeyl.insanejournal.com]

True, but still. She's a cop doing her Job. What was the point in taking the gun? If Batman is supposed to help and respect the authority, what the heck was he doing?!

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

I think he was making a point ('You can't use this responsibly then you can't have it'), which was kind of dickish, but significantly lower on the dick scale (lol) than can be expected from someone who was just shot (deserved or not, that may encourage pettiness in even the most reasonable individual).

[jeyl.insanejournal.com]

Shouldn't Batman know that if a cop loses his/her firearm that they can get into major trouble for that? Why would Batman put a cop in that position where she knows she won't get any justice for the assault and will have to pay for what Batman did to her by stealing her gun? What good will come out of that?

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

A police officer discharging his or her firearm under any circumstances is in for a major headache anyway (to say the least). Though as I said, he's probably doing it to be a pain and make a point. He likely isn't all that concerned that he's going to cause someone who just shot (at) him issues, he probably feels she deserves the stress. Bruce is just a person, he's not immune to fits of pique. It's mildly assholeish behavior, but doesn't necessarily make him an asshole. I'm not saying it was right (or even reasonable) to grab the gun, but I also don't think it even ranks in the list of 'Batman's big dick moves.'

[jeyl.insanejournal.com]

"Bruce is just a person"

Ya. Any person who assaults a police officer would normally be charged, but Bruce? No. He can just walk away in a disguise and make judgement calls towards people he's supposed to be helping. Cause in the end of the day, what force usually dies in the line duty to protect and serve? Cops. Can Batman say the same? No, so why should he be the one to judge?

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

Because he's a superhero in a comic book. I know that sounds like a cop out, but I have different expectations for my superheroes than I do real people. I would not tolerate a self appointed vigilante like Bats in the real world, but I accept certain genre conventions when I'm reading my funnybooks. One of those conventions is that individuals like Bruce who work outside of the law are typically hyper competent and generally good people, even when exhibiting human failings. That is why they are acceptable in comic land. We (general 'we') also accept that Batman WILL be judging criminals and other individuals alike, it's the same leeway we give Wonder Woman, Superman and the rest of their ilk when they lay down moral judgment on those they deem 'wrongdoers.'

Besides, we can't blame Bats for not dying in the line of duty like some police officers unfortunately do.

[jeyl.insanejournal.com]

"Because he's a superhero in a comic book. I know that sounds like a cop out, but I have different expectations for my superheroes than I do real people."

I'm confused now. You say you have different expectations for him because he's a superhero, but you also state that "Bruce is just a person, he's not immune to fits of pique.", which I would summarize as a statement that he's a real person. But now you're saying you don't put expectations like that on him because he's a super hero. Which is it?

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

It's both.

I have different expectations when it comes to his accepted place in the DCU and what he is and isn't held accountable for. He is a human character (meaning he has human failings) existing in a world constructed of genre conventions. We accept certain behaviors from superheroes (breaking and entering, assault, etc...) and still consider those characters heroic and in the 'right' because that's what superheroes do, they operate outside the law and beat up the 'bad guys.' All superheroes judge, and very few ever have to answer to any sort of authority for it. However the best superheroes have flaws and personality quirks (like Spidey's temper or Batman's paranoia) that still make them (fairly) easy to relate to. On a meta level we understand that it's okay for Superman to work outside the law and do things that may be considered illegal because we know he's a good person who (under normal circumstances) won't abuse his power.

I expect Batman to a human reaction to being shot, I don't necessarily expect him to suffer typical human consequences for his actions and reactions (such as as for punching a police officer in the nose). It's not necessarily a moral judgment in this case, I'm not it's okay because he's a superhero, I'm saying on a practical level he WON'T have real world consequences to deal with because he's not in the real world. If superheroes were always held accountable for all the assault, breaking and entering, trespassing and general mischief they do they'd spend all their time in and out of court/prison.

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

Typos, typos everywhere.