The Amazing Spider-Man Uncle Ben's Killer

[Anno_Domini]

Isn't that the point?

It would be effective when we didn't see Peter standing up to Flash so early on in the film. At least in the '02 film Peter only stood up to Flash when he had his powers and became careless. With TAS-M, it just becomes a contradiction.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

It's been quite a while since I read the original origin. After seeing it posted above, I do think people have been going overboard in regards to Petey in TASM being a total *****e. In the source material Peter is much more of a prick. Kudos for the scans. Now hopefully all these discussions about Petey being uncharacteristically *****ey and angry in TASM can finally stop.

 

[Picard Sisko]

It's been quite a while since I read the original origin. After seeing it posted above, I do think people have been going overboard in regards to Petey in TASM being a total *****e. In the source material Peter is much more of a prick. Kudos for the scans. Now hopefully all these discussions about Petey being uncharacteristically *****ey and angry in TASM can finally stop.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Why should he have gotten involved in either situations then? Why do you think Peter did the right thing in TASM and not in SM1? He had the power to stop him in both scenarios, and chose not to. That choice is what resulted in his Uncle's death, and Peter learning what it truly means to be responsible.

He moved out of the way and let the burglar use the lift and get away,he could have easily stopped him,the police was just behind him and could have arrested him straight away.He was irresponsible

In TASM,he hadnt tested his powers properly and probably doesnt know whether he will be able to stop a burglar,he still feels like a normal person.And a normal person is always advised to stay away from such situations,plus he was quite a distance away from the thief,as opposed to stepping away to let him take the lift

 

[Spiderdevil]

Rules are rules. If you don't meet your end of an agreement or contract the other side can pull out or decide not to meet their end. The promoter was being '*****ey' but he was also acting according to the wording in the agreement of the fight. I personally don't agree with the promoter's actions but Peter had no right to the money because he failed to meet the criteria.

No he wasnt,he was twisting the rules to not give the money
Award for 3 minutes means anything under 3
Saying that he knocked him out in 2 and hence doesnt deserve the money was being as bad as the thief
So when does a guy get the award? When he knocks him out in exactly 3 minutes and not 2 minutes 59 seconds?

On the contrary,I would feel nothing wrong if a guy denies me the 2 cents because its store policy,he is just an employ following orders.I would stop acting like jerk and buy something cheaper

Peter was acting like a '*****e' to a degree but that's also part of the guilt that he bears. He looks back on the situation and realizes he was being an irresponsible jerk and because he failed to act appropriately, his Uncle ends up dying.

As I said earlier,imo not chosing to get involved was not being irresponsible in that situation,its what a normal person would do
In SM1 he went out of his way to let him escape and that was being far more irresponsible

]How do you know the 'fat guy' is not the owner? And even if he's not, according to you it's ok for him to break the rules set by the owner because "he's just an employee?" That's terrible logic and I will never hire you to work for me.

When did he break any rules?
On the contrary he was following the store policy,If I was employed there,I would follow the policy of the store no matter how *****ey it sounds

The overall point is that Peter has a choice to stop a robbery. It doesn't matter the quantity the robber is taking, the point is, he's stealing. Peter fails to act and due to his irresponsibility, things go sour.

Thats fine but what about the fact that Uncle Ben acted stupidly and tried to wrestle a man,that was a stupid thing to do and he was responsible for his death

 

[Spiderdevil]

I agree with TDK elbowstrike for all of this. And Picard Sisko is right when he says using "2 cents" instead of $3,000 adds more meaning to the whole thing. It shows that it has nothing to do with the amount of money but the principal. I for one, would be more pissed if the shopkeeper did that to me, than if, after not doing his job properly during the wrestling match, he doesnt get paid the full amount.

On top of that, the original burglar had $3000+, Peter would have remedied the entire situation by stopping him, taking all the money and deciding what to do from there. He would have got his expensive car, with which to impress MJ with and lived happily ever after.

On the other hand, the new burglar gave him his milk and stole money that had nothing to do with Peter, so Pete had very little incentive to stop him.

What makes you think that had he stopped that guy,he would have gotten his 3000 bucks?

