The government and Bob being schizophrenic makes no sense

So, the government both wants the superheroes gone and makes it happen (although it's ridiculous, because they would be beyond anything the legal system can do, mostly due to their anonymity) - AND - helps superheroes so much that they even ERASE MEMORIES (of how many people??) for them.

The government ERASES MEMORIES to help superheroes, while at the same time BANS them. What kind of schizoid sense does THAT make?

Bob is a psychotic murderer as well, but sees a mugger as a 'bad guy'.

Also, he blames his boss for the 'bad guy' getting away.. why, exactly? Because of the threat of being fired?

Bob's actions _PROVE_ beyond reasonable doubt that he doesn't CARE whether he's fired or not, AND he is willing to commit a murder just to get a mugger.

He takes a weaker, smaller man, that's helpless against him, and THROWS HIM THROUGH MULTIPLE WALLS.

I mean, what the F?

Even if we take the murderous violence (think about it; BOB DID NOT KNOW he would survive that - would YOU assume someone will survive if you throw them through multiple walls?!) out of the situation, it still makes no sense.

Bob is OBVIOUSLY willing to do whatever it takes, and being fired doesn't matter to him at all. He is already prepared to do unspeakable actions and to be fired just to help someone being mugged. I mean, if he's prepared to throw his boss through multiple walls - a thing that will DEFINITELY get him fired (and in a lot of trouble anyway, and SHOULD give him lots of guilt and heavy conscience, if he's not a psycho), he could've just INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, just ran out and helped the guy.

It's almost as Bob is more hell-bent on attacking his boss unfairly (think how weak the boss is compared to Bob, how is that fair?) than wishing to help anyone.

Otherwise, Bob would have, instead of throwing his boss through multiple walls like a psychotic madman berserker, ran out of the office and helped the victim of the mugger.

The END RESULT would still be the same, so why choose the more insane and stupid actions over the ones that wouldn't hurt the boss, wouldn't make him a psycho and would ONLY get him fired, while he can still feel good about having done a good deed?

WHY?

Unless Bob is a rampaginc lunatic, a berserker psycho, a violent MURDERER (the boss, realistically, should've died from that throw, even if the walls of that office are weaker than normal), why would he make that IDIOTIC choice?

He must be a schizophrenic, if he thinks he's a 'good guy' while making a REALLY violent, insane, murderous choice over a non-murderous choice that doesn't even break any walls. He could've helped the victim - he was willing to get fired anyway (obviously, or he wouldn't have been), he was prepared to basically murder his boss, he was prepared to do AWFUL actions that would 100% get him fired.

So why not just RUN OUT THE DOOR and not listen to your boss, if you're going to get fired anyway? Why let the boss boss you around and THEN do the actions that get you fired? It makes NO SENSE unless he's some kind of schizophrenic.

Even then, it makes no sense to have such a psycho 'hero' we're supposed to root for in a movie that is supposedly made 'for kids' (though I don't know why people are so 'formatist' - it's like racist, but about formats. If something is drawn or rendered, it must be for kids FOR SOME REASON...)