No seriously. Other people have asked as well. Batman has no problem hurting his enemies.
"If an enemy insists on war, you take away their ability to wage it"-Chozen Toguchi
No seriously. Other people have asked as well. Batman has no problem hurting his enemies.
"If an enemy insists on war, you take away their ability to wage it"-Chozen Toguchi
Thank you Captain Obvious :)
UnO ReVeRsE cArD
It's a good question actually. The best I can surmise that Batman has rules against permanently crippling his foes in addition to the "No Killing" rule. There's also been timelines where Joker was crippled, only to become more dangerous than ever.
Real answer: Because then the Joker couldn’t show up as much and DC couldn’t milk him for as much as they could get away with.
In universe answer: Batman is opposed to crippling, torturing, killing, and using guns. He feels that crippling and torturing are just as sadistic and evil as murder, seeing as they make the victim want to die.
That's kinda hypocritical because he has no problem with beating criminals to make them talk or breaking bones or leaving them unconscious, etc.
He doesn’t best criminals to a point where they’re permanently injured.
I don't think he'd always be opposed to it, but circumstances don't always go his way. In A Death in the Family he chose not to save Joker from a helicopter crash, but Joker ended up surviving (although seriously injured). At the end of No Man's Land he wouldn't have stopped Jim from killing Joker, who only shot Joker in the kneecap to cripple him. This crippling was supposed to have been a big deal, but right after No Man's Land Joker appeared in the Superman books and was perfectly fine.
What do you think?