Firmino: YNWA (for a year)

[gkmacca]

Liverpool forward Roberto Firmino was fined 20,000 pounds ($25,286.00) on Wednesday and banned from driving for a year after he pleaded guilty to charges of drink-driving.

Firmino's lawyer told Liverpool Magistrates' Court the Brazil international's family home had been raided by robbers the day before he was stopped by police driving his Range Rover at 3 AM on Christmas Eve.

He and his family had moved into a city centre hotel as a result of that incident and he was returning to it after a restaurant dinner with friends when he briefly drove on the wrong side of the road.

Liverpool said in a statement that Firmino, whose driving ban can be reduced by completing a course, had been disciplined by the club and reminded of his responsibilities and about his future conduct.

"The nature of this action will remain private, however it does not impact on his availability for selection for matches," the Premier League club added.

"The club considers this to be an isolated incident, and a rare lapse in judgement and professionalism."

 

[cloggypop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_campaign

 

[HC]

I thought he was out injured for a year when I was the title

 

[Silver Sean]

Silly boy. I'd like to say I never did anything like this when I was 25. But I'd be lying. Imagine being someone for whom a £20k fine is no big deal!

 

[Vlads Quiff]

£20k fine?! Thats bollocks

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I thought it was a maximum fine of around £5k unless it involved a serious death-by etc

 

[tombrown]

I believe in Finland, fines are based on your annual earnings, which seems like an excellent idea

 

[Squiggles]

So that's about 3 training sessions for him.

 

[manwithnoname]

Silly boy. I'd like to say I never did anything like this when I was 25. But I'd be lying. Imagine being someone for whom a £20k fine is no big deal!

You seemed rather less flippant about the Plymouth goalkeeper who killed someone by driving dangerously

Incensed in fact

But this is just a bit of a lark because luckily nobody was injured when he was drunk-driving at 3am in a city centre

 

[Richey]

I thought it was a maximum fine of around £5k unless it involved a serious death-by etc

I don't think there is a maximum.

I don't know how far over the limit he was but he seems to have had the minimum ban and a massive fine, so presumably the fine was partly means tested

 

[Mystic]

You seemed rather less flippant about the Plymouth goalkeeper who killed someone by driving dangerously

Incensed in fact

But this is just a bit of a lark because luckily nobody was injured when he was drunk-driving at 3am in a city centre

Yeh, you see two kids weren't killed, call me old fashioned, but that's a fairly big differentiator in my books, I'm sure it is in Seans too. What a stupid post.

 

[manwithnoname]

Yeh, you see two kids weren't killed, call me old fashioned, but that's a fairly big differentiator in my books, I'm sure it is in Seans too. What a stupid post.

I know. I referenced that. Just bemused that it seems consequence is the overriding factor, rather than the actual fact of being convicted and banned for drink driving.

No harm no foul

 

[kingjulian]

Actually any body who drinks and drives deserves the book thrown at him...he got off lightly.

At least they should have given a couple of months in the cell..

 

[manwithnoname]

Actually any body who drinks and drives deserves the book thrown at him...he got off lightly.

At least they should have given a couple of months in the cell..

I'm not sure I agree with that either, circumstances are almost always different case by case, but I understand that some are more militant about the offence itself than others.

But the ban should always be at least one year

 

[jexykrodic]

The ban was correct, the fine was disproportionate.

Justice should be even and not defined by financial circumstances.

 

[Mystic]

The ban was correct, the fine was disproportionate.

Justice should be even and not defined by financial circumstances.

How is justice ever even if it's dictated by fines, and wealth isn't considered?

 

[Mystic]

I know. I referenced that. Just bemused that it seems consequence is the overriding factor, rather than the actual fact of being convicted and banned for drink driving.

No harm no foul

The consequence has to be an overriding factor when it's so serious, that doesn't change the fact that you're a dick if you knowingly drink and drive, as Firmino is. However if you knowingly drink and drive, whilst speeding, resulting in peoples death, well that's a whole new level.

 

[jexykrodic]

How is justice ever even if it's dictated by fines, and wealth isn't considered?

