Being Batman

Being Batman
While not actually possible to be Batman, as he is a fictional character, the concept of being a vigilante is still ingrained in to the popular mind. While fun to fantasize about, few really consider taking on the mantle of a vigilante, fighting criminals at night and being a normal mild mannered person by day. There are a number of obstacles and


Feasibility and practical considerations
While Batman is particularly wealthy and that immense wealth is helpful to fighting bad guys, one doesn't actually need to be as rich as Batman to achieve their basic objectives of being a vigilante, if they're willing to make a few compromises and take a few liberties. While one would need to be in relatively good physical shape, have decent hand-to-hand combat skills in addition to being a good detective, you wouldn't have to be quite as good as Batman to get along functionally. For starters, becoming a private detective or bounty hunter (or both) could give you legal access to the activities without drawing unwanted scrutiny from the police or law enforcement, and give you money for being successful at what you do. The more bad guys you hunt down and stop, the more you get paid, if you arrange your activities appropriately, and thus money spent on crime-fighting is actually an investment in to your business. While not everything you would do would be on the books or legal, it would give you enough permission to be credibly involved in these activities without drawing undue scrutiny from police (why would an accountant for example be responsible for stopping so many crimes?). It would also give you the ability to hire employees, affording people to do run of the mill work like taking calls, providing medical treatment, and helping you do detective work and track down criminals. It would also give you a logical reason as to why you have the equipment you do, such as so many trackers, listening devices and so on in your possession (making appear like a private detective instead of like some kind of serial stalker to the police).

Secondly, with many employees and other workers, you'd be more likely to be able to take out many bad guys, having a small team of operatives to assist you if you need it (although those that directly support you would need to be in on the vigilante ism). On top of providing abilities like hacking, tracking, data mining and other skillsets that would require you to be a super genius to be able to do all as one person (Batman may be an expert hacker, code cracker, pilot, hand-to-hand combat expert, detective, inventor and every other expert under the sun, but hiring other people eliminates the need to be good at all things), you could also dole out menial jobs (such as tirelessly digging through mountains of paperwork or searching up people's records) to other individuals, saving you precious time that could be spent in the field. It would also give you the ability to collect bounties and wanted criminals and receive payouts for it, such as individuals on the FBI's most wanted list who's pay-outs can be in the millions of dollars. With multiple people, you not only can get more work done and provide new skillsets (even if you are decent in all of the areas yourself), but you also can more realistically take on multiple bad guys. Batman vs. 30 people is certainly an extreme test of skill, but 5 people vs. 30 people makes the odds much easier, and stacks them in your favor. Especially better if you outnumber you targets. This makes winning in battle much easier and more likely to occur. Like Seal Team 6 or police squads, operating in groups gives you a much higher chance of success than as one single individual. Granted you may end up taking certain cases by yourself due to the questionable legal nature of your activities.

As for fighting bad guys outright, this also wouldn't be particularly difficult. While you would need some skill and ability in combat, ambush tactics, such as getting the first attack off on the bad guys, normally should allow you to succeed the majority of the times without much of a fight being necessary. In self defense you normally are in a dynamic situation where the enemy is already prepared to fight you and likely even better prepared, and this makes your job much more challenging, but when you can choose your targets, such as with stealth and ambush tactics, it's much easier to win in a fight. Sucker punching someone, tazing them, or even shooting them at a distance with a sniper rifle (like a sniper), when they aren't even aware of your presence, let alone existence, is fairly easy to do and eliminates any chance for the enemy to fight back. It was Sun Tzu, in the art of war who is often quoted as saying that the best battle is the battle won, not the battle fought; essentially, what this means is that shooting your enemy before they can pick up a gun and shoot back, or sucker punching them as it may be, by sneaking up on them, is a superior way to win a battle than try to get in to a fight with someone and thus give them a chance to fight back. While you can't always rely on "getting the drop" on the bad guys at all times, it would certainly make the job of capturing or beating up criminals much easier when you can get the first punch, or attack off on the bad guys. It's much easier to shoot and kill an unsuspecting target, or incapacitate as the case with Batman is, than it is to attack someone who is in the state of fighting back. Strategies and tactics often times have a bigger determinant on success than raw firepower in many circumstances.

Of course, it's inevitable you will eventually get in to a fight with someone. Maybe the numbers are too large to avoid, the bad guys notice your sneak-attack attempt, you screw up the attack, or the bad guys simply get the drop on you first. In these cases, you will need to know how to fight and defend yourself. Luckily, the vast majority of criminals are not particularly well prepared for fighting. For some quick statistics, somewhere between 3-8% of violent criminals use a gun in the commission of their crime, meaning that the vast majority using their bare hands or a knife or baseball bat. Of those that use guns, between 70-95% use handguns, which is particularly true with gang violence. The second most commonly used gun is a shotgun. The benefit of this is that relatively basic body armor, such as kevlar, which police wear, is capable of stopping these weapons fairly effectively. While not all bullets and weapons are stopped by police or military grade body armor, notably rifle rounds, well over 99% of weapons used by criminals are. The vast majority of the time, the criminal likely won't even have a gun, and when they do it will be a gun that is easily stopped by cheap, commonly available body armor (ranging in the few hundred dollar range). This is rather convenient, as, if you were to armor your body from head to toe (like Batman does), you'd be virtually invincible to common threats. Rifle rounds, or particularly sharp knives and edged weapons, such as a crossbow, bow and arrow and swords would be able to pierce your armor, but as these weapons are not particularly commonly used. Crossbows and smaller, higher velocity bullets, with hardened steel tips, are actually more likely to penetrate kevlar than regular bullets, as kevlar is strong but soft, capable of absorbing lots of energy (such as from a baseball bat) but poor at absorbing cutting or stabbing attacks (such as with a knife). Where as Kevlar will stop your average pocket knife, something much larger and sharper, like a samurai knife, will get through more easily.

