Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Caught on video: Another black-on-white racially motivated gang attack

Caught on video: Another black-on-white racially motivated gang attack

If victims shot in self-defense, would media and politicians portray the victims as criminals as in Zimmerman case?

Fast on the heels of the gang attack upon the white couple described in yesterday’s post, “Caught on Video: Vicious Group Attack by Thugs on Young Couple,” comes another video capture of a gang of black teenagers beating unconscious what appears to be a randomly selected white man intent on nothing more than doing his grocery shopping, as well as two store employees who came to his aid.

Breitbart news site Big Government reports that:

According to Memphis police, the group emerged from a restaurant in the same strip mall and immediately attacked a 25-year-old man as he left his car in the parking lot and headed for the grocery store.

Two grocery store employees ran to the man’s aide, and the black mob attacked them as well, brutally beating all three victims into unconsciousness.

Cell phone video of the attacks as captured by an observer is embedded below.

The screen cap of that video in the image above captures the moment that one of the attackers stomps down upon a fallen store employee’s hand, which had been protecting his face, so that the attacker could next swing a kick directly into the now unprotected face.

The victim was, not surprisingly rendered utterly unconscious by the vicious attack, as were the other two victims of the gang.

The attacking gang can be heard laughing throughout, as can spectators.

Needless to say, this is again a disparity of force attack of a deadly force nature that would unquestionably have justified the use of deadly force in self-defense as previously discussed in both yesterday’s post and the prior “When can you legally use a gun against an unarmed person?”

Indeed, watching the store employee being viciously stomped unconscious one cannot help recall the vicious attack by Trayvon Martin upon George Zimmerman, repeatedly smashing Zimmerman’s head upon the sidewalk.  Any one of those blows could have been the one that rendered Zimmerman unconscious and helpless.

Can there be any doubt that if Zimmerman had not been lawfully armed and able to bring that Kel-Tec to bear against Martin that this, or worse, would have been the outcome? (Click here for a comprehensive list of all my coverage of the Zimmerman trial, including the famed “Mythbuster” posts.)

Sooner or later one of these vicious gangs of “children” is going to chose as a target one of the 5% to 10% of Americans lawfully licensed to carry concealed weapons for personal protection. I expect that they will find it considerably more difficult to stomp an innocent person unconscious when the intended victim is able to lawfully and adequately defend themselves and those they have a duty to defend.

I also expect we’ll be hearing considerably less laughing and a lot more lamentations about how awful it is that yet another “unarmed black child” was killed in lawful self-defense.

I beseech the parents of these attacking teen gang members to do whatever is necessary to save their children’s lives.  Nobody wants to join the tragic ranks of the Martin or Davis parents.

At the same time, no civilized society can allow roaming bands of gangs to randomly target innocent people for deadly force attacks.

As an aside, these vicious attacks against which defense is possible only with a weapon surely doom any efforts to restrict or diminish either concealed carry or self-defense laws. Indeed, I expect these attacks will successfully advance efforts to expand both the circumstances under which both concealed carry and the use of deadly force in self-defense are lawful.

Be careful out there, folks.  There but for pure luck goes any one of us.  Be alert, be prepared, know the law.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


NOTE: It seems Amazon is running a “Kindle Countdown” on “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition.” Until 4PM (US EST) today the Kindle version of the book is available for $4.99, half the usual price. 🙂

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He holds many state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and produces free online self-defense law educational video- and podcasts at the Law of Self Defense University.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Subotai Bahadur | September 8, 2014 at 2:46 pm

This is year 6 Anno Obama. In this new age there is no right of self defense against attacks by “his people” or those he is bringing through the southern border he erased. Any attempt to defend yourself is a hate crime and will be prosecuted.

On the other hand, expecting prosecution of the assailants would also be extremely politically incorrect [Rotherham syndrome] and a hate crime.

According to what I’ve read, this was a brand new Kroger.

