{A disclaimer, yes I am commenting twice. Once for the @bananafish and other as me in this one. The @bananafish comment is line more with the consensus of the @bananafish community; this one more on what I want to focus and what I wanted to expound upon. That and highlight certain other things...}

The formatting: I think for the most part, since I know not the specific formating free-writing is not allowed to use (other than stolen pictures which is a universal rule on Steemit), I shan't mention any mentioning for <"strong"> or <"hr/"> except for here. In any a case, I feel as if the internal monologing definitely could've been expanded upon and easily we could've had an easy reach into Peter's psychology. But the potential is there, and any future rewrites with Peter's situation should consider that. In any a case for other formatting and the such, I would suggest, unironically breaking my mentioning rule just this once again, using <"strong"> and <"i"> for more than two people dialogues; peck even for a regular one-on-one conversation. As that can present easy ways to know when a character is stressing a certain thing or in general when you want to show that these characters at least aren't sounding their usual accent. Or if you want to have an easy for people to identify characters X, Y and Z. Not saying, which I should've mentioned earlier (but let this be an example to ye commenters!), this is a problem with this post and I was able to understand the dialogue well without problem. Just think this little knowledge in relationship to Steemit (and other blogs that use html) is useful.

La filosofía (be ready for me to jump to different scenarios in the middle of two different sentences): For while, in any circumstances, the necessity of Peter being caught didn't determine the Hobo's interruption, neither did the Hobo's interruption would coincide with Peter's arrest. And here we see how these necessities play off each other to form contingencies as to give the breadth of not only a literal escape (a vulgar freedom). But also of another thing: that the universe isn't wholly "free will" nor "determinist" and neither a compatabilist suggestion. But rather an indeterminable World neither of "free wills" under the illusion of determinants nor Total "Determinacy" across the board. One where, despite the contingent acts of the hobo at the scene, had necessitated Peter to flee the scene (and the cops to shoot the hobo for any slew of reasons) which was instigated by a core contingent factor (turned necessity) of Peter fleeing. This interplay of contingencies-necesssities especially seen at the very end, where the contingent factor truly becomes a necessity (at least to the cops) of undoing now the contingent factor by making up for it. Where they send their fastest and vicious killing units in the police force: K9s. And while we can talk of necessities of contingencies even further, let's cease the dialogue here on my part for now by claiming they are dialectical doubles. Where necessity is things we can see and make sense out of, contingencies of things yet we can't understand or happening so much in our face that we can't understand it just yet.

So congrats on earning that @curie upvote, happy writing and happy steeming!