Luckily, armor that can stops blades, bows and arrows and other such weapons has been around for a long time, in the form of samurai or knight armor, chainmail, and other medieval armor like this. Steel plates, or even hardened plastic, like found in riot gear, is far better at stopping sharp instruments or blades, like knives and swords, and dissipating (although not absorbing) energy. The concept of the "Dark Knight" may be appropriate in these circumstances, as it could be beneficial to wear armor that it is similar to a medieval Knight or Samurai. Nonetheless, this armor should more or less be sufficient against most bladed weapons, blunt instruments, fists, and the majority of firearms used by criminals. The ability to take on multiple opponents will be enhanced by wearing body armor, as the damage you receive in return, even from gunshots, would be rather minimal. Other considerations would be to carry tazer guns and or tazer-knuckles, brass knuckles or sap gloves to enhance your punching power, pepper spray and tear gas, pepper spray and tear gas grenades, and other such weapons. A back-up gun, in case things get out of hand, is also a viable option if you're willing to kill some of the times (which as a private investigator or police officer, you would). Another question in it's own right, you'd have to ask the delicate question; to kill, or not to kill.


To kill or not to kill; that is the question
I believe it was Shakespeare that first aid "To Kill, or not to Kill, that, is the question." Well actually it was "To be or not to be", but the same concept applies. The greatest question and moral dilemma is, if you are willing to kill or not. While many would say that it's explicitly against Batman's ethos to kill and that he would never kill a criminal, this has not always been the case. Many iterations of Batman have him killing people, even if only rarely or when it's absolutely necessary. The original version of Batman in the 1930's certainly had him killing many people, but soon this was stopped because it became too easy to trace the evidence to him and he realized he was needlessly killing criminals for petty crimes (and also parents found the violence gratuitous and distasteful). The story his parents dying was effectively made to make him against the use of guns, but even so iterations show him shooting people with machine guns on an airplane, fighting against super powered aliens (whom he has to kill), and even in wars that invariably would have demanded he killed people. While it could be said that Batman has an aversion to killing and avoids it and only kills when absolutely necessary, some iterations take this more seriously than others. It could also be said that batman doesn't want to kill, but will when he has too.

Some versions of Batman have him never killing, while others have him almost killing people, and others have him "letting them die" instead of explicitly killing them. However, some still, such as in the newer versions, show a darker grittier version where he even flat out uses guns. While it varies considerably, it's not completely against the rules for Batman to kill, but normally he does not kill petty criminals, as the punishment would not fit the crime. Killing someone for shoplifting or jaywalking wouldn't necessarily seem moral, and thus killing is best left to situations where it's absolutely needed. Even if Batman didn't intend to kill anyone, after fighting thousands of criminals eventually some of them would die. Either by accidentally fall off of something, Batman hitting them too hard and them having some rare disease (like asthma or a heart condition), them dying of a heart attack, injuring themselves when trying to escape (I.E. like jumping off of a roof top), or even committing suicide to avoid his capture. Invariably, realistically, Batman will kill over time by his natural exposure to thousands of criminals, and his violent tactics. There are a percentage of people who die in football, boxing, and even basketball from injuries each year, so it's understandable that someone punching people hard enough to knock them unconscious would carry the risk of permanent brain damage or even death. All you need to look at is old boxers with head injuries to know the risk of repeatedly punching people in the head. Batman may not intend to kill, but inevitabley it's likely going to happen, whether out of sheer heat of the moment (drawing a gun in self defense if he sees no other way), or completely by accident when a person with a weak skull or bad heart or asthma gets punched instead. That's ignoring the potential complications from enhanced gloves, like with brass knuckles.

For realistic purposes, sometimes killing is the most practical option to go. It allows certain levels of training to carry over (such as those with guns or in the military) and gives the tactical flexibility needed to occasionally kill people when needed. It reminds criminals that you might kill them, enhancing the fear, and gives you the ability to take our certain criminals that the justice system might fail on, either be inadequacy or technicality. Certain mob bosses or leaders, mass murderers and the like could all be targets when they fight back and killing them becomes the only option necessary. Sometimes sniping someone from a distance or using a car bomb is the only realistic way to save lives, as if a cartel leader is allowed to fight back many innocent people could die. The opportunities may be scarce and, sometimes the most practical thing to do is kill people. For the average battle, it's not recommended for moral and practical reasons, as not all criminals deserve to die, and killing that many people is bound to leave behind evidence and attract the attention of law enforcement. Criminals might not report getting beaten up, but dead bodies leave behind evidence police have to investigate. You would want to avoid killing as often as possible to avoid the moral issues and becoming the enemy of the police, but simultaneously never killing can be just as bad. If you never kill people, than you may end up with situations like with the joker or other insane criminals who've killed hundreds of people continuing their actions. Sometimes, the more moral thing to do, is to kill, as you could save dozens of lives. While certainly not a fun topic to discuss, it is one that needs to be discussed at length to be considered.