 

[Spiderdevil]

For someone who defended some kid from Flash, Peter quickly lost his heroism during that scene. And over a chocolate milk, too.

This
A total oxymoron,he get beat up to protect an unknown kid from flash and them chickens out at the store

 

[mayo23]

This
A total oxymoron,he get beat up to protect an unknown kid from flash and them chickens out at the store

Not a contradiction at all. There's a difference in mentality as to why would Peter stand up and not resort to violence to defend a kid getting bullied at a school than trying to stop a random thief who just stole money from a guy who was being a jerk.

 

[Anno_Domini]

If Peter can stand up to someone he barely knew, it should go either way and not just because some guy was a "jerk" to him.

 

[Human Torch]

That's not why Peter let the burglar get away in TASM. It was because the guy completely made fun of him and treated him with a complete lack of disrespect. Peter was 2 cents short so he took 2 cents from that small box or whatever it was where people leave their unwanted leftover pennies for other customers to use if they are a few cents short (and those customers have every right to use them because they're available to the public in case someone in line is a few cents short). But the clerk was being a total *****ebag and didn't let Peter take 2 cents for no apparent reason or at least for no good reason. That's not really the part that made Peter let the burglar get away. It was what followed. Not only was the guy being cheap and didn't let Peter take the cents even though he could (Peter even says "Since when has this been store policy?, basically indicating that Peter has shopped there before thus knows the clerk is just speaking a bunch of BS) but then he proceeds to make fun of Peter's stuttering and financial problems. That's the main thing that angered Peter.


The way it was done in the Raimi films was good too and I admit that I'll always prefer the classic wrestling scenario over anything but I still wonder to this day why Peter only got $100 as opposed to $1000. The guy only gave him $100 because he was in the ring with Bonesaw for 1 minute and the deal was $3000/3 minutes. So by that logic, Peter should've gotten $1000. I get that the guy was taking advantage of the fact that he was a kid but I doubt he could go that far without Peter and other people bringing in logic to show that Peter should get $1000 in the worst case scenario (and I really doubt that Peter wouldn't have realistically said this). Plus, if that's the way the guy usually runs business there, he would've been shut down long ago and his business wouldn't survive.


Funny how people here called Peter a *****ebag due to how the burglar scene plays out in TASM yet when the truth is that Peter in the comics post-spider bite and pre-Uncle Ben's death was the biggest *****ebag there ever was by that logic. One of the main reasons why both Raimi's Peter and Webb's Peter let the burglar get away was because they were angry during the moment and wanted revenge on the respective people that made them angry. Had it not been for their anger and thirst for revenge, even if they would've still let the burglar go, they would've at least had a brief moment where they would've questioned whether or not they should stop their respective burglar. Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy #15 was far worse than that. He literally had no reason to stop the burglar. He wasn't angry nor was he upset about anything. He just didn't feel like stopping him and never even gave it a thought that he should stop him. On top of that, when asked by the police officer why he didn't do anything, Peter openly told him that that is not his job and that he only looks out and care for "number one" a.k.a. himself.

Anyone else think this is far worse than what Peter did in TASM? I really don't understand why Webb's Peter gets called a *****ebag for the burglar scene while the comic version gets a free pass. If anything, the comic version of Peter was a far bigger prick when he let the burglar get away than both Raimi's Peter and Webb's Peter combined.

I look for the day when they will actually use the original comic reason for Ben's death in a movie.Peter doesn't let the robber go for "revenge",but because he gets a swelled head from his new status.Getting cheated out of 3 grand or a bottle of chocolate milk had nothing to do with his character arc in the original story.

 

[Shikamaru]

Award for 3 minutes means anything under 3

I'm assuming this is just a grammar mistake (I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi) but just in case if it isn't, going by fair and non-BS rule twisting, award for 3 minutes means you have to be in the ring with the guy for 3 minutes or less. But I'm assuming that is what you meant. Once again, I apologize if this makes me sound picky. I don't intend to be.

No he wasnt,he was twisting the rules to not give the money
Award for 3 minutes means anything under 3
Saying that he knocked him out in 2 and hence doesnt deserve the money was being as bad as the thief
So when does a guy get the award? When he knocks him out in exactly 3 minutes and not 2 minutes 59 seconds?

