Robber hits University of Michigan student with baseball bat in Ann Arbor
A masked man hit a University of Michigan student in the back of the head with a baseball bat near campus Monday night, then stole his backpack, Ann Arbor police said.
The attack in the 500 block of Monroe Street left the victim with a bruise, but he refused medical treatment, a police report said.
Police responded after a witness to the robbery called 911 at 11:23 p.m. Detectives are investigating, police spokeswoman Lt. Renee Bush said.
Police say it appears the 20-year-old victim was targeted at random.
He told police he was walking along the south side of the street when he heard footsteps behind him. He was struck in the back of the head with the bat and knocked to the ground, the report said.
The attacker demanded his backpack and continued to hit him, police said. According to the report, he threatened to seriously harm the victim if he didn't hand the bag over.
The victim called out for help, but did not get any response, the report said. He was able to fend off the attacker, who took the bag and left in a red sedan, police said. The sedan was seen traveling east toward South State Street.
According to a University of Michigan police news release, the attacker was seen exiting a passenger-side door of the car prior to the robbery.
The police report does not mention anyone else being seen in the car. The incident occurred off campus across from South Quad.
Police say the backpack contained two calculators and a textbook.
The attacker was described as white, 5 feet, 7 inches tall and of a medium build. He was wearing a black ski mask and black hooded sweatshirt.
Anyone with information can call the department’s confidential tip line at (734) 794-6939.
Comments
Ricebrnr
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 10:21 p.m.
And BTW here's what could've happenned instead: http://www.examiner.com/x-18149-SelfDefense-Examiner~y2010m1d31-Concealed-carry-permit-holder-fends-off-4-attackers
Ricebrnr
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.
@awakenned, Thanks, that's thought provoking. @Stuid Hick First let me thank you profusely for discussing this logically and reasonably. Second I think we need to address some of the foundations of your argument. About proportionality: why do I never see comments like, "if only the victim had a bat"? Why always a fixation on concealed firearms and use of lethal force? The premise of this argument is that law abiding citizens interested in self defense should carry weapons similar or proportional to what they may encounter in an armed confrontation. I think if one thinks this argument through you would find that not only are we as law abiding citizens restricted from carrying such items specifically for self defense (many knives, batons, striking instruments) but actually carrying all of said items might be somewhat cumbersome and unrealistic in practice. Also this premise assumes that victims should at least be prepared to engage in combat in kind with an armed assailant. Now you may be a young strapping buck and willing to do so but many including myself are not willing to do so even with over a decade of martial arts and some street smarts under my belt. I have a family that relies on me. I am not willing to cede any advantage when I or mine have been targeted. We cannot afford for me to be incapacitated, how about you? Proportionality and fairness have been already taken from you if a criminal targets you. (OK, I grant that reckless, desperate, or even lazy criminals might not be very rational...) Continuing that thought lets also not discount that many are neither reckless nor lazy. Many are career criminals and very shrewd (as you stated). While I do not discount your reasoning, I still maintain if the criminal used a bat it is because that was the most threatening weapon they had on hand. What I'm saying is I don't want to live somewhere where everyone is so fearful of being a victim of crime that carrying guns in public is considered a normal, rational, precaution. Isnt this the same as saying, I wear a seatbelt because Im too fearful of being in an accident? I own a fire extinguisher because Im too afraid of fire?..smoke detectors..life insurance? Do we NOT do these things because we refuse to live in fear of these events? NO we dont, we do these thing to prepare in case these events come to pass. So is not doing them normal or rational then? Maybe it would be rational in Baghdad, Kabul, or maybe even Flint, but why would anyone want to turn Ann Arbor into Flint? Gun owners have a favorite saying. If I knew there was going to be trouble, I wouldnt go there Does Ann Arbor have it as bad as those places mentioned? No but does it have no crime? Do you know when or where you might become a target? I bet if this student knew he was going to be attacked at this time and location, he mightve taken a different route home. I know I would. But since I and non one I know can predict the future, applying rational thought to random and future events and not preparing for them is neither rational or smart, imho. How many people would want to visit or live in Ann Arbor if shootings, justifiable or not, were common? Or if half the people you pass by on the street are carrying baseball bats or wearing holstered firearms? How many sane people do you think would react: "Oh, what a safe place Ann Arbor is-- look at all the well-prepared, proactive, self-sufficient citizens! There must be no serious crime here." No, I think the sane reaction would be: "Wow, this place must be pretty messed up. Why is everyone carrying a weapon? I'm staying away from here"." Concealed is concealed, many of us are already among you just like the criminals already are. In case you didnt know, openly carrying holstered firearms is also legal in MI and does actually occur here in AA. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/14938.html. I know of a few who do so not to mention the Police and guess what? People dont go running for the hills or plan to move out of AA for this. I bet no one has changed any plans since the article in 2008 in coming here either. Fear is a common tool of oppression, a gun owner, contrary to belief, does not live in fear or do we choose to be oppressed by it. The grasshopper called the ants crazy for preparing too until...
Stupid Hick
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 12:45 a.m.
@ricebrnr: I question the premise that laziness is a likely reason for someone to attempt a robbery. I'm sure there are different reasons, but in my opinion robbery is more likely a mark of reckless desperation than laziness. I also question the conclusion that even a lazy robber would necessarily draw a gun if he had one, instead of leading-off by brandishing a bat. Drawing a gun raises the ante, big time. It makes it more likely the police will be relentless in pursuing you, and adds considerably to the penalty you face when caught. And that's not even taking into consideration what would happen if something goes wrong and your robbery turns into a homicide. What do you gain by using a gun, even if you have one, against a soft target, when something less, like a bat, will probably work just as well? (OK, I grant that reckless, desperate, or even lazy criminals might not be very rational...) I'm not saying people should take a beating rather than defend themselves, and I agree with you that brandishing a gun might scare off a mugger without shots being fired. What I'm saying is I don't want to live somewhere where everyone is so fearful of being a victim of crime that carrying guns in public is considered a normal, rational, precaution. Maybe it would be rational in Baghdad, Kabul, or maybe even Flint, but why would anyone want to turn Ann Arbor into Flint? How many people would want to visit or live in Ann Arbor if shootings, justifiable or not, were common? Or if half the people you pass by on the street are carrying baseball bats or wearing holstered firearms? How many sane people do you think would react: "Oh, what a safe place Ann Arbor is-- look at all the well-prepared, proactive, self-sufficient citizens! There must be no serious crime here." No, I think the sane reaction would be: "Wow, this place must be pretty messed up. Why is everyone carrying a weapon? I'm staying away from here".
Stupid Hick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:31 p.m.
About proportionality: why do I never see comments like, "if only the victim had a bat"? Why always a fixation on concealed firearms and use of lethal force?
Awakened
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 9:54 p.m.
ricebrnr Federal Case is Tennessee v Garner (1984) Michigan: People v Couch - S. Ct Michigan, 1990 "Public Authority Relevant Facts: Df used deadly force to effectuate a citizens arrest of a fleeing felon. Legal Issue(s): Whether a private citizen has the right to use deadly force to attempt to apprehend a fleeing felon? Courts Holding: The Garner rule does not apply to criminal matters. Garner was civil action. Court Rationale: Garner 's pronouncements regarding the constitutionality of the use of such force are inapplicable to private citizens. The power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states legislatures, not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court. Not only does this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) arguably lack the authority to change the fleeing felon rule or state criminal law, even prospectively, given the Legislature's adoption of and acquiescence in that rule, we must resist the temptation to do so Plaintiffs Argument: Garner applies directly to change this state's fleeing-felon rule fails because it is premised upon the notion that the United States Supreme Court can require a state to criminalize certain conduct and did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter." To be clear...Couch was NOT justified in this shooting because he only SUSPECTED that a person was a felon and could not articulate a reasonable belief that the person he shot was dangerous. A witness to the assault in this scenario wouldn't have that problem. I agree no trainer would ever train or advocate shooting a fleeing felon. But not because it is stricly illegal, just that they don't want to be blamed if some knucklehead does what Mr. Crouch did!
ronn oneal
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 1:30 p.m.
Once he turns to go away, the threat is no longer there. Guns arent the answer. Community coperation is key to a witness to every action in the comminuty. we need to stop that snicthis wrong type deal. u robb and steal Im snitchin, catch me in 20-30yrs when your out for parole.
ronn oneal
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.
the robber has a mask on, help me out on this one, how then do you get a description of attacker with mask over face..? help me out here..
ronn oneal
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 1:21 p.m.
@ Robber why take a chance on killin somebody for a backpack with school supplies and books that Im almost sure you cant use or sell but now this student has head injuries, out of pocket to replace what you dam near killed him for. best thing about it is KARMA, you wont get away..
Ricebrnr
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.
@Awakened Please cite the law where it states such. I've already posted a synopsis of the Stand Your Ground Law and no reputable trainer I know would ever advocate shooting at a fleeing felon.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.
Thieves and criminals are lazy, that's usually why they are criminals. If that premise is truthful, then IF the robber had a gun he would've used it instead of the bat. However as long as we are speculating, did you know that the majority of times a lawful carrier draws, the mere presense of the gun scares of the attacker and no shots are fired. But I suppose as long as we are speculating, that it would be preferable for the victim to just take his beating (hopefully not to death or permanent disablement). Yes MUCH more preferable to rely on the mercy of a criminal...
Awakened
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
Actually a citizen can shoot a fleeing felon to prevent his escape. Whether or not he is a victim or a bystander. A police officer can only shoot a fleeing if their is no other option AND the suspect commited a violent crime AND the subject is a threat to others if they escape. Citizens are not covered by the governmental restrictions of the 4th ammendment. Police are.
Stupid Hick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.
