This message has been deleted.

When you are making a movie about calling Superman's actions into question it is the perfect time to have the audience see an ambiguous scene like this to set that tone. Why? Because it establishes a connection that the fans don't even realize they are making and leads to discussion like so. That's exactly what the filmmakers want, for us, as an audience, to discuss Superman's actions and decide for ourselves whether or not his actions were deplorable or heroic.
Since most people don't understand it this way and cannot figure out context and realize, "Well maybe Superman didn't kill that guy since he's adamant about not killing and harming others throughout the rest of the movie.", they just immediately jump to "He killed that guy!". Which is ok, but those of us that actually understand what they were going for, we know he didn't kill him and that's ok too.
It's making the audience actively participate instead of just giving them the answers to every single question the movie raises. What fun is there in doing that? What's left for us to discuss if they show the terrorist is alive at that point? It's forward thinking, it is very smart filmmaking and only an idiot would think that leaving something like that ambiguous is not a good thing in this case. Not talking about you Watchmen19, by the way.
I guess most people would rather see a woman throw a man that is ready to explode into a building and nothing of consequence becomes of it for her other than a few scenes where she looks sad for doing it, and funny scenes where she's inside of a house with an AI android guy cooking?
Crash The Mode!
http://tinyurl.com/zgenmpt

His surviving is within the realm of possibility when considered with the rest of the film, but I don't like that there is any room for doubt one way or the other. I don't like the ambiguity of this scene. I don't care if it was intentional or not. It would be very easy to definitively show on screen if he survived or not.

But that's a good thing, right? Terrorists should be killed.

They were talking about all the soldiers killed w/"heat vision" trying to frame supermans, he said "I didn't kill those men"
The guy he put through several walls? That guys dead beyond all doubt.

Thanks to Batmeh v Supermeh Yawn of Justice, the "S" now stands for Sidekick

Funny how he says to Lois that he did not kill anyone there.
Wasn't she with him and watched him push the terrorist?
I'm I missing something or was this written by a drunk?

What evidence do you have of what speed he was doing when he apprehends the terrorist? Speed and surprise were of the essence so I am assuming that Superman is going to accelerate as fast as possible to avoid giving the terrorist the chance to react. We see how quickly it takes Superman to break the sound barrier and unlike with the solider Superman is not actively trying to save the terrorist.
Still I could be wrong because I am applying real physics to a fantasy film and one that does not attempt to stick to real physics (not like it should have too either).
There's no evidence of his speed needed.
The physics of Superman flying into people at breakneck speeds and bringing them to a complete stop are completely unrealistic. If Lois falls from a building and continues to build momentum and Superman brings her to an abrupt stop by "Saving" her it'd be just the same as letting her hit the pavement.
Factor in the times that Superman flies at superspeeds to save them in the nick of time and it'd be even worse than hitting them at superspeed. Perfect example of this is when Superman flies 50 ft in about 1 second to save that military guy that falls from the helicopter in MoS. He'd have died from that.
BvS never tells us whether the terrorist is dead or alive, but as seen in MoS, we can't really take real world physics seriously in a Superman movie. So given Superman's nature, and the fact that he takes no pleasure in killing people (to anyone that is being reasonable about MoS), it's clear that he simply scooped up the terrorist absorbing all the impact of the walls as he flew through them.
I do however, think it wouldn't been nice for Zack to show us what Superman does to the terrorist. Taking a terrorist up into the sky and talking to him like a child about wrong vs. right in a playful way would've been a perfect Superman moment.
Make up your OWN mind. Don't be a follower.
I didn't quite nail it - Christian Bale

Even if Superman was going like 50mph, that'd still be faster than the terrorist could react to at that close distance. Bottom line is that you have to assume that Superman has enough control over his powers that he could "hit"/apprehend/grab people at high speeds without killing them. We see him doing as much in MoS, and he supposedly has more control over his powers by the time BvS rolls around. And when watched at a slower speed, we can see that the terrorist is parallel with him after he picks him up, meaning that he didn't "tackle" him through the wall, but rather scooped him up and punched his way out. In a movie about superheroes, I don't see this as a problem.
Plus, both Lois and his mom make a point that Superman doesn't just go around killing people. If his mom and his girlfriend don't know his heart and his abilities, then no one does.
Even the most "realistic" superhero movies (TDK Trilogy) feature OUTLANDISH physics. But you still gotta roll with it. All that said, I wish that scene were handled differently.
| The
Five-Star
Man || The
Golden
God |

It is not a question of if they should be killed or not in this situation it is people still dumb enough to think that you can put people through walls and they live.
going AT LEAST 70mph. And the soldier is fine. Not even dizzy. He's going slower than that when he apprehends the terrorist
What evidence do you have of what speed he was doing when he apprehends the terrorist? Speed and surprise were of the essence so I am assuming that Superman is going to accelerate as fast as possible to avoid giving the terrorist the chance to react. We see how quickly it takes Superman to break the sound barrier and unlike with the solider Superman is not actively trying to save the terrorist.
Still I could be wrong because I am applying real physics to a fantasy film and one that does not attempt to stick to real physics (not like it should have too either).
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock

A real film doesn't need dialogue to assure audiences of anything
That is why dawn of justice failsit's a beep lazy mess without plot

so is your wife cause shes sleeping with me

And he is also a liar.
You're more advanced than a cockroach, ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?

Yes, because the point that Superman is NOT a killer is reiterated several times in the movie (especially by the people closest to him). In MoS, we see Superman hitting a soldier (who is falling out of a helicopter) going AT LEAST 70mph. And the soldier is fine. Not even dizzy. He's going slower than that when he apprehends the terrorist. Plus, this is 2 year later, so he has even more mastery of his powers than he did back then.
Do I wish that scene were handled differently in general? I do. But the movie also plainly tells us that Superman doesn't going around killing humans without a second thought. So I suspend my disbelief and say that Superman quickly apprehended him, because that's the canon answer.
| The
Five-Star
Man || The
Golden
God |

But ofcourse he killed him. He smashed him to a pulp
You're more advanced than a cockroach, ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?