In this instance it's the ban that delivers the Justice. The fine is punitive for no explicable reason other than opportunity.

In what technical way does a poor drunk's actions differ from a rich drunk?

 

[kingjulian]

I'm not sure I agree with that either, circumstances are almost always different case by case, but I understand that some are more militant about the offence itself than others.

But the ban should always be at least one year

I agree circumstances matter. I only differ in what is the minimum deterrence required. If there was a victim, I'd be singing a far more militant tune....

I guess my opinion is dictated more by where I come from..

 

[dantes]

In this instance it's the ban that delivers the Justice. The fine is punitive for no explicable reason other than opportunity.

In what technical way does a poor drunk's actions differ from a rich drunk?

You answered your own question. Fines are by definition punitive / punishment, they're not like assessed damages which goes to some injured party who has genuinely lost that amount of money.

If I was the instructed, and I'm the best god damn lawyer in the city, I could find some case law to prove that punitive damages are constitutionally not appropriate, and that the injured party in this case is the police or taxpayers who have to spend money on policing the roads, calculate how much my cunt client cost the police, and submit that as the true damages he should pay, maybe £5k if you include all the court time taken up. However since most people can't stomach a £5k award of damages, this may be why fines are treated as punitive and take into account a person's wealth. They do have to take wealth into account, or else they wouldn't be a very effective form of punishment.

 

[Richey]

In this instance it's the ban that delivers the Justice. The fine is punitive for no explicable reason other than opportunity.

In what technical way does a poor drunk's actions differ from a rich drunk?

It doesn't, and I think that was the argument when this kind of means testing first came in. The argument in favour of it was that means testing the fine meant that it hit high earners proportionally as much as low earners. In reality the government just wanted more money and if a high earner committed an offence they could cash in.

 

[Insignificance]

In Norway the only traffic fine that is directly related to income is drunk driving. Rest is fixed. Not sure what is fair and unfair. But the punishment for a poor drink driver can feel more severe than for a rich one so equal period without license seems fair. No word on how drunk he was? Based on the game a few days later we should have a default level set by that measurement.

 

[Dreambeliever]

I guess none of you have lost anyone to drunk driving?

Life fucking ban.

There is no excuse for it and too many people are killed due to it each and every day around the world

 

[KopRed]

He will almost certainly be walking alone when he doesn't have his driver.

 

[Brizzle]

Yeh, you see two kids weren't killed, call me old fashioned, but that's a fairly big differentiator in my books, I'm sure it is in Seans too. What a stupid post.

I think you've tried to call something out here and miss the mark by a mile. In both cases, a driver was doing so under the influence. One hit pedestrians who died (i don't imagine he went out of his way to find them..) and one didn't. The misdemeanour in both circumstances is the same.

 

[HC]

He's a lucky man in every sense, the act and result could have both been infinitely worse.

 

[Oliver Twist]

In this instance it's the ban that delivers the Justice. The fine is punitive for no explicable reason other than opportunity.

In what technical way does a poor drunk's actions differ from a rich drunk?

They don't. But punishments are there as a deterrent, right?

 

[Oliver Twist]

I think you've tried to call something out here and miss the mark by a mile. In both cases, a driver was doing so under the influence. One hit pedestrians who died (i don't imagine he went out of his way to find them..) and one didn't. The misdemeanour in both circumstances is the same.

I think Lee McCormack hit a car on the motorway. If that's who you are referring to.

 

[dantes]

I'm surprised the FA don't have some way to punish him further themselves.

 

[Mystic]

I think you've tried to call something out here and miss the mark by a mile. In both cases, a driver was doing so under the influence. One hit pedestrians who died (i don't imagine he went out of his way to find them..) and one didn't. The misdemeanour in both circumstances is the same.

I haven't missed the mark at all, I've just emphasised that of course the consequences make the misdemeanour more serious. For the record he didn't just hit a pedestrian, he crashed into the side of a car on the M6, whilst drunk, asleep, travelling at 90mph, killing two children, it's a much worse scenario.