I tend to side with the latter. Batman saw the rampant crime in Gotham, and he understood that no criminal would respond to anything other than violence. This is portrayed nicely by Lt. Hooks in the Police Academy movies. Her soft whispers never got any notice, but when she switched to bitch mode, people took notice. She wanted to do things nicely without violence, but every time it took violence to get things done. Was she right or wrong for resorting to violence? In essence, it helped to clean up the streets.

I submit that violence in and of itself is not wrong. It it the motives of the violent person and the end results that dictate whether it’s right or wrong. In the case of Batman, I think we can all agree that his violence was to make Gotham a safe place to live, therefore it was good. Hamlet, on the other hand, utilized violence to seek vengeance, which in normal societies is considered a selfish motive, thus wrong, even if the end results were good.

And as far as the citizens griping about the Watchmen, I say, “Why are you complaining?” Who cares what right they think they have if they’re taking it upon themselves to clean up the city’s crime. As long as they aren’t doing it for fame or fortune, both selfish goals, then I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, I know nothing about the Watchmen, so my impression is blinded by ignorance.

Violence is a part of Human nature. It cannot be stripped out. That is why it will never end. You can’t have the masses without the asses.