InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "blondes are so under rated"

jillyam (wordswordswords) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-07 21:54:00

Entry tags:

char: batman/bruce wayne, creator: greg rucka, publisher: dc comics, title: gotham central

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

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	daningram 2009-10-08 05:03 pm UTC (link)
	So Romy got lucky. She was able to what she wanted, legally and morally. As opposed to Batman, who breaks the law on a regular basis. Takahata may have displayed common sense, but he was also intimidated by a criminal, something that should never be allowed to stand. Batman didn't cross the line, he jumped over it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

runespoor7
2009-10-08 05:28 pm UTC (link)

She was able to what she wanted, legally and morally.

You're going to have to explain to me how what she's doing is justifiable from either a legal or moral perspective, because I'm not seeing it. I see that she shot him because she doesn't like him, and if he weren't Batman, this might go not very differently for her than it went for Cris when he was accused of killing a perp, or Renee in a situation not altogether different.

She lets herself be riled up by 'a criminal', but that is okay?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-10-08 05:40 pm UTC (link)

So she gets angry with Penguin's comments. Last time I checked, emotions weren't illegal.

It's simple. Batman was illegally assaulting Penguin. Regardless of Penguin's current legal status, that isn't something he has a right to do. Even if Penguin is a child rapist, Batman has no right to attack him and Romy is required to defend him.

He refused an order from the police. He didn't move when ordered as legally required and kept his hands consealed. The order 'Hands up' or 'Where we can see them' is given for a reason. If you reach for something the police cannot see, they are legally allowed to shoot. And it really ought to be common knowledge that Batman carries an arsenal of weapons, even if they don't know what they are exact.

In alot of ways, the belt makes things worse. She knows that he has weapons, but not what those weapons are. A known 'unknown' that puts her in fear for her safety.

Lastly and most important, he's *Batman*. How dangerous he is should be common knowledge by now. Had it been say, Killer Croc, should she have waited untol 300 pounds of muscle was bearing down on her? Or when he's made it clear that he won't come peacefully, take the only advantage she's got?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

runespoor7
2009-10-08 05:50 pm UTC (link)

So she gets angry with Penguin's comments. Last time I checked, emotions weren't illegal.

Actually, I was referring to Batman.

In our world, your argument is entirely sensible. However, the GCPD makes uses of Batman's services in this very arc and in much the same way as Batman is doing here, so I think it's a little disingenuous.

Batman doesn't use weapons against good police, Batman doesn't fight good police, and the MCU knows that perfectly well.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

daningram
2009-10-08 05:57 pm UTC (link)

Batman defied her orders. There is no excuse for that, especially in a situation like the one he was in. He helps them at their pleasure, not the reverse.

And really, past history isn't supposed to factor in. If you're breaking the law, the cops won't let it slide because of past behavior. And given the shit that went down with War Games, because of Batman, I can't blame them (and they have a grudge to hold against Batman, because even if they didn't know it was his plan, they did follow a later plan of his and it blew up in their faces).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

runespoor7
2009-10-08 06:04 pm UTC (link)

Well, there are plenty of excuses, but only psychological. There's no doubt in my mind that he was wrong to do so. She was even less right to shoot him, though.

Maybe it's not supposed to, but Gotham Central is the closest thing Gotham has to the real world, so it does matter.

I agree entirely that cops have a right to their grudge against Batman, but having a grudge against someone doesn't justify shooting them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

autumn_lily
2009-10-08 08:52 pm UTC (link)

If they know that he carries an arsenal and that he's very well trained in hand to hand combat, wouldn't they also know something about his M.O.? Batman doesn't kill cops. She should know this. Also, a police officer is only authorized deadly force if their lives or the lives of others are in life threatening danger. She could also have used her taser or her mace / PAVA spray, not to mention the baton instead of her firearm. And Batman was beating him up, not stabbing him. People get into fights and cut each other up with broken beer bottles and I can tell you that they don't let officers just put handcuffs on them because the officer told them, they resist arrest too, and they are also armed. Despite this a cop still is not authorized use of deadly force, they have other ways of taking these people down that don't involve killing them.
So yeah, Batman was being a dick, no argument, but she was in the wrong on a legal stand point. Considering she shot him and he still popped her in the nose and took her gun? That doesn't speak well about her OR him really...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-10-08 09:08 pm UTC (link)
	Again, beat cops have those, Detectives don't. And the average drunk bum is being handled by several cops, not just one. As for knowing Batman doesn't kill, that still doesn't mean she can let him get away with assault, flee the scene or resist arrest. Shooting him wasn't a perfect solution, but he did resist. And it's not like she planned the confrontation. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	autumn_lily 2009-10-08 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	Detectives are authorized, at least where I'm from. And detectives are issued radios, why did she never call for back up? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daningram 2009-10-08 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	They're authorized, but how many do? Especially in comic books? As for not calling for back-up, she does get a chance to do so. You really think Batman would have waited? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	autumn_lily 2009-10-08 09:24 pm UTC (link)
	But she's a COP and Batman is a VIGILANTE. He is not legally bound by anything. SHE is. Had she actually killed him, she would have been in trouble. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mooppoom
2009-10-09 02:29 am UTC (link)

Batman IS legally bound by the law. He just chooses to ignore it. There is a difference, and that difference means it is occasionally perfectly justifiable for someone to shoot you in order to stop your assault on another person.

Let's put it another way. If Batman was crouching over a sobbing, terrified woman who he had clearly beaten, saying he wasn't going to stop beating her, would ROmy have been in the right to shoot him? Hell yes. That doesn't change. He was assaulting someone in an illegal manner. He refused to stop. He gets shot.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

autumn_lily
2009-10-09 05:25 am UTC (link)

Going with your analogy, let's say instead of Penguin it is a sobbing woman. But now let's say instead of Batman it's her husband. Cops don't shoot people when they beat up their wives (no matter how much they'd like to). And he didn't refuse to stop, he refused to put his hands up. He's essentially resisting arrest. You notice he DOES stop beating up Penguin, even if just to pay attention to the gun. She doesn't give ample verbal warning before shooting, which cops are required to do. I'm not saying Batman was right, I'm saying both parties are wrong and that this is probably not the best example of good law enforcement or being a 'hero'.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mooppoom
2009-10-09 07:18 am UTC (link)

Cops aren't required to issue a warning. They are allowed to use deadly force when they know innocent bystanders won't be harmed and when they believe delay will cause serious injury or death to other people. For example: when the wanted criminal who routinely kidnaps and tortures people is beating your face in while sitting in top of you and refuses to freeze or put his hands over his head.

Honestly, I think I may be arguing her side too much out of obstinancy. I think it's clear that she let her overall mental state influence her decision. Still, her side is technically legal. His is not; not the break in, not the assault/torture of a suspect, not the assault on a police officer, not taking her gun. None of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -