Oh, I won’t argue with your position. I was just saying that Batman, as currently written, doesn’t operate under the cover (or is it color?) of law. I agree that he shouldn’t capture the Joker and then kill him after he’s been rendered helpless; but I agree that in the scenario you’ve described he should kill the Joker, but not only would he refuse to but he would protect the Joker from a less-insane vigilante.
As far as guards, nurses and the like are concerned, I suspect they’d be more likely to be killed by the Joker rather than kill him. They’re not responsible because they’re not capable of keeping him locked up, let alone of killing the guy. Batman, OTOH, could do so. As could Superman et al, so they’re also partly responsible for the deaths he causes, but Batman is the one who’s specifically elected to be responsible for the guy.
Which he did at one time from the Punisher, ironically.
And Batman was deputized one time, so he’s an honorary cop, right? 
Or, mind-bogglingly, from the cops! I understand the marketing problem–no issues with that, but it’s a bad writer who sets up the situation where Bats takes down cops who are trying to fire in the line of duty (Greg Rucka and Ed Brubaker excepted as they’re the only ones who dealt with what the cops thought about Batman doing that).
Good samaritan laws merely state that you cannot be held liable when you try to aid someone who is injured or ill. They do not give you any authority to execute vigilante justice.
Mind you, I don’t deny that there are situations where a civilian might have to apply lethal force. Good samaritan laws have nothing to do with that, though. So while I agree that a hero might have to use lethal force on occasion, it’s not because of the aforementioned laws.
Would it be so hard to believe that part of Batman’s psychosis is that he cannot deliberately kill?
If you stipulate that he’s psychotic, that’s reasonable. I think he’s more of an asshole, though. Of, if you like, he has antisocial personality disorder.
Incorrect. Brother Eye was an observational tool. He never used it to sanction anyone. He never crossed the line in that situation either.
I believe Batman would kill in the defense of another if there were no other option and the danger was immediate, but the bottom line is that once he actually confronts the Joker and takes control of the situation, lethal force is no longer necessary to save lives because Batman captures him, every time, without further death. He’s good enough that he does not need to kill. Why should he take the easy way out?
Killing someone because of crimes they’re likely to commit in the vague future is a pretty slippery slope.
Speaking of Batman not killing, this really bugged me in the latest movie, where he wouldn’t even…
…allow The Joker to be killed in accordance with the Law of Gravity. Really? He has to go out of his way to prevent a psycho like him from dying? What will he do if the guy becomes suicidal? Give him one-on-one pep talks?
Re Batman not killing it wasn’t always that way.
That lasted maybe a half dozen appearances in Detective, and was much more low key on the page.
In real life, yes. In Batman’s world, experience should have shown him that a live Joker WILL kill innocents in the future.
So you’re simultaneously tying Batman’s world to our world by applying your precepts of justice to it, but distancing it when it’s convenient for your argument by arguing that future murders by the Joker are a plot inevitability.
It’s not Batman’s place to kill the Joker. A Batman who kills has substituted his idea of justice for the laws of the state.
His state’s laws are not working. And no, I am not tying his world to ours. You won’t convince me of your position because you’re not presenting any new facts, only rearranging old ones, so you may as well stop trying. I believe you’re incorrect and you disagree. Fine, I doubt either of us is going to convince the other, so we may as well stop trying.
Perhaps this should be another thread, but what was the deal with the archtype of the “two-fisted hero” (non-super) vigilante in the late '30s and early 40s? You had Batman, you had the Spirit, Green Hornet, you had any number of masked avengers. Why the idea that only an anonymous crime fighter coming and going in the shadows can take down gangs and the mob? You did have gang buster Dick Tracy, but even he was portrayed as fighting the fight personally, just with a army of cops he could call in for support when needed. Not to even mention all the private-eye noir. Did most people really feel that the police were mostly ineffective or corrupt? City “machine” politics used to be much more widespread; did people really feel that the cops and city hall were bought off by the crooks? I mean today street gangs, violence and drug dealing are serious problems but nowhere outside of comics do people feel the answer is a non-affiliated civilian wearing a mask.
I wonder: The whole point of the Two-Fisted Hero seems to be that he can find the bad guys behind the scene and deal with them. Somehow a guy who Knows The Streets can find out when that jewel heist is going down while the police don’t have a clue. Are undercover police “sting” operations a relatively new thing? Much crime drama today focuses on investigative detectives, and especially on undercover operatives. It’s noteworthy that the modern Batman seems to specialize in two areas: illegal surveillance and searches, and using violence or the threat thereof to squeeze informants.
I touched on this in a tangential fashion (see link below) this in a previous thread some time ago. To answer your question, the Zeitgeist of the 20’s 's & 30’s was very different than that of today. You had people losing heir homes to bankers and the sense was that corruption was rife throughout many US institutions.
Golden Age Superman terrorizes an innocent banker- Was Golden Age morality different? (warning this is not the ‘nice’ boy scout Supeman you’re used to)
Wait a minute, that sounds exactly like what’s going on today with the imploding housing market! 
Well… if history is going to repeat itself Superman and Batman are going to start getting a lot less forgiving with criminals.
So, what with all this talk about the potential numbers of people that could be killed if the Joker is allowed to live, I’m reminded of how the big plot of Kingdom Come begins:
[SPOILER]The Joker is arrested for murdering the entire staff of the Daily Planet (including Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane), a vigilante superhero kills the Joker in cold blood in front of untold numbers of witnesses on his way to trial, and is acquitted of the crime when he is brought to trial. Superman basically becomes so disgusted with what is essentially a publicly and judicially sanctioned miscarriage of justice that he gives all of humanity the collective finger and retires to his Fortress of Solitude for something like a decade.
Of course, IIRC, this comic also features the deaths of millions in the state of Kansas due to a nuclear explosion that is the result of a super fight gone out of hand.[/SPOILER]