The thing about Batman's no kill rule is objectively. It's an attractive idea.
There should not be a man who has the ability to decide who lives and dies.
The understanding that his no kill stems from him, never wanting another child to be in the same predicament he was in makes sense.
Except the no kill rule is not just for that reason time and time again it's shown the reason he has to have the rule is his lack of self-control.
Which in itself is extremely problematic. Murder is wrong, but the argument can be made that it can also be justifiable.
I don't actually want to debate what it says about Bruce Wayne as a person that he is unable to control himself in such a way. That right there says a hell of a lot.
I want to discuss the instances of him, forcing his own moral beliefs on other people.
I would have all the respect in the world for his rule if he did not then shove it down everyone else's throat.
The biggest time we always end up with this discussion is talking about the joker and realistically Batman does not have to kill joker. He just doesn't have to save him.
A part of the problematicness of Batman is every time he deliberately makes the decision to cater to the rogues in whatever form he is actively killing other people.
He's making a decision, always remember any action you take or don't take is still a decision.
I always see this pop up a little bit talking about Stephanie Brown's gang war, and logically everyone who died is her fault. Although for her specifically, I do wanna say Bruce as the actual bad guy of the story. He's the reason, but she still had a hand in it.
Even if you pull the trigger from 400 feet away or you give the command you're still at fault.
And every person joker kills after Bruce revives him is blood on his hands.
Even if you do not actively do it, your actions still effect the outcome. Bruce Wayne's hands are not clean just because he didn't wire the bomb.
Now I'm not gonna argue the crimes of who should be killed or who gets to live because to compare the joker or professor pig to a low level. Goon is a very unfair comparison.
This argument, though isn't just special to Batman there are many vigilantes or heroes where we end up in the same discussion. 
The no kill rule, is an extremely flawed ideology in a place where the justice system does not work. There are no actual ways to contain these people and nothing can ever get better. 
It boils down to Batman's rules actively hurt the population of Gotham and because he pretends he's not making a decision, the blood isn't on his hands.
If you are silent or even neutral, you're making a decision and I think that's why I have no respect for that ideology because truthfully, he is not saving the amount of people he could.
He doesn't have to personally kill people, but he can not make the lives miserable of everyone who does. 
Jason Todd actually does deserve some respect because he's making an active choice and has the self control to back it up.
I do have problems with Jason's actions, but I also have respect for some of them.
Let me make this very clear. I'm not arguing that Batman should break his rule I firmly believe if you're over the age of 18 and you want to kill a rogue Batman should mind his fucking business. I don't believe in indoctrinated children into killing but like if the child would just decide to kill someone like I mean sure, but if Jason Todd, or Helena decides to kill Joker or another fucking rogue, Bruce Wayne should go take a nap.
