teenagers beat up 63 year old

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/police-mark-andrew-beaten-after-getting-iphone-stolen-at-moa-starbucks/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530471/Im-sure-thought-I-easy-pickins-63-year-old-runner-Minneapolis-mayoral-race-beaten-two-teenage-girls-Mall-America-Starbucks-having-iPhone-stolen.html

Mark Andrew, 63, was at a Starbucks inside the mall at around 7 p.m. Thursday when a man grabbed his phone off his table and ran off. When Andrew went after him, he was tackled by two teenage girls – aged 18 and 17 — one of which began beating him with a billy club. During the attack, they told Andrew, “We’re going to kill you,” police say. Andrew was left with a large gash on his head that required nine stitches. He has since been released from the hospital. Andrew said Friday that he chased after the thief, because he’s not a bystander by nature. “If somebody is gonna do that to me or somebody else, I’m not a bystander by nature I’ll go in and fight,” he said.

WOW...

ccw anyone?

-J0N

something's wrong with the world today

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: WOW... ccw anyone? -J0N

Well, in today's world, then the headline would have read "Man Brutally Murders Two Teenage Girls Over Cell Phone"

maybe, but im flat out fed up with this world lately, and i think its time to clean house. kill em all!!!

-J0N

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: WOW... ccw anyone? -J0N

Just let the phone go. You can get another one.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: WOW... ccw anyone? -J0N

Just let the phone go. You can get another one.

It's not the theft of the phone that bothers me (OK, it does because to me thieves are the lowest form of criminal to me) it's the two girls beating the E36 M3 out of someone trying to keep their stuff.

I added a second link to clarify this, but she said she would kill him IF HE DIDN'T LET HER GO. He could have ended any legitimate threat to his life by doing so. Clearly, a jury would say that this was not a lethal force situation.

I hope they throw the book at these girls: assault, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, elder abuse, death threats, disturbing the peace, accessory to theft etc.

Mark Andrew is a big political name here in Minneapolis, he ran for mayor in the last election. As for the inevitable CCW debate, this happened in the middle of the Mall of America - not the sort of place you want gun battles.

stuart in mn wrote: As for the inevitable CCW debate, this happened in the middle of the Mall of America - not the sort of place you want gun battles.

I don't think you'll get any debate. Rule #4 (all the people beyond the perp)

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: WOW... ccw anyone? -J0N

Well, in today's world, then the headline would have read "Man Brutally Murders Two Teenage Girls Over Cell Phone"

I've seen enough situations around here that go in the total opposite direction. In fact, usually they don't make big news.

I ain't letting the phone go. It's just not going to happen. Not that I'm some big tough dude, but you just can't let punks do what ever they want. He took a beating, but I'd rather take a beating and see them arrested, then to let them get away with it, only to do it to someone else.

JoeyM wrote: I added a second link to clarify this, but she said she would kill him IF HE DIDN'T LET HER GO. He could have ended any legitimate threat to his life by doing so. Clearly, a jury would say that this was not a lethal force situation.

According to the article, this was said to him regarding his only available actions to defend himself from the beating that was already occurring. As such this was likely well past the point of him being able to simply walk away, or them being willing to let him just walk away, even if he did let go. If anything the verbal threat of deadly force combined with him actively being by multiple assailants with a deadly weapon, might have actually provided extra justification to use potentially lethal force in return to protect his own life.

Obviously the completely worthless bystanders watching him being beaten still would have prevented his ability to justify use a concealed firearm.

Driven5 wrote:

JoeyM wrote: I added a second link to clarify this, but she said she would kill him IF HE DIDN'T LET HER GO. He could have ended any legitimate threat to his life by doing so. Clearly, a jury would say that this was not a lethal force situation.

Obviously the completely worthless bystanders watching him being beaten still would have prevented his ability to justify use a concealed firearm.

This is the important part. WTF man? You let some punk bitches beat the E36 M3 out of an old man? Really?

Many bystanders today are very frightened by the idea that if they get involved in altercation that they'll be shot or killed right along with the "good guy". I don't trust anybody these days not to have gun. I don't think me having a gun would make me any more likely to step-in for fear that they'd draw a gun because I had one.

Having a kevlar vest on the other hand, would certainly make me more confident, because more than likely the bad guy does not.

PHeller wrote: Having a kevlar vest on the other hand, would certainly make me more confident, because more than likely the bad guy does not.

Just makes you sweaty and appear to be beefier than you are.

I'm actually surprised to know he's 63 years old, I thought he was a lot younger than that. From what I know of the man he's pretty fit, so this wasn't a case of them attacking some doddering old man.

The Minneapolis paper says today that a couple people did come to his aid, it's apparently all on security video.

I thought if you pursued a criminal when you had the opportunity to retreat you no longer qualify for a "stand your ground" defense.

…these must be some pretty tough girls. I’m not a big guy or anything but I can’t imagine many 18 year old girls being conscious very long if I were to actually go flat out on them. I feel bad even thinking about it as attacking a woman is so disdainful but as they say, live by the sword - die by the sword.

z31maniac wrote: I thought if you pursued a criminal when you had the opportunity to retreat you no longer qualify for a "stand your ground" defense.

Different states, different laws. In this instance, he's being assaulted by two people OTHER than the person stealing his property.

z31maniac wrote: I thought if you pursued a criminal when you had the opportunity to retreat you no longer qualify for a "stand your ground" defense.

That's because a criminal has rights and you don't.

We have these sort of events because we foster the environment that allows these sort of events to occur. And we coddle the criminals and criminalize the victims (or at least legally tie their hands).

Bobzilla wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I thought if you pursued a criminal when you had the opportunity to retreat you no longer qualify for a "stand your ground" defense.

Different states, different laws. In this instance, he's being assaulted by two people OTHER than the person stealing his property.

Exactly. He was attempting to retrieve his property. That isn't assault and has nothing to do with "stand your ground".
THEN he was assaulted.

rabble rabble rabble

statistically no worse off today than in years past.

safer today actually.

24 hour instant online news from anywhere. scary.

Dry New Year's Eve party down the street. THAT's scary.

xflowgolf wrote: rabble rabble rabble statistically no worse off today than in years past. safer today actually. 24 hour instant online news from anywhere. scary.

And how does that benefit this conversation? VIOLENT crimes have gone down. But in the last 10 years burglary has actually been on hte rise. Almost 2% since 2002. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1