And in Memphis, I’m a little surprised that nobody there was armed.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    Oh, I rather imagine there were at least a couple in that rampaging mob packin’ heat. If any of the victims had used a gun to defend himself, he would have received return fire.

    Although, much more likely, there would have been wildly random gunfire in the crowd, probably striking one or more of the “kids havin’ some fun.”

I’m not sure you should be using “Mythbuster” in quotes, it appears as if the show “MythBusters” did a show on the trial. Did I miss something?

A little more on subject, is there any doubt what the next war the USA will face?

The sad, sad days just keep coming faster and faster! I can no longer ride my bicycle on the public trails or roads for fear of what could happen to me if I’m alone and/or unprotected. This is truly scary!

    I put “Mythbusters” in quotes because I wrote several posts specifically busting particular myths promulgated during the Zimmerman investigation and trial.

    I am, obviously, not the REAL Mythbusters, hence the quotes.

    I have no idea of Mythbusters did an episode on the Zimmerman trial–I guess I’d be surprised they’d touch such a hot button topic.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Char Char Binks | September 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Fun fun fun!

“Somebody call somebody.” Um…maybe stop videotaping with your phone and call somebody with your phone?

To me, what I saw in this video is worse than what occurred in Ferguson. In Ferguson, there was a confrontation between two people – one white, one black – that heated up and resulted in the death of one of the people involved. It was a tragic outcome, but I have to leave it to the courts to untangle the thing.

But what I saw in this video from Memphis was horrible. A white dude, not bothering anyone, suddenly gets attacked and brutally beaten by a black dude – for no apparent reason. Absent any information to the contrary, one might surmise that the black dude beat up the white dude simply because he was white.

Granted, no one died, but where is the public outrage here? Where are the TV cameras and talking heads? And, of course, where is our esteemed Attorney General with his calming and gentle rhetoric?

Nothing more need be said. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and I’m not sure what the answer is.

    nordic_prince in reply to tiger66. | September 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Oh, there’d be plenty of media (if not public) outrage were the tables turned, and it was roving bands of white punks beating up black people. The fact that the media is virtually silent vis-a-vis black-on-white crime is proof that they agree with Zero’s “fundamental transformation” into Amerika, which involves a hefty dose of “reparations” – and not merely monetary “reparations,” mind you ~

Humphrey's Executor | September 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm

Wouldn’t an armed “good Samaritan” seeing this attack have to think twice before using deadly force to protect the victim? “Am I going to be the next one pilloried for ‘gunning down’ an innocent black child?”

    As a non-lawyer who could be in that situation, I would have to say I would think three times. The video has changed my opinion on carrying extra ammunition though…

      Gremlin1974 in reply to georgfelis. | September 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm

      I always carry at lest one extra magazine, most of the time 2 extra, for my Semi-auto’s and 2 speed loaders for my revolver. Now with these 2 situations I have something to point at as to why I carry extra, if/when asked.

    You have to choose whether you will live with the death of and innocent man or go to jail for the rest of your life. If you can’t answer that question right now, you should reconsider carrying a gun.

    Frankly, the only way I would use my weapon in defense of a third party is if it was in defense of a close friend or family member. I hate to day that but usually you are going to come up in the middle of these situations and not have any clue how it started. What if the person you are “defending” actually started the fight, maybe fine if you are in a state that judges your actions by “reasonable assumption” but not all states are like that and you may end up in a cell right by the person you were trying to defend.

    I also used to think that I may draw my weapon and yell “Stop!” or something to that effect, however think for a moment how unsound a tactical position that puts you in, not to mention possible charges for brandishing a weapon.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 9, 2014 at 1:45 am

      I believe, and Andrew can correct me if I’m wrong, that once even a malefactor is rendered unconscious, if the person who was defending himself continues to apply potentially lethal force, you’d be within the law to use deadly force to stop what had become a criminal act, once the lawful act of self-defense had ended. Even when defending oneself, you’re only allowed enough force to stop the attack. The application of more force than is necessary, and its application past the time your attacker was neutralized, would make the continued use of force illegal. If the force being used was potentially lethal, that would make you a legitimate target for someone defending the life of your attacker.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 9, 2014 at 2:39 am

        To put it more simply, you can use no more force than is necessary to stop the attack and you can’t shoot them when they are down.

