Roberto Firmino

[ChesterDave]

Has that been established?

If he was borderline then the police would've probably advised him to refuse a roadside test and take one back at the station to give him a chance to dip back under the limit. If he failed a second test back at the station then chances are he wasn't borderline when initially stopped

My fault for not quoting the post I was replying to. I was responding to Rich's comment about driving the morning after a night out which is what I thought people might be more sympathetic about

Given how it has been reported I'm sure its not the case here and that he was comfortably over the limit having driven home from a night out. So no sympathy and more judgement.

[Gibbo]

I think I'm gonna wait until the details have come out before I sharpen my pitchfork.

There's a difference between being irresponsible and being a cunt - if it's only just over because of a miscalculation of what he had with dinner or if it's as Rich said a case of him going somewhere the morning after then I honestly have nothing against it. Stupid yes, but not malicious.

[RichC]

Ahhhh not saying he's done it the morning after it's more the self righteous posting about him DD whilst most probably having done similar themselves whether liking to admit to it or not.

[Rigadon]

A zero limit is impractical and unnecessary. The law as it stands is about right IMO.

No excuses for being over, though I would argue that the context does matter in terms of severity. There is a world of difference (in terms of your threat to others) between being slightly over the limit and being paralytic, as the law recognises in its severity of sentencing.

Genuine question (and honestly don't mean to put you on the spot), are you saying it should be ok to have a drink and drive (have alcohol in the bloodstream) but be under the limit? I.e. More of a legal issue rather than a moral issue?

[Red_Polo]

In terms of the law, maybe not. But for discussion's sake and when it comes to brandishing a person (footballer or not) a cunt, I do think it matters if it's 2 drinks or 20 drinks.

Yep agree, definitely makes a difference, including in the eyes of the law in fact.

It's obviously a negative but am not going to rush to weigh in too heavily until we actually know something tangible.

[Bloodraven]

Genuine question (and honestly don't mean to put you on the spot), are you saying it should be ok to have a drink and drive (have alcohol in the bloodstream) but be under the limit? I.e. More of a legal issue rather than a moral issue?

Would you morally not do something even though it's legal (in same context, not just something like 'buying the daily mail')

[Rigadon]

Would you morally not do something even though it's legal (in same context, not just something like 'buying the daily mail')

Yes.

The earlier posts appeared to criticise Firmino for drinking and driving (morally wrong). It's now changed to more of a legal discussion (if he was just over the limit, its not so bad). Just my observation.

FWIW - the discussion is far more balanced now, rather than reactive.

[Roboklopp]

Sticking it in a bit or the full length? Which is more rapey?

[calvoboy]

Genuine question (and honestly don't mean to put you on the spot), are you saying it should be ok to have a drink and drive (have alcohol in the bloodstream) but be under the limit? I.e. More of a legal issue rather than a moral issue?

What I'm saying in the case of Firmino is that once you've accepted that the offence is wrong, both legally and morally, there are degrees of guilt, both legally and morally.

- You call me a ****, I punch you, you fall over and hit your head and die vs I torture and murder you for the sheer fun of it

- You consent to sex and then change your mind mid-act and I keep going vs I grab you at knifepoint and rape you

- You have 2 pints at lunchtime, think you're OK to drive later in the afternoon and get caught slightly over the limit vs you go out and get absolutely ****-faced and then think it's OK to drive home afterwards.

In all cases they are legally and morally wrong, and all would be tried as the same offence, yet I'm sure the vast majority would agree that there are different levels of guilt. Both in terms of the sentence that would be served, and in terms of how you'd view the person who'd been found guilty of committing the crime.

[Gray]

I really can't see Firmino drinking a pint! He more a strawberry daiquiri kinda guy.

[BG1973]

I really can't see Firmino drinking a pint! He more a strawberry daiquiri kinda guy.

That's probably the defence right there.

I mean how many units are in those bad boys?

Let's see how bad it was before passing judgement.

And even then, he's young and I for one will give him a break.

[gratziani]

I think any footballer that does this is a dickhead with the money they earn, employ a driver for ****sake

Stupid idiots do it over and over again , doesn't matter that he plays for us.

[Doc_Piptorious]

What I'm saying in the case of Firmino is that once you've accepted that the offence is wrong, both legally and morally, there are degrees of guilt, both legally and morally.

- You call me a ****, I punch you, you fall over and hit your head and die vs I torture and murder you for the sheer fun of it

- You consent to sex and then change your mind mid-act and I keep going vs I grab you at knifepoint and rape you

- You have 2 pints at lunchtime, think you're OK to drive later in the afternoon and get caught slightly over the limit vs you go out and get absolutely ****-faced and then think it's OK to drive home afterwards.

In all cases they are legally and morally wrong, and all would be tried as the same offence, yet I'm sure the vast majority would agree that there are different levels of guilt. Both in terms of the sentence that would be served, and in terms of how you'd view the person who'd been found guilty of committing the crime.

Would they be tried as the same offense in the UK?

In Ireland what you listed are different offenses and/or technically would have a scale of possible punishments/sentences .

Example one would be Manslaughter for the first bit and murder the other.

Example two would be sexual assault for the first bit and rape the second bit.

Example three would be judged based on whether or not there were any other things caused through being over the limit and if not then the punishment/sentence could and must likely would vary depending on whether it was your first example or second and depending on the judge involved.


Afaik of course.

[G]

I think I'm gonna wait until the details have come out before I sharpen my pitchfork.

There's a difference between being irresponsible and being a cunt - if it's only just over because of a miscalculation of what he had with dinner or if it's as Rich said a case of him going somewhere the morning after then I honestly have nothing against it. Stupid yes, but not malicious.

**** off being sensible Gibbo. He's a cunt and should be burned at the stake

Seriously though, its stupid what he's done but it's mad how many reds fans I've seen saying they want him banned or treated the same way Sakho has been. I'd rather our best players were in the first team. He'll be punished by the law of the land, we don't need him punished by the club too.

[Kenneth]

Agree that it's a job for the courts and not the club. Obviously, we need to condemn his actions and not print tshirts but that will be a given. But "if it's as Rich said a case of him going somewhere the morning after then I honestly have nothing against it" is a bizarre sentiment to me. I actually find it quite worrying that a few people seem to think such behaviour is 'just one of those things', that everyone does and it's no biggie. Well it is, and such an attitude stinks