A gang of teens pummeled and robbed a male victim in a Maryland shopping mall earlier this month, police said.

A similar attack took place at the same mall in February.

‘And this is why carry permits are on the rise. It’s only a matter of time before these idiots attack the wrong person.’

The Montgomery County Police Department said nine teenage suspects on March 16 followed a male victim into the Wheaton Mall in the 11100 block of Veirs Mill Road.

Police said around 11:30 a.m., one of the suspects approached the victim and struck him in the head. Video shows the strike happened from behind — after which other suspects joined in, physically assaulted the victim while he was on the floor, and stole his shoes. Police said the teen suspects then ran out of the mall.

Police said the suspects included three Hispanic females, five Hispanic males, and one black male. Police said they were wearing dark sleeves and tan pants.

Detectives are asking for the public’s help in identifying the suspects, police said. Those with information are asked to contact Crime Solvers at http://crimesolversmcmd.org (click “http://p3tips.com”) or call 1-866-411-8477, police said, adding that tips may be anonymous and could be eligible for a reward of $250 to $10,000.

RELATED: Thugs seen laughing, smiling on video apparently after they ganged up on, assaulted, stabbed lone victim in mall restroom

Blaze News recently reported an attack that took place at the same mall in February.

Montgomery County Police said a male victim around noon Feb. 4 entered the mall and went to a restroom. While inside the restroom, police said seven suspects armed with knives approached him, assaulted him, and stabbed him in the arm before leaving the scene.

The victim suffered non-life-threatening injuries and received medical treatment at an area hospital, police said.

Police said they are looking for five unknown Hispanic juvenile males and two unknown black juvenile males in February’s attack; authorities called the incident a first-degree assault.

RELATED: Blaze News original: 19 nauseating times cowardly thugs ganged up on — and savagely beat up — lone victims

The suspects in both attacks wore similar clothing.

Commenters reacting to the latest incident are furious.

“And this is why carry permits are on the rise,” one commenter said. “It’s only a matter of time before these idiots attack the wrong person.””When you inevitably find them arrest the parents, too,” another commenter suggested.”I watched the video – the last image – horrible. How horrible. I hope the young victim is OK. Sick,” another commenter observed. “Where is security???””Just why AMERICA needs Open Carry,” another commenter said. “Shoot & waste these POS & it will stop …”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Montgomery county police department, Maryland, Physical attack, Wheaton mall, Strongarm robbery, Teen suspects, Crime 

At surface level, Mardi Gras — the pre-Lent festival celebrated with parades, colorful costumes, beads, music, dancing, and feasting on rich foods — can seem like lighthearted, innocent fun.

But do its pagan origins and underlying ideology pose a spiritual threat to Christians who choose to participate in the festivities?

On a recent episode of “Strange Encounters,” BlazeTV host Rick Burgess addressed this query and warned his audience why this particular holiday is problematic for people serious about following God.

The history behind Mardi Gras is dark and complicated.

“A lot of historians link the modern version of Mardi Gras with ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman spring fertility festivals,” says Rick.

“In those days with these pagan nations … this involved lewdness, sexual immorality, nudity, drunkenness, revelry of every kind. And it was associated with various gods (little g), most typically the god Pan,” he adds.

If various forms of debauchery and worshiping pagan gods weren’t enough to give Christians serious pause, these pagan festivals, he explains, involved other perverse activities, including men cross-dressing as women and wearing masks in order to conceal their identities and participate in sinful behavior, which ignited the masquerade tradition.

Rick cites Deuteronomy 22:5, which forbids cross-dressing and calls it “an abomination to the Lord.”

But if pagan origins weren’t enough to steer Christians away from Mardi Gras, the ideology behind modern celebrations certainly should, he says.

“According to the modern tradition of Mardi Gras, it’s the period of personal gratification, indulgence preceding the season of Lent” when Christians, but especially Catholics, “decide to give up something” for the 40 days leading up to Easter, he explains.

The idea of indulging in sinful behavior — gluttony, sexual immorality, drunkenness, or otherwise — before a religious season of penance is a deeply heretical idea, says Rick.

“You’ll find nowhere in scripture that the scripture would call us to a time of sin in order to prepare for holiness” he says. “No, we’re to repent of all sin, all the time.”

Ultimately, Rick sees Christian participation in Mardi Gras like this: “shaking our fist in the face of God almighty, and saying, ‘We’re going to party and participate in sinful revelry and premeditated open rebellion against You, our creator — but don’t worry, we’re going to be good for 40 days so that You’ll forgive us for what we’re about to do.”’

Scripture, he says, calls “us to holiness not for 40 days, not for a short period of time, but for every day, all the time.”

To hear more of his analysis and commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Rick burgess, Mardi gras, Spiritual warfare, Lent, Blazetv, Blaze media 

On the latest episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” Karl Brauer and I talk about a feature drivers almost universally dislike: start-stop technology.

You know the feeling. You pull up to a light, the engine shuts off, and for a split second you wonder whether the car just stalled. Then it lurches back to life when traffic moves again.

This is not a beloved convenience feature. It’s not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another.

Automakers have spent years smoothing it out, but that hasn’t changed the basic problem. Most drivers still don’t like it. And now, with federal greenhouse gas rules being rolled back, there is a real question hanging over the industry: Will start-stop finally disappear?

This is one of those rare automotive issues on which regular drivers and enthusiasts agree. People neither want nor trust this technology. And many resent being forced to pay for something that was added mainly to satisfy regulations rather than improve the driving experience.

Fuel me once

Start-stop did not spread through the market because drivers demanded it.

It spread because automakers were given a fuel-economy benefit for installing it under federal rules tied to corporate average fuel economy — CAFE standards. In practical terms, the feature helped manufacturers squeeze out regulatory compliance on paper by shutting the engine off at stops.

That may look efficient in a spreadsheet. It looks very different in real traffic.

The problem is that traffic is not clean or predictable. It is constant stop-and-go movement, with drivers creeping, hesitating, inching forward, braking, and accelerating again.

As our guest Mike Harley points out, driving is analog. Those in-between moments — when you are not sure whether traffic is actually moving — are exactly where the system is intrusive and out of sync.

Light-bulb moment

Drivers worry about wear on the starter, wear on the engine, and long-term reliability. Whether every concern is equally justified, the perception problem is real.

Many drivers believe the system adds strain and complexity to a vehicle they are already maintaining at significant cost.

Karl makes the point bluntly. He compares it to the old incandescent light bulb: The moment of greatest strain is when it is first turned on. His argument is that starting the engine repeatedly creates the same kind of wear event over and over again.

That’s a simple way to understand why the feature bothers people.

Consumers are already dealing with high repair costs, expensive electronics, and rising replacement part prices. A system that repeatedly shuts down and restarts the engine does not seem like a benefit. It is one more thing that could break.

And that’s where the frustration really sets in.

Drivers are told the system is there for efficiency. But if it contributes to more wear, more service visits, or more expensive repairs, the cost falls on them — not on the regulators who pushed the standard.

As I have reported previously, mechanics consistently point to increased strain on starters and batteries — even with reinforced components.

RELATED: Start-stop stiffed: EPA kills annoying automatic engine shutoff

Smith Collection/Gado/Saul Loeb/Getty Images

Hesitant to change

I reached out to multiple automakers after hearing that these rules were being reconsidered.

The response was revealing.

Brand after brand gave essentially the same answer: 2026 models will keep start-stop for now, and they are still evaluating what to do with 2027 vehicles.

In other words, even with the regulatory ground shifting, nothing has changed yet on the showroom floor.

That tells you two things.

First, automakers know the system exists because of regulation, not because customers love it. Second, they are still cautious about changing course until they are sure the rules are fully settled.

That caution makes sense from the manufacturer side. But from the consumer side, it means drivers may be stuck with a feature they dislike for longer than expected.

Regulatory logic

One reason start-stop has become such a useful example is that it shows what happens when policy priorities move ahead of consumer experience.

On paper, the feature looked like an easy win. It improved regulatory averages, gave automakers a compliance tool, and let officials claim environmental progress.

But in the real world, drivers are the ones living with the result. They are the ones restarting the engine every time traffic creeps forward. They are the ones shutting the system off manually every time they get in the car. They are the ones paying if extra wear shows up later.

That gap between regulatory logic and everyday driving reality is exactly why this feature has become so unpopular.

Full stop?

It might end — but probably not overnight.

Automakers have already built the systems into their current vehicle architectures. Many are not going to rip them out immediately. But if the regulatory credits tied to start-stop truly disappear, the business case for keeping it becomes weaker.

That matters because there was never much of a consumer case to begin with.

This is not a beloved convenience feature. It’s not a reason anyone chooses one vehicle over another. If anything, it can push buyers away — especially when it cannot be permanently disabled.

And that may be the feature’s biggest weakness. Consumers tolerated it because they assumed they had no choice.

A simple question

Drivers have been complaining about start-stop for years, and not because they resist change. They dislike it because it interrupts the driving experience, creates distrust, and solves a regulatory problem more than a consumer one.

The rules that justified the feature are starting to shift. The technology itself hasn’t gone anywhere — yet. But for the first time, automakers may have a real opportunity to ask a simple question: If customers don’t want this, why are we still building it?

And if they listen, start-stop may finally become a case study in what happens when consumers win one back.

You can listen to the full episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl” featuring Mike Harley below:

​Drive with lauren fix and karl brauer, Lifestyle, Auto industry, Align cars, Start stop, Emissions, Cafe standards, Mike harley