Middle Eastern Grocery Store Owner...

The actor and character are clearly Indian

You know this how? Your statistic only proves he is 'likely' Indian. Did they say that as fact in the film? No, they didn't. So you are free to interpret his ethnicity and background as w/e his facial features and skin color would allow you to believe. Middle Eastern and Indian are acceptable guesses, but neither one is definitely right or definitely wrong. And if you really believe the actor's actual ethnic background is automatically the ethnic background of the character they were cast as, you are committing a logical fallacy.

You said it as a raciality: you unnecessarily introduced a racialist (racialist =/=racist) interpretation of a character and like many Americans you believe the racialist myth that immigrants from the Middle East own all the groceries, gas stations, delis, and other small businesses in inner cities (**they don't)

Once again, it is a generalization. One many people can relate to (which you just admitted). One that makes it easier for people scrolling the thread to pick up on and go "oh yea 'that guy'" (hence why it was indeed necessary). If you can't comprehend that, then I suggest you go outside and socialize more. You seem to sorely need it.

The only people who will not know this person by name are people who despite being on IMDb fail to scan the cast list and click the actor's name page to learn something about the actor portraying the character

Yet again, you fail to realize that the generalization was meant to make the recognition of the character easier. Had I said his name, no one would know who I meant. You know why? His name is not mentioned in the film, he is listed as "Store Owner" on IMDB, and he isn't a well known enough actor to be recognized by his actual name. Once again you seem to have an issue with how typical human interaction operates...People will very likely not bother to look it up, and upon seeing the thread title will likely dismiss it, and move on to the next one. That's why I made the title a "click bait" (Look up the term, since you seem to be unfamiliar with this). And it worked...Since you clicked on it...

The average person 25 years of age and older knows where India and the Middle East are, if you don't know then start here: http://test.mywonderfulworld.org/about_campaign.html, a geography education project specially designed for kids and young adults

The average person may or may not know. You have no evidence that they do know. They should know, yes. But once again 'Middle Eastern' is a term everyone can identify with, since it's common. But, since we're throwing links around on what the average person should know, I've graciously gathered one for you. Use this once you decide to leave the confines of your mother's basement, and make sure to bring sunscreen as I'm sure it has been a while for you: http://www.wikihow.com/Interact-With-People

Now please leave the racial aspect to rest...Moving on to what's actually important:

All the characters in a film must be shown walking around every inch of the geographical landscape they are in before they interact with other, otherwise all their interactions are unlikely since we did not see them walk through the areas where they eventually crossed paths? 

The grocery store owner operates a store in the inner city and walks around the inner city where he owns his store. Mister lives in the inner city within walking distance of the store and Mister walks around the inner city where he lives and walks to the store twice. It is inevitable the grocery store owner and Mister will cross paths walking through the inner city they both inhabit and walk around in.

The title of the film is The Inevitable Defeat Of Mister & Pete for a reason. It was inevitable the Grocer and Mister would cross paths one final time after Mister's last visit to the store, and it was inevitable their meeting would not go well.

It's not an unlikely interaction in general (since the grocery store is nearby). But it's unlikely because in the film he has never spotted Mister walking around in his block beforehand, AND we are to assume he has never seen Mister walking outside his building for however many years that Mister lived nearby previously...And then at the exact moment Mister is asking Kris to help him release Pete from capture, is when he just so happens to be walking in the area to spot him (for the first time ever)? Too convenient story wise to be truly believable. It's highly improbable based on how he had never seen or bumped into him outside his building (or even outside in general) prior, and had no idea where he lived.

Also, the title doesn't justify bad writing...That's just a dumb argument...

90% of the world would feel like lashing out at a person of any age who destroyed his/her personal property. Every single second that you breath, people murder people for an infinite number of reasons and grievances, real and imaginary. Right now people are murdering each other over air and water and land and G-d. Right now people are murdering people unprovoked. And you think it's illogical for a property owner to attack somebody who vandalized his property. 

The grocery store owner was already broiling under his collar when he and Mister had their first meeting (EBT card). The grocery store owner was ready to explode during the second meeting (bag of ice) before Mister vandalized the store - the moment Mister entered the store the grocery store owner's anger was on display (remember he banned Mister from his store, and there Mister is, in his store again). That anger finally spilled out, coming to its logical conclusion, during their last meeting on the sidewalk.

Yes, they would "feel" like lashing out, but wouldn't. Especially when there are police officers and possible relatives/threats nearby...People kill all the time is simply a bad argument. You could just say killing anyone for anything is justified for whatever intention, with that reasoning. In-case you haven't realized this isn't the Middle Ages. There are large consequences for committing such acts, and as such you need a good motive, and a good reason not to be able to take alternative measures.

List of motives where killing would make logical sense:
-to steal and survive on a day to day basis makes sense
-killing as to not deal with a messy divorce and/or...
-to reap the benefits of life insurance makes sense
-revenge on the death of a family member makes sense

...killing some kid who pushed some of your store's merchandise does not.

The anger and attack make zero logical sense if you ignore what happened prior. And the Grocer's anger and violent attack make zero logical sense if you ignore the context of the environment depicted in the film (inner city hood, drugs sold up and down the streets, hoodlums up and down the streets, prostitution up and down the streets, gangs up and down the streets, police up and down the streets, etc) the Grocer is part of, which was clearly and realistically depicted in the film.

...And the environment he worked in didn't justify his actions. He was a store owner, not a corrupt pimp drug dealer...In which case, it would have made slightly more sense...

How do you know he didn't (call the cops or snap a photo of him)?

Because the film doesn't show it, or allude to it.

Did you actually watch this film? Mister could not find his mother for either weeks or months and you think the Grocer could have magically dialled her up and spoke to her? Mister could not have a straightforward conversation with his mother because she was in a drug haze, she left him starving and living in squalour and prostituted herself within a few feet of her son and you think his mother and the Grocer could have had a heart-to-heart conversation about Mister desperately seeking a bag of ice because his mother and Pete's mother abandoned them and vandalized the store because he could not get any ice?

*Dialed. *Squalor.

He did not know Mister's situation, but I'm guessing he knew who his mom was. I'm not calling it a solution to the problem. I'm saying it's a realistic response and he never attempted it. Same with contacting the police, or snapping a photo of him.

Did you actually watch this film? Those hoodlums were not random, they were pimping prostitutes, they were pimping Mister's mom and they were pimping Pete's mom, the beginning of the film showed the head pimp pimping Pete's mom, Mister knew they were pimping his mom and he went out of his way to track down the head pimp to interrogate him about his mother's whereabouts, and Mister risqued his life confronting the pimp, especially since he confronted the pimp aggressively and embarrassed the pimp

*Risked. 😂 (See how annoying it is when you attack things that have nothing to do with the initial argument?)

Anyhow, at this point I'm convinced you are either purposely trying to misinterpret what I mean, or happen to be devoid of comprehension skills...Obviously we (the viewer) know the relationship of the surrounding individuals and Mister, but the store owner did not. Which is my point. He had no clue if either of those 50 or so men hanging outside would be relatives or close friends of Mister (very possible, since they are hanging out in front of a compound of buildings) and hence beat the store owner to a pulp (which almost happened btw). Therefore you can conclude his actions make zero logical sense...especially if he has dealt with, and knows the inner workings of the impoverished neighborhoods surrounding his store, and how dangerous street-life is in the area.

Lastly, you failed to mention why he would attack when there were clearly police present...This makes your entire argument flawed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

this scene did not take place at the same time Pete was captured, or even on the same day. there is a night scene between Pete getting picked up and Mister getting picked up - so at least a day between scenes - and the fact that Pete has what looks to be a nearly-healed black eye by the time Mister gets to Riverview, which seems to signify a longer period of time between the scenes. coupled with the fact that we have seen how long Mister will go trying to do things on his own, it is possible he's struggled through at least a few days since Pete was picked up before breaking down and asking Chris for help. believing that the two scenes happen on the same day may be contributing to your belief that this is improbable, because that would be entirely too coincidental

You're right here. I completely messed up and misinterpreted the scene the first time I viewed it. Furthermore, I completely missed the night scene since it happened so quickly. Edited in the way the scene really happened in my previous comments. I thought it was on the same day at first. It wasn't.

However I believe it is still too coincidental, and that my points still stand. Why was it at that specific moment that the Store Owner finally saw him? Why did he not notice Mister lived so close by? Why didn't he wait for him in that general area? Why attack in front of possible friends/ family members and police present in the area?

i really think you're making too much of this point. so because we are not shown the store owner walking in this neighborhood, it is unlikely that he will ever walk there? it is just as likely that he was never shown walking there because it was not important to the story until this particular time.

False. I'm giving it this much attention because it was so central to the story that Mister is caught by Police. The way it's handled is very unrealistic. Because it is so important to the story it deserves careful analysis. We can infer from the information given to us that he had no idea he lived there.
1) The look on his face when he sees him
2) Why didn't he simply take a day off and wait in that general area for Mister if he was so hell-bent on "getting even" with him?
3) He never told police about him. With a general description and a likely address, he would have surely been able to bring him to justice.
4) They had never bumped into each other in that area earlier in the film.

he was blind and single-minded with rage - there was that little punk @$$ kid who'd stolen from him and vandalized his store

Already tackled why the blinded by rage argument is unreasonable, in other comments on the thread. Read them.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

...And again you miss the comma between cliff and you. (Are you purposely trying to make yourself look bad?)

Anyhow, you were already destroyed in the last comment, and like a bad sequel you should stay down.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I answered literally all of those concerns with rebuttals earlier, in a reply towards your comment.

Since you seem to lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand them the first time, I will write them again, even clearer.

You do not agree that it is natural, rational, logical, normal, and inevitable for people who live within a few blocks of each other to cross paths with each other?

Yes, bumping into someone who works near where you reside is natural, rational and logical. You know what isn't? Them not bumping into each other (outside Mister's home) earlier in the film, or the 10 or so years prior to the film taking place....but then conveniently having it happen at the exact moment Mister asked Kris for help (with Police Present in the area). The timing was too far-fetched.

*And yes, you can gather he had no idea Mister lived there due to A) his reaction upon seeing him & B) never bothering to look or wait for him in the area.

We Will Prosecute Shoplifters

Yea, it said "we will prosecute," not "we will choke you unconscious, even if you are a minor."

Why did he not call the cops, and give them a description? You know, prosecute?

the grocer, a minority himself, operating a store in an area crawling with crime and poverty and desperation, was a victim himself

He might have felt targeted, but the film doesn't delve deep enough into his story for us to gather that he was targeted and/or discriminated against. It is still possible, but imo would still not justify his actions either way. Now I'm not saying it was completely out of character for him to go after Mister, because he did seem like a stern no bs store owner, who had to be that way to survive. However, it's one thing to be stern and threaten kids with a bat, and another to actually go that far. What if he had a bat handy when he saw him? Would beating Mister to a bloody pulp have also been justified, and within character? He did not seem the type to do that to me.

And again, the most important point: If he was going to do it, why in the world would he choose to choke him out while there were clearly police officers and possible family members of Mister present?...

You did not notice the grocer was already boiling with rage in the first store scene...and his mannerisms aggressive mannerisms towards Mister

No, I'm not buying the 'blinded by rage' theory, since he could have easily continued running after him with the bat, and attacked him outside, on more than one occasion, if I remember correctly.

And yet again, if he was really THAT furious, he could have easily called the cops and given a description. He did not. Clearly, he was not THAT furious.

You do not agree the grocer store owner would have felt any desire to attack a customer for vandalising his store

Perhaps...Except it wasn't an adult; it was a minor. This changes everything. Also, "feeling" like attacking someone, is different from actually doing it....Especially in-front of police. IN FRONT...OF...POLICE
(Notice the capitals. It shows how important that aspect is. No one has addressed this. Why in-front of cops? Why?)

Lastly, please do yourself and the rest of us all a favor, and stop posting nonsense. Any other response from you, that doesn't strictly tackle the OP or rebuttals to your argument, will be reported for trolling.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

i urge you to go back and re-watch the part from when Pete gets picked up until the police officer tells the store owner to let Mister go. you will see clearly that there is at least one day between the two boys being picked up, as opposed to your belief that it is happening at the same time or on the same day.

You pointed this out previously. And I corrected it. Again, it doesn't change the argument very much...

you will also see that there is no visible police presence in the neighbourhood until the store owner has Mister in a chokehold. i've interpreted this to mean that the officer was off-camera and the store owner may have seen him and was so hell-bent on getting Mister that he didn't care, or that the officer was in a location that the store owner didn't see him either

Yea that's because our field of vision is infinitely smaller when seeing a film vs seeing something in real life. In real life it would have been incredibly easy to spot the police officers coming a mile away. If we are to believe they came that quickly, then they were clearly not very far away. It took them 18 seconds to arrive on the scene once the store owner commenced choking Mister, and after yelling "You. Drop the kid!" the police were immediately on screen, right in front of them (as you yourself admitted was rather silly)... Not to mention there were clearly police vehicles, in the area (stop the movie at 1:32:09).

Even if you can logically say he didn't see them coming (which you can't), the fact that there were police vehicles parked nearby would be enough evidence to say that there were clearly police officers in the area.

Then his reaction even after they saw him is even more silly and unbelievably unrealistic. He still continues to choke him for a good 8-9 seconds. Then he goes on to try and paint the picture that he was completely justified in his over-the-top approach to the Police Officers...I mean, really?

can you please tell me what aspects of what we saw of the store owner led you to your certainty that he is sane?

The fact that he can run a convenience store! **FacePalm**

reply share

add reply

formatting help