Agreed. However, I still stand by my point before. Yes, I get that the guy didn't want to pay Peter the full amount and tried to take advantage of his age and scrawny look but I can't buy for a second that he could get away with giving Peter just $100. All Peter had to do was bring logic into the argument by asking "But if I was in the ring for 2 minutes with him, by your logic, I should get $2000, right?" and the guy would've had no comeback. It wouldn't have been smart for him to not give him another $1900 after that for no reason at all because he could risk being sued and shut down if anyone found out or if Peter filed a complaint. He seemed to have a pretty successful business based on the amount of people there and I doubt he would risk that. Hell, I hope that isn't how the guy usually runs business there. Because if he does, he would've been shut down long ago and his wrestling arena wouldn't be anywhere as big as we saw it to be in the film.

On the contrary,I would feel nothing wrong if a guy denies me the 2 cents because its store policy,he is just an employ following orders.I would stop acting like jerk and buy something cheaper

You missed this:

That's not why Peter let the burglar get away in TASM. It was because the guy completely made fun of him and treated him with a complete lack of disrespect. Peter was 2 cents short so he took 2 cents from that small box or whatever it was where people leave their unwanted leftover pennies for other customers to use if they are a few cents short (and those customers have every right to use them because they're available to the public in case someone in line is a few cents short). But the clerk was being a total *****ebag and didn't let Peter take 2 cents for no apparent reason or at least for no good reason. That's not really the part that made Peter let the burglar get away. It was what followed. Not only was the guy being cheap and didn't let Peter take the cents even though he could (Peter even says "Since when has this been store policy?, basically indicating that Peter has shopped there before thus knows the clerk is just speaking a bunch of BS and just doesn't want to sell him the chocolate milk) but then he proceeds to make fun of Peter's stuttering and financial problems. That's the main thing that angered Peter.

As I said earlier,imo not chosing to get involved was not being irresponsible in that situation,its what a normal person would do
In SM1 he went out of his way to let him escape and that was being far more irresponsible

This applies to all 3 versions (comic version, Raimi version, Webb version). In all 3 version, Peter could've stopped the burglar if he wanted to but he was being irresponsible and he chose not to. At the same time, most bystanders in real life would be irresponsible in a situation like that (unless they were directly involved somehow).

Peter isn't any less guilty in any of the 3 versions. Each version of Peter had a chance to stop their respective burglars but chose not to for different reasons.

When did he break any rules?
On the contrary he was following the store policy,If I was employed there,I would follow the policy of the store no matter how *****ey it sounds

Would you also make fun of a customer's stuttering and financial situation if you were employed there? That's the main thing that pissed Peter off, not the 2 cents part. I also doubt you would be following that policy. Most normal people wouldn't and would realize that their boss is a complete idiot for a policy like that. Every customer has the right to take a penny from there if they're a few cents short and then some idiot comes along and creates a stupid policy saying you have to pay an extra $10 to take a cent from there (which doesn't make sense of any level since you wouldn't need an extra few cents if you had $10 on you). You may think that you would follow that policy like most people, when a customer will shop from there and will be a few cents short, I doubt you will be able to look them in the eyes and tell them they can't for such a stupid reason. Of course I can't say this for sure since I don't know you in real life but you don't seem like much of a *****ebag.

All of that is excluding the fact that the guy was most likely just BS'ing. Peter even asked "Since when has this been store policy?, basically indicating that Peter has shopped there before thus knows the clerk is just speaking a bunch of BS and just doesn't want to sell him the chocolate milk.

Thats fine but what about the fact that Uncle Ben acted stupidly and tried to wrestle a man,that was a stupid thing to do and he was responsible for his death

I actually like that. I like the fact that we see Uncle Ben live by the moral of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" instead of being something that he just says to Peter like in all other versions. It was a nice touch IMO.

 

[mayo23]

If Peter can stand up to someone he barely knew, it should go either way and not just because some guy was a "jerk" to him.