Think about it- if the student had been carrying a pistol, he could have shot the robber down. Maybe his stray bullets would have hit innocent bystanders too. Maybe the bystanders and the guy with the bat would have pulled guns and started shooting too. Then instead of stories about robberies, we'd be reading stories about gunfights in the streets of Ann Arbor. Is that preferable?
Stupid Hick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 12:15 a.m.
Has anyone else noticed that whenever a crime is reported, the same commenters express a wish it would escalate into a gun fight? That's just what we need, gun fights in the streets of Ann Arbor.
stonecutter1
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 9:28 p.m.
As a former UM student, this scenario could have happened to me many times. Luckily, I was not seen as an easy victim (based on my size). However, had I been, I would have relished the right to pull a gun on this miscreant and end his crime spree once and for all. Btw MjC, that criminal will carry a gun by choice, not by law. We can restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to carry weapons all we want. Criminals, by defenition, will carry weapons regardless of what the law says.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwfaq.asp The Stand Your Ground rule allows individuals to use proportional force in self defense without having to retreat, so long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be. Even a CPL holder who is exempt from the Pistol Free Zones loses this legal protection while carrying in violation of a posted notice that guns are not allowed on the premises. A quick review of proportionality: Any use of a firearm will probably be considered an application of deadly force. Deadly force is only appropriate in self defense when it is proportional to the threat. So, a firearm may only be used to prevent death, great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape. Deadly force in defense of others is allowed so long as the person being defended would have been justified in using deadly force to protect him or herself. Think of yourself as "stepping into the shoes" of the person you are defending. Ask yourself the question, "If I were that person, would I be justified in shooting?" If the answer is yes, your discharge of your firearm will be considered an action taken in the legally protected defense of another. Depending on what sidewalk/jurisdiction this student was attacked upon, the student may or may not have been legally justified in defending their life with a firearm. Does that make sense to anyone?
treetowncartel
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
Bill, I think you are right, my understanding is you have to be unable to retreat and in immminent harm. it would be a good case for jury nullification, which unfortunately, our courts don't allow as a jury instruction.
djm12652
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.
When your actions say victim, thugs will swoop down like vultures. Anytime after dark, NEVER walk alone in this town! I know most guys will say that they're able to take care of themselves, and I'm sure they are...in a fair fight. But some meth or crack head is gonna use whatever weapon available, and target easy prey. I wish I saw more of the UMDPS out there. I hope the vic doesn't let fear guide him and he recovers completely. But again, words to be wise, travel in numbers after dark.
Bill
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
genericreg, if I know my gun laws (which I don't) shooting the robber as he runs away would be illegal b/c at that point he doesn't pose a physical threat to you. Is this the truth or am I making things up?
Ricebrnr
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
The police are not there to protect you the individual! http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Also they cannot be everywhere all the time. To ask for that and by extension their protection is to ask for a POLICE STATE. Only YOU can protect YOU everywhere YOU go. How you choose to is up to you but you should never expect any other person or agency to do it for you.
Will
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
I, too, am concerned about the condition of the victim.
John of Saline
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.
Did the thug get the backpack or not?
Will
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.
I, too, am concerned about the condition of the student who was attacked.
elvis the pelvis
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:48 a.m.
Wolverine3660 if the student had been carrying a gun you know what would've happened. He would've been knocked down/out with the bat and his gun would be in the hands of the criminal now...great idea!
MjC
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.
My heart goes out to this student and a plea to UM DPS. There must be a more visible presence of officers around campus. These are dangerous times we're living in. And, Wolverine, please let's not make this another right to carry a gun discussion. That "if" could also include what would have happened if the robber had carried a gun. We should work to prevent crime and keep our students and citizens safe through our police force. That's why we have a police force.
mm1001
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:39 a.m.
Was it an aluminum or wooden bat?
treetowncartel
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 11:18 a.m.
If only Ann Arbor had a bat control ban, this could have been avoided. I hope the student is allright and is able to assist the authorities in prosecuting these individuals. i got to think if they find the driver of the car they will roll on the individual with the bat when they find out they are going to be charged with the assault too.
Wolverine3660
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
Think about it- if the student had been carrying a pistol, he could have shot the robber down. The student wouldnt have been injured,and we would have had one less criminal on our streets. Instead, we have a criminal who is still prowling our streets, looking for another innocent person to victimize.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Crime reporting and alerts don't help those already victimized. Wouldn't it have been nice for the student if they were able to scare off their attacker before becoming a victim?
Blklight
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
Actually there is a description of the suspect: "White male, 5'7"-5'8" wearing a black ski mask over his face and a hoodie". That is direct from the U of M Department of Public safety crime alert that went out today.
Alan Benard
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 8:23 a.m.
This is why crime reporting is so important. We all need to know about this event and the other violent crimes taking place in Ann Arbor. The insulation is cracking, and there's a lot of students here ripe for the picking. If nothing is done about this, and we pretend robberies and other violent crime is something that happens somewhere else, we will only have ourselves to blame when students choose other places to study.