> Okay, first thing. I don't think Leslie Thompkins *should* have killed Stephanie "Robin IV" Brown as some sort of warped point to Bruce about the dangers of costumed vigilantes.
> I think she should have done it and NOT have it retconned away. I think this should be a VERY painful thing for Bruce, Tim, Alfred, Dick, Barbara and pretty much everyone in the Bat-family who knew, respected and trusted.
> Tim, most of all, should say things like "I want to wave a magic wand so this never happened... but I can't."
> Basically, Leslie killing Stephanie through deliberate lack of treatment is a bad thing. And bad things happen. And, time travel and Infinite Crisis notwithstanding, they can't un-happen. Leslie killing Stephanie should stay one of those things *because* of the rage it caused us all as fans.
> They can really go somewhere with this, especially in Robin's book. What if Leslie is captured or turns herself in? How will the Bat-family react to that? How will Stephanie's father, the Cluemaster, react to that? I'm pretty sure I know how the Joker will react: "How DARE someone else kill Robin? *I* kill Robin! IT'S MY THING!!!"
I think a better more important issue should have been Batman figuring out that he has become unstable. Seriously, what kind of person is Batman when he keeps putting kids without any training in dangerous situations? Instead of facing up to this issue DC pulls a page out of Women in Refrigerator Syndrome and passes the buck to Leslie Thompkins. They also retcon Robin 2's death so that now Batman is free of blame as well.
On the other hand to be fair DC has had a big problem with sidekicks and Batman since day one because if Bob Kane had had his way Robin would never have been created and Batman would never ever have had a partner. This issue over the years has caused big problems. It is like there are two kinds of Batman, one with a partner and one without a partner and DC has been struggling to keep the two separate Bats as one entity which unfortunately has never really worked. Usually the results of such a fusion always end badly. Such as DC getting upset at Batman spending too much time with his partner so they then decide to kill off Batman's partner. Either that or have Batman almost never really need a partner and usually function better without a partner.
I really do not see there having been any logical reason for killing Robin 2 and Stephanie Brown if it in the end their deaths did not really affect Batman. Seriously, why introduce characters just to kill them off with meaningless deaths?
> I think a better more important issue should have been Batman figuring out that he has become unstable. Seriously, what kind of person is Batman when he keeps putting kids without any training in dangerous situations? Instead of facing up to this issue DC pulls a page out of Women in Refrigerator Syndrome and passes the buck to Leslie Thompkins. They also retcon Robin 2's death so that now Batman is free of blame as well.
I honestly don't see how people keeping wanting to put the culpability for Stephanie's death on Batman. He had tried to get her off of the streets, on numerous occasions. There was an entire issue of Gotham Knights where he is proving to her that she isn't cut out for the game and that she should hang it up. The entire point of making her Robin was to try to give her some form of training that would hopefully keep her alive. When he saw that it wasn't working, he fired her and once again told her to stay off of the streets. Time and Time again he tried to get her to give up the game. He did not put Stephanie in the position that got her killed. He did everything in his power to prevent it. Steph simply refused to listen to reason from anyone.
And, I don't see how Steph's death could have served as a wake-up call. It validated everything he had predicted about her. Even poorly implemented, it validated the effectiveness of his War Game Protocol. Basically, War Games was 18+ issues of: Gosh, you were right all this time Batman. That's not going to wake anyone up.