Boy arrested after robbery of University of Michigan student
A boy was arrested Monday after University of Michigan police said he robbed a 20-year-old U-M student outside the Ross School of Business complex.
About 10:40 p.m., the student, who had finished working at a campus library for the night, was walking to his car in the 700 block of East University Avenue when a group of men, including the boy, shoved him to the ground and took his wallet and backpack, police said.
The victim declined medical attention.
Officers arrested the boy and took him to Washtenaw County's juvenile detention facility, police spokeswoman Diane Brown said. Brown declined to release his age, saying she couldn't because he's a juvenile. Police also arrested a 21-year-old man for an alleged probation violation.
Charges in the robbery are pending.
Comments
Ron Granger
Wed, Aug 17, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
I'm sure we would have heard all about this "boy's" age if the victim had injured him while defending himself. Shouldn't someone have been arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.
Thanks Regents and UMPD for making the campus safer! For the criminals that is. I'm sure the law abiding feel comfortable...I know I don't and avoid campus as much as possible.
Mick52
Fri, Aug 19, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.
Ike you are correct and you have made your point and do not have to defend it. While there are students who are mature, there are too many that do not conduct themselves "honorably" and that I believe is the impetus of the U to ban firearms. Too many students are irresponsible, get angry and get in fights. I do not agree with an overall ban because it is contrary to state law and not appropriately publicized. If I found myself in the position of this victim, and I was following their ordinance I would be more angry with the U than the robbers. I don't want to find myself in this position without my gun. As an educator and employer dumb restrictions should be applied to students and employees not other people who comply with the law. With the regent ordinance in place, if you are confronted by this group and pull your weapon, you would have to let them go. Otherwise you get a ticket for violating the ordinance and maybe lose your CCW, maybe lose your weapon and get trespass warned. You remain safe, and the criminals remain free to attack another victim.
Ike
Wed, Aug 17, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
That's a valid point, and I'm sorry but I'd rather not give out my age, I just don't like giving out private information (even age) over the internet to strangers, no offense. I agree, I wouldn't want other rights restricted like that, and so I'm a bit biased because I have no interest in carrying a gun on me, but in this sense, a college campus is a more concentrated area of immature and irresponsible young people, (all this repetition of immaturity makes me feel like I'm being a bit harsher than I intended) where, by restricting certain things that can create harm from irrational thinking, we can make the area safer. I think it would be great to restrict only students to be unable to carry weapons, or implement an age limit of 21, but since it's extremely difficult to distinguish an 18 year old student from a 21 year old citizen, it puts the legislatures in a bind: to ban weapons on campus entirely or not at all, and they agree with likes of me I guess, that people can live without having a weapon on campus.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Aug 17, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
Ike, would you care to divulge your age? Just out of curiosity as those who are "allowed" to carry a firearm concealed in the rest of the state are at minimum 21 and who we generally are referencing. Of course those 18-20 need protection too and in those cases may have to resort to open carry with limitations. Either are prohibited from doing so on campus. Your argument that because some cannot be responsible and therefore ALL should be restricted...how would you feel if more of your rights are similarly infringed because others can't be trusted? Driving for instance?
Ike
Wed, Aug 17, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Nephilim, I am a student, and like all students, I cannot deny that, like any student, young adult, and even adult, I've had my share of irresponsible moments. If you really don't think that U of M students can be irresponsible, then you truly are mistaken and you think a bit too highly of the school. I'm not saying University of Michigan isn't a fantastic school. U of M has incredible academic and athletic tradition, a history of success, and tradition like no other. Nonetheless it's still, like any college or university, a bunch of young kids learning to be adults, and the vast majority of people are irresponsible at that age. As for footing the bill you really have no basis to assume what I pay or don't pay for my own education. I was just trying to provide some logical points and have a good discussion here about gun policy on campus. I didn't intend to attack your entire generation, although if I did, I truly apologize, and I deserve to have my own generation attacked in return.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.
Ike, please avail yourself of the fine logic and history classes at the U. Afterwords review your positions here an get back to us. Let me help by pointing you in the direction of "The Great Experiment" Compare and contrast that with your stated views. Good luck.
Nephilim
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 9:08 p.m.
So Ike, you are telling everyone here, you are a student of U of M and that you are irresponsible? Nice. Very nice and my guess is you are not footing the bill that comes along with your education. Welcome to generation end....
Ike
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 7:49 p.m.
While I'm sure a protective bubble would be significantly more effective, the laws against weapons do allow law enforcement to detain and remove individuals with weapons, which I understand is ineffective, but a preventative measure nonetheless. Also, the first reasoning still stands of irresponsibility and weapons not mixing well.
Wehrwolf
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
"The other is to avoid incidents like that on the Virginia Tech campus a few years ago." Your "guess" couldn't be any further from the truth. VA Tech was, at the time of the shootings, and continues to be, a "Gun Free Zone". Yet that didn't stop Cho from going on his rampage. So unless there's some magical bubble surrounding campus that can physically repel people who bring weapons in violation of the rules, this policy does absolutely nothing to deter individuals intent on committing a crime.
Ike
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.
My guess for the reason they don't allow guns on campus is that students can be fairly irresponsible (myself being one) and irresponsibility and guns isn't a great combination. The other is to avoid incidents like that on the Virginia Tech campus a few years ago.
cinnabar7071
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
The criminals carry guns, why not the rest of us?
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
Because you are correct, the Police can't be everywhere at once nor can they respond to any incident instantly. YOU are the first responder to any critical incident YOU are involved in. If only they ALLOWED reality to dictate common sense regulations....
Ricebrnr
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
Ha, now something a lot more practical. Allow law abiding citizens to carry any legal form of self protection they choose on campus. Simple enough request considering about 99% of the rest of Michigan and a whole bunch of States recognize this right.
Ike
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.
They arrested the kid, what do you want them to do? Have a psychic to know the crimes are coming in advance?
Michigan Man
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
Flash mobs now part of the U of M campus experience?
Marilyn Wilkie
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
The officer on the scanner said the boy was between 17 and 19. The wallet was also recovered later according to what I heard.
Mick52
Fri, Aug 19, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
Nor 17 when you go directly to jail. Pardon me if they have recently changed that.
Gramma
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.
18 and 19 year olds don't go to jvenil
Annie
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
A 'boy' ? Did this guy get robbed by a 7 year old?
Mick52
Fri, Aug 19, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.
That would be under 17. At 17 you go to jail, not juvenile lockup.
John B.
Tue, Aug 16, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.
No, but the suspect is thought to be under 18, so he is therefore a juvenile. A boy, not a man.