I've explained why it isn't that simple. Being human isn't just black and white. Besides, just because he can doesn't mean that he should nor that he has an obligation to. Hence the fact that he was being IRRESPONSIBLE.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Him being IRRESPONSIBLE would make so much more meaning if he wasn't earlier in the film. At least Raimi's Peter always had that kind of feeling where his first confrontation with Flash was when he had his abilities; not the same with Webb's Peter was was confrontational with Flash before he had his abilities and then just let the thief steal money because of not getting his chocolate milk.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Him being IRRESPONSIBLE would make so much more meaning if he wasn't earlier in the film. At least Raimi's Peter always had that kind of feeling where his first confrontation with Flash was when he had his abilities; not the same with Webb's Peter was was confrontational with Flash before he had his abilities and then just let the thief steal money because of not getting his chocolate milk.

I liked that Peter was being irresponsible from the start. If Peter never broke the dashboard, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble. Uncle Ben wouldn't have had to change his shift at work, and Aunt May wouldn't have had to take the subway home by herself. Then there would have been no argument, and Peter wouldn't have stormed out of the house to have Ben follow him and get himself killed. It all adds up.

Peter had the choice to stop the thief in the store, but the cashier was a *****e. He didn't learn what it meant to be "responsible," and he wasn't exactly a hero/vigilante yet. But because he responded with "Sorry, not my policy," the thief ended up running into his Uncle and shot him.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Totally looked past my point there Picard.

Peter stood up to Flash in the beginning of the film and then makes a 180 turn where he isn't when dealing with his aunt and uncle and then with the store clerk. That's not justifiable when Webb makes him stand up for someone against Flash early on. I SO prefer how Raimi did with his film.

 

[mayo23]

Totally looked past my point there Picard.

Peter stood up to Flash in the beginning of the film and then makes a 180 turn where he isn't when dealing with his aunt and uncle and then with the store clerk. That's not justifiable when Webb makes him stand up for someone against Flash early on. I SO prefer how Raimi did with his film.

Then in your opinion, why is it not justifiable because Webb makes him stand up for someone early on? And please don't say because he stood up for the kid but was later irresponsible with Aunt May, Uncle Ben and the thief...I don't find that to be a particular justifiable reason. You prefer the way Raimi did it, fine but what exactly was you're point?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Totally looked past my point there Picard.

Peter stood up to Flash in the beginning of the film and then makes a 180 turn where he isn't when dealing with his aunt and uncle and then with the store clerk. That's not justifiable when Webb makes him stand up for someone against Flash early on. I SO prefer how Raimi did with his film.

He stands up for a girl just to get even with Flash, not necessarily because he was trying to be a hero, Anno. He wasn't being responsible.

 

[Fox]

This
A total oxymoron,he get beat up to protect an unknown kid from flash and them chickens out at the store

Chickens out? Peter didn't seem scared to me, just spiteful. He helps the kid because he's actually a decent human being. He let's the guy steal the money not because he's scared but because he's started a cycle of choices that cause him to shift his actions in a selfish direction.

Yes, he's going through some emotionally difficult discoveries about his father. Yes, he's had a radical life change. Yes, those things are factors in why he's acting this way. But at the end of the day he's acting selfishly. He humiliates Flash, for HIS OWN satisfaction. He forgets Aunt May, because HE put his own interests with Oscorp first. He lets the burglar go, because HE doesn't see why he should help out an a-hole.

Keep in mind (and this is important), Peter was not scared.
He was motivated out of a petty desire to see the clerk get what he deserved. Not so he could teach the man a benevolent lesson in respecting others, but because Peter, Selfishly, kind of liked seeing the guy get what he deserved.

And I probably would have done the same thing in that situation!
The clerk did kind of deserve it, because he was a jerk!
But Peter was still being selfish.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Peter never did anything evil but he did act selfishly nonetheless, and whether he meant for it to happen or not, Uncle Ben died as a result. And THAT is the lesson.

Peter has Power. Responsibility comes with that Power. To not use it for the benefit of others isn't evil in itself, but it's not the responsible thing to do either. That's what Uncle Ben was trying to teach Peter, and that's the lesson he learned too late.

The lesson is NOT: Don't be a chicken.
The lesson is NOT: Jerks should never be punished.
The lesson IS: If you can do something good to benefit others (the world) you have a responsibility to do that thing, and put others before yourself. Or, "With Great Power Comes responsibility".

Peter put himself first in that situation because he was an angry teenager, not because he was a chicken.

 

[AF3619]

He stands up for a girl just to get even with Flash, not necessarily because he was trying to be a hero, Anno. He wasn't being responsible.

i think he means with Gordon, what does stand up to a bully has to do with the fact of him beeing irresponsable with not helping T-bone?,he was angry, he acted without thinking and beeing selfish, decided to let him go and not help him,even worse all that for Milk, that`s why i thought he was more irresponsable than Peter stopping a guy who has a gun, i mean he could but ,the dude had a gun what if he tried to stop him
and the robberr shoots him?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Totally looked past my point there Picard.

Peter stood up to Flash in the beginning of the film and then makes a 180 turn where he isn't when dealing with his aunt and uncle and then with the store clerk. That's not justifiable when Webb makes him stand up for someone against Flash early on. I SO prefer how Raimi did with his film.

There are couple simple things that why I don't think your point is valid:
- Sometimes, in fact most of the time, being irresponsible sometimes doesn't mean that one is not a good kid. Peter didn't stand up to Flash because it was his responsibility, he did it because he sympathized with the kid and felt sorry for him.
It's really what many many teenagers are nowadays, good kids but can be irresponsible from time to time, especially when angry

- Dealing with a bully and dealing with your parents (uncle and aunt but basically parental figures) are very different matters and should not be compared too lightly.

- the store clerk was being an a**hole and mocked Peter to the ground. And Peter was already feeling sad/angry before the situation. That's why he was being irresponsible that time. And it was not like the bullied kid was mocking Peter, he was just a victim

So gee, why would Peter stand up for this poor guy whom he sympathized with and who didn't do anything, and NOT stop the thief for the store clerk who was being a total d*** to him when Peter was already pissed

 

[Picard Sisko]

i think he means with Gordon, what does stand up to a bully has to do with the fact of him beeing irresponsable with not helping T-bone?,he was angry, he acted without thinking and beeing selfish, decided to let him go and not help him,even worse all that for Milk, that`s why i thought he was more irresponsable than Peter stopping a guy who has a gun, i mean he could but ,the dude had a gun what if he tried to stop him
and the robberr shoots him?

Gordon?

There are couple simple things that why I don't think your point is valid:
- Sometimes, in fact most of the time, being irresponsible sometimes doesn't mean that one is not a good kid. Peter didn't stand up to Flash because it was his responsibility, he did it because he sympathized with the kid and felt sorry for her.
It's really what many many teenagers are nowadays, good kids but can be irresponsible from time to time, especially when angry

- Dealing with a bully and dealing with your parents (uncle and aunt but basically parental figures) are very different matters and should not be compared too lightly.

- the store clerk was being an a**hole and mocked Peter to the ground. And Peter was already feeling sad/angry before the situation. That's why he was being irresponsible that time. And it was not like the bullied kid was mocking Peter, she was just a victim

So gee, why would Peter stand up for this poor girl whom he sympathized with and who didn't do anything, and NOT stop the thief for the store clerk who was being a total d*** to him when Peter was already pissed

Made a few corrections.

Actually, I don't think Peter was necessarily concerned about the girl he was helping. I see this way: Peter hates Flash, and this was his moment to get even for how he treats him, and other students, too.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Then in your opinion, why is it not justifiable because Webb makes him stand up for someone early on? And please don't say because he stood up for the kid but was later irresponsible with Aunt May, Uncle Ben and the thief...I don't find that to be a particular justifiable reason. You prefer the way Raimi did it, fine but what exactly was you're point?

My point has nothing to do with his aunt and uncle. He just acts childish to them, BUT...he doesn't stand up to the store clerk just because he's screwed over by two cents seems a bit bogus. He takes his anger out because of him being pissed off by his uncle by letting someone cleanly steal the store's money because he doesn't get his chocolate milk when he can easily stand up to the school's bully. He doesn't notice a gun on the thief then, and he doesn't do anything still because he doesn't get his oh-so-important milk. That just makes Webb's origin fall to pieces when he stands up to someone earlier in the film and when it doesn't, it's all about milk.

