De Gea at it - Stolen dough nut!!

You've hit the nail on the head. The intention. Anyway agree about the stupid name. Bloody yanks.

 

I meant if the story was accurately reported. Maybe wasn't clear enough.

 

To be fair I think the name Krispy Kreme is a TM issue as they probably couldn't TM the correctly spelt version.

 

Can anyone give a decent argument to sugest how he might of been confused here! He doesn't speak good english fine, but ignorence is no excuse for commiting a crime. Its not like stealing isn't a crime in spain so i don't see how he could have been confused!

 

Maybe, but I just hate people mangling the bloody language.
If I was going to sell sausages I'd call them Saintanton's Sausage or something- not "Sossij"

 

Maybe this also has something to do with the spelling!!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crispy cream

 

No ..no..no. He forgot his wallet in the car and went to take it.Perhaps lost in translation.

 

I heard that he was quoted as saying "I didn't feel like paying"

 

For God's sake!! No one is excusing a crime. We don't know the circumstances so we are not sure an offence even occurred. If De Gea or anyone else took something dougnut or otherwise on purpose with an intention not to pay, then its theft. But you and I were not there and so we don't know De Gea's intentions and the circumstances.

 

Nice attempt to hide ignorance with arrogance, indignation and some big words

Looting is an act of civil disobedience. It is taking advantage of a breakdown in normal social conduct, and hence contributing to further breakdown in society. In other words, taking advantage of the fact that the emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. Shoplifting is similar, but a less serious version of the same crime which does not stretch societies resources in the same manner. It's like the moral difference between attacking an able bodied person and attacking a disabled person. Attacking a disabled person is morally far worse as you are taking advantage of their inability to defend themselves.

And most shoplifters are also opportunists. They only shoplift if they think the security bloke's back is turned.

You obviously haven't been reading the news recently...or are you not interested in the facts now that you've got a new drum to bang?

He said: "Nothing really happened. Me, my cousin and a friend from Spain went to the shop, we were hungry and took the doughnuts. We were going to buy more things. I realised I didn't have my wallet so I went out to the car to get it. Nothing more. They thought that I was leaving without paying so I tried to explain to them but my English is still not very good and we were there for a while. In the end a Spanish girl arrived and we understood each other and in the end they ended up apologising to us."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...te-after-being-stopped-by-Tesco-security.html

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

Swarbs
Interesting that you draw a moral distinction between attacking an able-bodied person and a disabled one.
Of course, it is infinitely more cowardly to attack someone who cannot defend themselves, but an unprovoked attack on any innocent person is still wrong.

 

He overheard Tevez saying "I didn't feel like playing", but it got lost in translation

 

So what your saying is there was no confusion and that he was trying to leave the shop without paying. A sensible person if they had forgotton there wallet would have not gone round eating food for which he had not purchased and then try to leave the store without at least informing someone that it was his intension to come back and pay.
If i had been carrying a TV out to my car and said Oh i just forgot my wallet i dought that would have gone down to well.

 

I do saint. I think he should have been banged up for at least 6 months.

 

Sorry, but that had to be done.


Doughnut/TV. Just the same.

 

Thanks RR can you come and do that for me at work as well.

The object of the theft has no impact of the actual crime of theft as pointed out before in the definition of theft given by swarbs. When it comes to sentencing then that may be taken into account but has no bearing on the crime itself.

here's some more legal jargen for you to think about!
Theft act 1968 s2(2).A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property

 

Can I ask you if you think Stevie G should have served time for GBH ?

 

But it was a doughnut.

Honest answer to a question then. Have you ever, whilst walking round a supermarket, munched on an apple or banana or such like and not had that item weighed in to pay for? Or if you're with the kids and they're mithering away given them an apple to shut them up?

If the answer is no then you feel free to continue your moral crusade but if you're like most of us and have then it's time to accept it was just a ****ing doughnut.

 

Absolutely not. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers.