“Typically, authorities do not expect thieves to return the items they stole, but that is exactly what Christopher Hoosen, 33, did when he brought back an Android tablet that he swiped from a U.K. charity store,” FoxNews.com reports.
“Security cameras captured Hoosen taking the tablet from the window display at the Jonny Kennedy shop in Whitley bay, North Tyneside in North East England, reports The Telegraph,” FoxNews.com reports. “Eight days after the theft, Hoosen tried to return the device after he had difficulty getting the Android to work. Hoosen was fined about $117 and was ordered to pay about $132 in court fees in addition to a $31 victim surcharge, according to UPI.”
“Hoosen stole the device on Nov. 11, and initially told police that he ‘didn’t intend to steal it,’ and claimed that he ‘forgot’ he had placed it in his bag. Hoosen said that when he saw the tablet in the store window, he assumed it was ‘cheap or free,'” FoxNews.com reports. “He eventually admitted to the theft at North Tyneside Magistrates’ Court.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Bill” and “Ottawa Mark” for the heads up.]
What do you know… There is some “honor” amongst thieves!
Funny, he seems just the type to go Android.
“Hoosen was fined about $117 and was ordered to pay about $132 in court fees in addition to a $31 victim surcharge, according to UPI.””
helluva racket, the government gets more money than the restitution of the victim.
The victim got paid the $31 dollars the Android device was thought to be worth. Might have still been too much! 🙂
Most of the time, you are thick beyond belief but you seem to be able to top yourself frequently.
Do you not realize that the court costs must be covered and people who run the courts need to be paid? The fine is a deterrent and the victim surcharge covers their time and costs.
well, in that case, I assume there are no taxes as those expenses are paid by the defendants. Boy, glad they’re squeakin’ by in these hard times. Fsck you.
Actually Botvinnik is spot on, you are just a douchebag. You must be one of those knee jerk automatic down voters. Try using your brain next time
Yeah Im convinced, because you have taxes you don’t need to cover the costs of the Court, what a brilliant concept. Just imagine how we can extend that because people pay for flights or buy fuel there should be no taxes too perhaps.
The government doesn’t create fuel or flights on airplanes, so your “extension” analogy is fallacious. The taxpayers finance the judicial system through taxation, these “fees” are arbitrary extortion by courts. They, in no way, finance the judicial branches in either the UK or the US.
Their premise is horseshit: “Let’s extract money from convicted thieves. You know how affluent they are.”
If we read your profile, you have never added anything to the world or your own society and according to your posts, you think that the government should function to give you any and all services for free but that they should not be paid.
We have a term for people like you: leach.
you misspelled leech.
It isn’t that he didn’t want it, though, as the headline reads. It is that he couldn’t get it to work. Makes you wonder why anyone would want Android.
TBH, that guy doesn’t look like the brightest bulb in the shop anyway – or he’s a great actor.
Good luck for somebody like him making good use of an Android phone, which its dozens of obscure “you have to know” kicks, swipes, drags etc.pp.
North Tyneside is not known for its bright sparks except when the residents light a match to find a gas leak.
Sort of like my Son in Law. He left his Android phone on the passenger seat of his car. When he came back three hours later the window was broken and there were three Android phones on the seat.
Good one! Had me laughing.
Too funny! Sorry about the broken window.
What the hell is a “victim surcharge?”
It’s called ObamaCare in the United States.
Now that’s just funny. Sad, but funny
Its money the perpetrator is forced to pay the victim as compensation.