What's indefensible is your misunderstanding of the nature of superhero cinema -- indeed the core conceit of superhero mythology itself. It's pulp. No one (except, I guess, you) is looking for fact-based science in Spider-Man comics... or movies. It's a theater of ideas. In this case: What if splicing reptile genes into one's DNA in order to re-grow one's arm caused one to become a homicidal maniac with delusions of reptilian supremacy? Cue battle with hero. Have you ever read a comic book? Yes, of course! Seeking to bring a murderer to justice and deny him the potential to murder others is selfish, self-serving, self-serving and deserving of the label "very much a jerk". The scales are peeled back from our eyes. Your effort to hand-wave away the whole "saving some civilians" thing (which entirely undermines your position) is admirable. Oh wait, no! -- it's not admirable, it's disingenuous and transparently self-contradictory. Saving the kid in the dangling vehicle -- and all the other occupants of all the other dangling vehicles -- is (in case you missed this) heroic and decidedly unselfish, despite your bizarre attempt to convince us it's self-serving and jerkish. Also, if by "in a way he didn't like" you mean "murderously and with the intent of turning humanity into reptilezes" then yes, absolutely, that was self-serving. Except, of course, that it served others, so no, it wasn't. You're 0 for 3 here. Except the parts that you pretended don't exist. We've all seen the movie, and as you might have noticed, no one here is agreeing with you or rushing to defend your bewildering ideas about what constitutes heroism or its inverse. Naah, he's right there up on the screen and I love him for it.