Does Captain America kill?

I really don't know about that, I know that he had a no kill rule in the silver an bronze ages but does current cap kill? I remember a Cap story by Brubaker(IIRC) that Cap nonchalantly lets a mook fall of a building during a fight, I don't know if it's my terrible memory but I think that's what happened.

So, does he kill or not?

He should, he's a soldier, that's what he's been asked to do, kill the enemy on the other side. I could understand him maybe not killing civilians or non combatants, but the targets he's order to take out definitely.

Yes, except when he doesn't.

For a while, he had a very strict "no-killing" rule that caused him to angst any time someone died, even though he'd previously been shown to kill without losing any sleep over it. Generally, he tries not to kill, but doesn't feel too bad when a bad guy dies.

He kills like 20 Nazis in his first issue alone...

As has been said already, he's a soldier, so while he might be reluctant to kill, refusing to do so is just silly.

I was under the impression that he killed normally during the war, but he tries really hard not to kill when fighting crime today.

I've always figured Cap was one of those honorable soldiers who felt that causing the death of anyone was not something to be enjoyed or advocated, but if in the situation he was forced to do so he wouldn't hesitate.

Sort of the "I truly regret that it came to this, but I feel no remorse over having to do it" bit.

edited 31st Mar '12 3:29:35 PM by KnownUnknown

Yes, obviously he's not blood thirsty or killcrazy or anything, but I think it's pretty much accepted that he will kill if absolutely necessary. As to whether or not he loses sleep over it, I would expect that he does. A lot of real soldiers lose sleep over it. While I doubt it would keep him from "doing his duty," I would expect it troubles him as much as it has troubled a great many soldiers.

^^

I see him the same way. He doesn't like it and probably fights to disable them first, but he does what's necessary to dissolve the situation as quickly as possible, with the least amount of victims.

An attitude I would like to see in more heroes, really. I find the aggressive pacifism a lot of heroes display a little annoying at times.

I usually agree, but Spider-Man's current "No one dies" philosophy is probably the best mindset I have ever seen him in.

I'm fine with pacifism, but if one is going to be an effective pacifist, one should probably not have an occupation that calls for frequent violent confrontation. I respect the resolution on the part of many super-heroes not to kill, but the way this is portrayed is often as a mindless adherence to an arbitrary code. Like the writers themselves don't really understand why the hero doesn't kill, only that it's part of their character that they don't. Some insight would really be appreciated.

In the case of vigilantes like Batman or Spider-Man, I expect the major rationale is that, as vigilantes, they don't have the right to decide if someone should die - that's a matter for the justice system to determine. If you regard yourself as an unlicensed auxiliary to the police force, extrajudicial execution isn't something you're going to find acceptable. Cap's a soldier, not law enforcement, so it's different for him.

For Batman and Superman, my sense is that it's based on the belief that if they cross that line and kill even once, they'll be willing to find rationales for killing in other situations, and they'd become too dangerous - in Superman's case because of his sheer power, in Batman's because of his degree of mental/emotional instability. This rationale doesn't seem to be as big a one for Spider-Man, at least from my point of view, because he doesn't seem like someone who could be as dangerous if he got out of control or stopped having limits.

The pacifism is fine if it works decently well enough for the hero in question.

Spider-Man, Batman and Superman, for example, all have their disdain for killing well explained, decently sustained, and so in character that it's really no problem that they don't kill their enemies - they have very understandable personal reasons for not doing so.

I doubt it. He's a decent guy, but doesn't strike me as the type who could tell a good joke at the dinner table, much less the upcoming Roast of Tony Stark.

He can occasionally snark pretty well, actually. He doesn't do it often. But he can do it.

The best example of Cap's "kill policy" is the Stern/Byrne issue where he kills the vampire Baron Blood in the heat of battle, then goes off to be by himself, clearly shaken and disgusted with what he had to do. Steve Rogers only kills when absolutely necessary, and never enjoys the act.

This is an ideal medium between Spider-Man's recent "Nobody Dies" childish absolutism and Wolverine's often reprehensible blood thirst.

I wouldn't call Spider-man's motto childish by any means. It's more Determinator than anything else. He works DAMN hard to ensure nobody dies, and so far he's succeeded since he started with it.

I was fine with Spider-Man's mentality before he made the big deal about how "Nobody Dies" in recent issues, as though his new motto was a revolutionary new development for him. So what, Peter, you were letting people die left and right before? What facilitates your new rule, other than having more toyetic plot armor at your disposal? Does "nobody dies" refer only to people within your immediate proximity, or is it anyone on this planet (or any other, for that matter)? And are you looking at it simply from a reactionary standpoint, or are you putting it in larger utilitarian terms (i.e. "if I devoted myself to medical research, I could keep more people from dying than I could as Spider-Man")?

Since the Nobody Dies statement is being presented as something newer and better, it opens itself up to this level of scrutiny.

it's clearly meant to mean Spider-man won't let anyone die directly or indirectly because of him. He took ti up after Jonah's wife was killed by someone who's life goal was stopping Spidey. He obviously didn't mean he was gonna save everyone ever because he's spider-man.

I mean yeah he was basically doing the same thing before but refusing to kill people is hardly childish. And honestly it's not a huge thing, I completely forgot about it until Johnny Storm almost killed a space station full of people.

edited 7th Apr '12 9:46:59 PM by OdieEsty

The problem is that issue actually largely contradicts previous characterization from Cap. He'd been directly responsible before for people dying, and didn't react at all. Byrne decided to make him ludicrously opposed to killing, to the point where, when he was forced to kill, he angsted about it for a while after.

Cap always tried to avoid killing, but when the chips were down, he'd kill when he had no alternative, and he wouldn't feel particularly bad about it. Until Byrne made him fundamentally opposed to killing ever in a cheesy manner.

Not saying Byrne's run was bad, only that that particular aspect of it was silly.

It actually makes perfect sense that Spidey doesn't kill. After all, he's a civilian - he has no authority to take a life, and if he did, that would make him a murdered.

Cap, on the other hand, is a soldier. Killing people is part of his job description.

-*chuckle*

• Griff: 'What, you think that just because you're a soldier, you're allowed to kill people?'

• Massey: "Well, it does make the work go faster..."

edited 8th Apr '12 4:55:41 PM by TeChameleon

It would only make him a murderer if he he killed someone under circumstances in which it wasn't self defense, or in the defense of others (though I admit, I'm unsure of what the law is in New York in regards to under what circumstances a citizen may use deadly force). And, if you want to bring the legal system into it, if he was found guilty of such by a jury of his peers. In this you're going to see the disparity between what's perceived as murder and what is legally defined as murder. There are folks out there who think killing anyone, for any reason, is murder, regardless of circumsances. The law doesn't see things things this way, of course...

Even though Cap's a soldier, whether or not his choice to use legal force would constitute murder or not would depend on the circumstance, and his orders, yes? Does anyone know if Cap has a "license to kill" ala James Bond, where he can use his own discretion?

If Cap's operating as a SHIELD agent, on a mission, I would think he's authorized to use deadly force. If, on the other hand, he's operating independently as a vigilante, I would think he'd be under the same restrictions as any other vigilante.

^^ By a court of law, but when it comes to individual morality, most people don't think that. The letter of the law is notable callous, because it has to be - it's the law.

What matters isn't what the law says is justifiable taking of life, what matters is what Peter Parker as a character designates as justifiable taking of life - it's perfectly in character for him to consider himself a murderer or blame himself for a death even if legally or even logically speaking it wasn't his fault or it had to happen. He's just not the kind of person to abide by himself being responsible for a death (extreme responsibility, as always, being a major defining trait: he feels that whatever happens when he's involved is in part his responsibility, so he feels responsible to make sure he uses his powers to ensure everyone's survival as apposed to letting someone die when he feels he could have stopped it).

I heard Ed Brubaker got rid of that "Cap didn't kill anyone during WWII" bit. That's good because you can't convince me that all he did in battle was clunk Nazis to sleep with his shield.

edited 4th Feb '14 10:20:20 PM by DS9guy