He stands up for a girl just to get even with Flash, not necessarily because he was trying to be a hero, Anno. He wasn't being responsible.

Getting Flash back of course wasn't being responsible, Picard, but he still did stand up to someone early unless you're getting to a point that Peter acts like a brat when he gets his powers such as getting back at Flash, letting someone steal the clerk's money over milk, taking back his promise that he made with Captain Stacy. So the trilogy is what...trying to make Peter realize that he needs responsibility with his powers since he didn't learn a damn thing in the first film even when he had responsibility before his powers?

There are couple simple things that why I don't think your point is valid:
- Sometimes, in fact most of the time, being irresponsible sometimes doesn't mean that one is not a good kid. Peter didn't stand up to Flash because it was his responsibility, he did it because he sympathized with the kid and felt sorry for him.
It's really what many many teenagers are nowadays, good kids but can be irresponsible from time to time, especially when angry

In the most simple form, one can view what that thief did to be bullying the store clerk by pushing over things to steal his money such as how a bully steals money from someone the bully views inferior to him. Bringing that up, Peter should have sympathized with him.

- Dealing with a bully and dealing with your parents (uncle and aunt but basically parental figures) are very different matters and should not be compared too lightly.

What's the difference between a bully and a thief, though? Uncle Ben can stand up to a thief when he's way older, but his supposedly 'smart' nephew can't?

- the store clerk was being an a**hole and mocked Peter to the ground. And Peter was already feeling sad/angry before the situation. That's why he was being irresponsible that time. And it was not like the bullied kid was mocking Peter, he was just a victim

So gee, why would Peter stand up for this poor guy whom he sympathized with and who didn't do anything, and NOT stop the thief for the store clerk who was being a total d*** to him when Peter was already pissed

Being an ass or a dick is no excuse for Peter to not do anything, imo.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Anno, I think you're taking it too far.

Getting Flash back of course wasn't being responsible, Picard, but he still did stand up to someone early unless you're getting to a point that Peter acts like a brat when he gets his powers such as getting back at Flash, letting someone steal the clerk's money over milk, taking back his promise that he made with Captain Stacy. So the trilogy is what...trying to make Peter realize that he needs responsibility with his powers since he didn't learn a damn thing in the first film even when he had responsibility before his powers?

He didn't really show that he had responsibility before his powers. He helped a girl to get back at a bully. Big whoop. He is still learning responsibility throughout the films. I mean, he didn't even go out of his way to stop or help someone out of his own selfishness until he had to save the kid in the burning car.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Agreed. However, I still stand by my point before. Yes, I get that the guy didn't want to pay Peter the full amount and tried to take advantage of his age and scrawny look but I can't buy for a second that he could get away with giving Peter just $100. All Peter had to do was bring logic into the argument by asking "But if I was in the ring for 2 minutes with him, by your logic, I should get $2000, right?" and the guy would've had no comeback. It wouldn't have been smart for him to not give him another $1900 after that for no reason at all because he could risk being sued and shut down if anyone found out or if Peter filed a complaint. He seemed to have a pretty successful business based on the amount of people there and I doubt he would risk that. Hell, I hope that isn't how the guy usually runs business there. Because if he does, he would've been shut down long ago and his wrestling arena wouldn't be anywhere as big as we saw it to be in the film.

You answered your own question here
The reason he cheated Peter because he looked like a scrawy kid and he was pretty sure that he wouldnt sue him or anything,and Peter wasnt in a position to sue him either,he knew that the guy would somehow go around the rules and prove his logic,plus he didnt have any money lawyers or anything,and how was he supposed to explain the situation to his Aunt and Uncle?

The organiser guy knew he was helpless and took advantage
Had there been a professional wrestler in Peter's place,that guy would have probably given the 3000 bucks.Plus probably no one was able to beat Bone Saw before so he maybe never had to loosen up before thar

This applies to all 3 versions (comic version, Raimi version, Webb version). In all 3 version, Peter could've stopped the burglar if he wanted to but he was being irresponsible and he chose not to. At the same time, most bystanders in real life would be irresponsible in a situation like that (unless they were directly involved somehow).

Peter isn't any less guilty in any of the 3 versions. Each version of Peter had a chance to stop their respective burglars but chose not to for different reasons.

Exactly,and imo the reason felt much more legitimate in SM1,atleast for the time being
The reason why I say is that Peter isnt completely guilty in TASM is because

1.IMO he did the right thing in not getting involved with the burglur,any normal person should not get involved,it isnt worth risking your life for a few hundred bucks.You may point out that Peter was superpowered and hence not putting himself at much risk but Peter didnt try out his powers properly till that stage,meaning that he still felt like a normal guy and acted like one in not getting involved

2.Uncle Ben was wreckless in TASM,he was responsible for his own death.
There was no need to act hero and wrestle the guy,especially when you are an old man against a professional burglur

Would you also make fun of a customer's stuttering and financial situation if you were employed there? That's the main thing that pissed Peter off, not the 2 cents part. I also doubt you would be following that policy. Most normal people wouldn't and would realize that their boss is a complete idiot for a policy like that. Every customer has the right to take a penny from there if they're a few cents short and then some idiot comes along and creates a stupid policy saying you have to pay an extra $10 to take a cent from there (which doesn't make sense of any level since you wouldn't need an extra few cents if you had $10 on you). You may think that you would follow that policy like most people, when a customer will shop from there and will be a few cents short, I doubt you will be able to look them in the eyes and tell them they can't for such a stupid reason. Of course I can't say this for sure since I don't know you in real life but you don't seem like much of a *****ebag.

All of that is excluding the fact that the guy was most likely just BS'ing. Peter even asked "Since when has this been store policy?, basically indicating that Peter has shopped there before thus knows the clerk is just speaking a bunch of BS and just doesn't want to sell him the chocolate milk.

All valid points
But what will be the guy's motive in not selling him milk? He doesnt stand to gain anything from stopping a sale

I actually like that. I like the fact that we see Uncle Ben live by the moral of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" instead of being something that he just says to Peter like in all other versions. It was a nice touch IMO.

Ah but Uncle Ben doesnt have 'Great power',as I said before,it isnt wise to risk you life for a few hundred bucks and make your wife a window and throw her into poverty

 

[Spiderdevil]

Chickens out? Peter didn't seem scared to me, just spiteful. He helps the kid because he's actually a decent human being. He let's the guy steal the money not because he's scared but because he's started a cycle of choices that cause him to shift his actions in a selfish direction.

Yes, he's going through some emotionally difficult discoveries about his father. Yes, he's had a radical life change. Yes, those things are factors in why he's acting this way. But at the end of the day he's acting selfishly. He humiliates Flash, for HIS OWN satisfaction. He forgets Aunt May, because HE put his own interests with Oscorp first. He lets the burglar go, because HE doesn't see why he should help out an a-hole.

Keep in mind (and this is important), Peter was not scared.
He was motivated out of a petty desire to see the clerk get what he deserved. Not so he could teach the man a benevolent lesson in respecting others, but because Peter, Selfishly, kind of liked seeing the guy get what he deserved.

And I probably would have done the same thing in that situation!
The clerk did kind of deserve it, because he was a jerk!
But Peter was still being selfish.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Peter never did anything evil but he did act selfishly nonetheless, and whether he meant for it to happen or not, Uncle Ben died as a result. And THAT is the lesson.

Peter has Power. Responsibility comes with that Power. To not use it for the benefit of others isn't evil in itself, but it's not the responsible thing to do either. That's what Uncle Ben was trying to teach Peter, and that's the lesson he learned too late.

The lesson is NOT: Don't be a chicken.
The lesson is NOT: Jerks should never be punished.
The lesson IS: If you can do something good to benefit others (the world) you have a responsibility to do that thing, and put others before yourself. Or, "With Great Power Comes responsibility".

Peter put himself first in that situation because he was an angry teenager, not because he was a chicken.

Yeah I get that,That wasnt actually my main nitpick

Peter is a teenager,and teenagers are like that,unpredictable and hypocritic so...its okay