JackRussellTerrierist | September 8, 2014 at 3:29 pm

It’s just going to get worse and worse until whites, Asians and Hispanics begin fighting back.

It’s been going on a long time but has increased substantially during the last five years so much so that now even the media is here and there reporting a few of the hundreds upon hundreds of these attacks by blacks.

It’s past time to fight back. Holder, obamullah and their minions want us to live in fear of them. They accomplish part of that by prosecuting any non-black for shooting a black attacker and turning a blind eye to what the attacker did and to all the attacks in which the victim had no chance and wasn’t able to defend him or herself.

Holder should be ignored completely and there should be huge protests against him when he does try to persecute someone for self-defense, and the same for local prosecutors. Ignore them or protest them loudly and violently if need be when they step out of line.

Let’s declare this for what it really is.

Domestic Terrorism.

Andrew, great insight as usual, but I do have one small bone to pick with your closing.
“…There but for pure luck goes any one of us…”
Not exactly. Pure luck implies we don’t have a choice of where we live, work, shop, eat, etc. I greatly reduce the odds of being attacked by a roaming gang of thugs by living and working and shopping and eating nowhere near where these thugs live, work, shop, eat, etc.
I can’t help but shake my head that a seemingly innocent, mild mannered, young white guy, would work at a Kroger overflowing with young black thugs.
Avoid high crime areas, which is to say, avoid areas frequented by young black males, and you greatly reduce your chances of ending up on your knees getting your face kicked in… Or carry a gun and accept the insanely precarious legal situation you’ll find yourself should you ever need to use it.
If Ted Wafer had just moved a little north…

Anyway… Sorry if the PC crowd is offended.

    Ragspierre in reply to mmagnus. | September 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    I’d suggest there is no such place, and it is a terrible error to make this a racial thing. It isn’t what Andrew wrote about.

    All young people are mobile. There isn’t a place I can go they can’t congregate, and especially using flash-mob tactics.

    There isn’t a place where Hell’s Angels, Sun Downers, or Bandidos can’t roll up on me. There isn’t a place where a couple of car-loads of vatos can’t pick me or you out. The ad hoc gang d’jure of rice-burning bikers, techno car bois…whatever. It is a psychology, not a race.

    The issue is what you are going to do about it if…or when…it happens. Or if you see it going on.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Maybe. But some places are better than others. Right now I am living in rural MT. Occasional black or Hispanic floats through, but are pretty noticeable. A lot of bikers in the late summer, but they tend to be RUBs. I expect that if a bunch of them attacked someone like this they wouldn’t make it out of the county – just not enough routes. And a lot of people are armed, or at least have a firearm in their vehicle.

      This is extreme, but I do tend to live in pretty safe places. Not out of fear, but for quality of life (my practice is international). I like living in a small town where you know a lot of the people, and gun violence is rare. Where gun shots mean that that an overpopulation of wildlife is being thinned, and not someone is being shot.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2014 at 7:47 pm

      This also highlights the lack of situational awareness practiced by most people today. The young couple in the tunnel for Andrews article yesterday were supposedly out to “Identify” who had accosted her earlier, which my not have been the best decision, but if you watch the video, neither of them was doing anything but looking in front of them. I see people all the time who pull up to park and never even look before they open their door when parked on the side of a busy street, or they just jump out of the car in a parking lot.

      To many people today assume safety, but do not practice behaviors that actually help make you safer.

      Take a moment when you park to look around your car. I actually stop before I pull into a parking spot and look around, then take a quick scan before I open my door, then I scan again as I am closing and locking my door. It takes basically no extra time but it can save your life.

      I had a rude awakening when I took a class on gun defense a few years ago. I am right handed and shoot with my right hand as primary, though I can shoot with either hand, right is better. Well being right handed I carry my gun on my right hip as a general rule. So during the class we were to get out of the car and lock the door and walk to a door way that simulated entering a building. The instructor said go, I looked around “Yellow”, I got out of the car and looked around “Yellow”, I closed the door and put the key in the lock while still looking around and the Instructor called a halt and freeze. He just stood there looking at me for a moment until I realized what I had done, I was locking the door with my right hand, so my gun hand was occupied. It seems so simple, but it takes awareness and thought. Sure I could have dropped the keys and then drawn my gun, but I would lose valuable time in doing so, I also might have lost my keys. Neither is good.

      Just take a moment and think about those times when you have left your phone in the car and reached back in to get it, think for a moment how vulnerable you are, it can be kind of frightening.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | September 9, 2014 at 1:57 am

      It’s not an error. Race plays an integral role in these types of attacks. This is just the latest in a very long string of racially-motivated attacks by young black men on white people. It’s called “polar bear hunting” and “the knock-out game.” It is overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, black-on-white violence, with victims chosen solely because of their race (white). If you’re not familiar with the phenomenon, I suggest doing a Google search, searching on breitbart.com, or searching for articles by and about Colin Flaherty (a chronicler of these attacks).

      Twanger in reply to Ragspierre. | September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm

      I’m one of two people on my street that owns a Harley.
      Maybe I’m the one in my neighborhood I should be worried about? 🙂

“Indeed, I expect these attacks will successfully advance efforts to expand both the circumstances under which both concealed carry and the use of deadly force in self-defense are lawful.”

Why would you expect that? May-issue states are notoriously immune to such arguments. NJ courts simply don’t care even if you are an actual victim of violence, they reject concealed carry applications regardless, claiming that you still didn’t show evidence of “heightened need”. California sheriffs are the same. Even in shall-issue states expanding the scope of carry to include places like schools, or adding open carry in states that disallow it, is DOA.

    Any comments I ever make about favorable trends in self-defense or gun law can be understood to exclude the handful of “police” states, including CA, NJ, MD, NY, and MA. I don’t expect any of those states to change substantially for the better (although it would be nice if they did).

    But those five states represent only a small fraction of America, and therefore only a small fraction of the audience to which I’m communicating.

    In the other 45 states there have steady, substantive improvements in both self-defense and gun law for more than 20 years, and attacks by roaming thugs on innocent victims is not going to diminish that momentum.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 8, 2014 at 5:41 pm

      I also think that it is important to continually point out the racial angle to much of this type of violence. Just like the PC suppression of the racial angle in that massive rape ring in the UK allowed it to flourish until north of 1400 girls had been abducted and/or raped. Hiding this sort of thing in the name of political correctness just enables those who partake in it.

      There is a horrible violence problem in esp the underclass black communities these days. A lot of contributors, but a big one is the lack of opportunities for badly educated youths – greatly exasperated by progressive economic policies at least since LBJ’s War on Poverty started subsidizing negative behaviors such as out of wedlock childbearing. But instead of addressing it, the left, led by AG Holder are looking at black arrest and incarceration rates, ignoring that they tend to be lower than black crime rates. All in the name of political correctness, and the suppression of uncomfortable truths.

      Finally, it should not be forgotten that, more likely than not, based on his social media, Trayvon Martin was probably engaging in the knockdown game, attacking a vulnerable white/Hispanic when he was shot. He just picked someone who was legally carrying a concealed weapon, when he decided to whomp some white ass. If there was a racial angle, and racial animas, it was most likely on his part, and not on the part of George Zimmerman.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 9, 2014 at 2:04 am

      These types of attacks could be used to provide a substantial platform from which to promote concealed carry and gun rights. However, the left would doubtless label anyone with the temerity to do so as “racist” and “something-or-other phobic.” The potential for damaging political “push back” from the left, supported by the media feed to the low-information voter, is real.

But the witness says this clip is just a tiny snapshot of what happened in the entire parking lot. He states, blacks, whites, girls and boys were all part of the vicious pack.

“Were all of the victims white?” asked WREG’s Elise Preston.

“No, they were black and white. Will is white, Brian is black. and then my other friend, Brandon, he`s black as well,” replied the witness.

News Channel 3 slowed down the video and noticed the security guard is dragging a black teen away from the crowd.

The witness identified that teen as another Kroger employee knocked unconscious after he tried to stop the mob from attacking customers.

“It’s kind of traumatizing because it didn’t seem real. It didn’t seem like any of that would happen,” said the witness.
http://wreg.com/2014/09/07/witness-reacts-to-violent-attack-at-kroger/

A bit more information.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    So it was basically a roving pack of feral children? Identify them arrest them and arrest their parents as well, because they are just as much to blame as the child, imho.

The Friendly Grizzly | September 8, 2014 at 7:18 pm

“I beseech the parents of these attacking teen gang members to do whatever is necessary to save their children’s lives. Nobody wants to join the tragic ranks of the Martin or Davis parents.”

Saving the lives of their children is something that I, for one, do not care one whit about. Their children, nothing more than feral thugs, have no meaning and no worth to society.

I want to see their victims be able to take care of things in a manner where the perpetrators cannot act again. And, the victims should be able to do so without being made fodder for the nightly news or the churchless reverends and other troublemakers.

I am just taking a moment to imagine the media outcry if, God forbid, I ever did have to engage multiple targets of an attacking mob. I am not nearly to the level of Andrew and some of his compatriots, but I can say that I would probably be able to hit at least 2 – 4 of them.

Oh and then just think, what if one of your rounds actually hit one of the one’s who was running away.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 8, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Considering this melee, I wonder how much actual shoot I’d be doing if I was not attacked directly.

    I think the kid kicking and stomping the teen on the ground would be given the chance to lay down…right away…with my gun on him.

    But a lot of those hooligans were just running and screaming. And the sight of an armed person who looked like they might know what they were doing might have been very sobering to many of them.

    Also, I note in passing that an edged weapon is more intimidating to a lot of people than even a firearm.

If Brooklyn off duty Black auxiliary cop Dieuphen Hyppolite ,had shot his attackers Samuel Brender and Ahrone Koskare in self defense,would he be treated as a criminal or a victim by the media and politicians. Would legal insurrection support Mr Hyppolite or his attackers Brenderand Koskare ? If Mr Hyppolite killed his attackers would legal insurrection cite this as an instancewwhere deadly force was applicable? Or would Mr Hyppolite be deemed a “cold blooded murderer ” who committed an ” unnecessary killing. “

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | September 8, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    First of all I would bet the media would have ignored it all together.

    “Would legal insurrection support Mr Hyppolite or his attackers Brenderand Koskare ?”

    Most likely we would look at the facts as we tend to do in these cases and make a judgement based on those facts and we would have opinions that covered the full spectrum. Most of us would not have cared what color skin either party might have had, because we really don’t care even if you do.

    Now because I believe in being upfront with people I just want to say that frankly I am tired of and offended by your continued race baiting, innuendo, and out right bigotry towards people that don’t happen to agree with you.

    You add noting to the actual discussions. None of your comments that I have seen are anything more than thinly veiled accusations of racism based on one single case that you continually whine about even though the man on trial was aquitted. I am sending an e-mail to the site admin asking that you be banned for overt racism, bigotry, and abusing others who are actually trying to have an adult discussion on these matters.

    P.S. Just for your education not everyone sees things through the prism of race even if you do.

    Walker Evans in reply to m1. | September 9, 2014 at 12:50 am

    If someone is attacked and in fear of life or grievous bodily harm, I am on their side when they pull that trigger; skin color has no bearing. My presumption is that Hyppolite’s attackers were Caucasian as you already said Hyppolite was black, and you’re trying to make some color point here. The facts of the event are what matters not the skin color.

    Get a life.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Walker Evans. | September 9, 2014 at 2:17 am

      It’s called “projection.” People on the left believe that if they were in such situations that race would have a bearing on how they would act/react. They then project that onto others, never imagining that other people don’t think the way they do. They are simply incapable of seeing the world through the eyes of others, so they presume others act upon the same base thoughts and feelings as they know or believe would motivate themselves.

      Milhouse in reply to Walker Evans. | September 9, 2014 at 2:51 pm

      M1 is referring to this story. (Please note that, as commenters pointed out, the two young men are not yeshivah students, or even Orthodox. Not that that matters, but it’s the supposed religious aspect that made the story interesting to the media, and that aspect is in fact absent. Also note that according to this story witnesses deny that there were any racial slurs uttered.)

    Milhouse in reply to m1. | September 9, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    If he had shot them he would absolutely have been a criminal. They did not pose any threat to him at all. They shouldn’t have assaulted him, but that’s all they did. He had no right to use deadly force against them, so it’s a good thing for him that he didn’t.

    What’s more, if they’d been black he wuld never have dared tell them to be quiet, and the whole incident would never have occurred. Had he been white and they black, most people would not treat the incident seriously, and would say he was paying for his foolishness in confronting them. The only reason he felt safe to tell them off in the first place was that they were white, and he knew they wouldn’t kill him or do him any serious harm. And he was right; all he got was a scratch and a swollen finger. Meanwhile they’re in jail where merely being white, Jewish, and young puts them at serious risk.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | September 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm

      Actually 2 on 1 is enough of a disparity of force that he more than likely would have been justified in using deadly force if he was attacked by both or was in reasonable fear of attack by both.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        It doesn’t matter whether it was 2-on-1 or 5-on-1, there was no reason for him to suppose they meant to do him any serious injury. Without that, there is no right to use deadly force.

This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

The likes of Al Sharpton – enabled by the likes of President Valerie Jarrett and Vice President Barack Obama — have set loose an army of animals. All part of the plan.

The black community condones these attacks by remaining silent when whites are brutalized and marching and rioting when a thug is killed by someone defending himself.

When you are 12-13% of the population and commit 40-50% of the crime, somebody is going the stop you the Colt Peacemaker way … six bullets at a time.

    Ragspierre in reply to Juba Doobai!. | September 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    You’re full of crap.

    There is no such thing as a “black community” unless you adopt the racism of the Collective.

    There are individuals, and MANY in Memphis ARE condemning this and MORE…regardless of skin color.

    And at least ONE, if not more, of the victims was black. He was one of the Kroger employees who went out to defend another. Also the security guard credited with breaking the melee up was black.

      randian in reply to Ragspierre. | September 9, 2014 at 3:29 pm

      That only proves that blacks who get in the way of attacking whites will get attacked themselves. It doesn’t disprove the general racial animus on display.

        I’m afraid I concur with randian on this narrow point.

        There are a great many black men I admire enormously–to me it is a broken culture, not skin color, that is the poison in our body politic that drives such incidents.

        But the mere fact that a raging mob entirely or almost entirely composed of young black teens happens to sweep up a few incidental black victims doesn’t mean the mob’s motivation wasn’t largely or entirely racial in nature. The KKK also swept up a few white people along the way. Doesn’t make THEM less racist.

        Also, whatever the “underlying causes” of such events, it does nothing to change the reality that the prudent individual will prepare himself for their occurrence.

        I would suggest preparations in excess of a cell phone and 911. But each of us must make our own decisions in such matters.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        Ragspierre in reply to randian. | September 9, 2014 at 4:20 pm

        But it DOES prove that it isn’t a COMMUNITY but an individual thing.

        There are certainly black racists. They come in every color. A true “rainbow coalition”.

        And you are full of crap, too, as to the “general racial animus” if you take it out of the conduct of the individuals involved.

        The mayor and police chief are black, and have been vigorous and hard in finding and charging the criminals.

Char Char Binks | September 9, 2014 at 11:27 am

It wasn’t racially motivated, according to witnesses who say blacks were attacked, too. All they have to do is say it, and it’s true.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend