The police gave me a fine for Public Drunkeness when I was a few minutes away from home

Loneland on 10/12/2016 - 06:57

So basically on Wednesday, I was walking home from the pub which I live 5 minutes away from.
I was about 2 minutes away from home when the cops pulled me over and issued me with a fine for Public Drunkenness.

In my defense, I was quite drunk, but was perfectly capable of walking home. I was kind of really tired, so I was walking pretty slowly.
I wasn't cheeky to the cops nor loud or anything, since I'm a pretty quiet drunk. When they pulled me over, my speech was slightly slurred, but I told them that I was only a few minutes away from home and they still booked me.

I was neither being rowdy or a nuisance and the bartender can vouch for me, since I was having a pretty terrible day in my personal life.
I ended up getting an infringement notice to pay 6 penalty units, so a fine for $870

What are the chances of taking this to court and getting the fine revoked? I've heard of cases being thrown out of court.

I find it frankly ridiculous, since I'm not sure why I would have taken a cab home for a 5 minute walk.

Automotive

Comments

  • tomsco on 10/12/2016 - 07:36
    +82

    Wow, that's nasty. I don't think the fine for drink driving is even that high.

    I'd hope you could contest it, years ago, I was arrested for being drunk in public. Got put in lock up for the night, but no fine and nothing on my record.

    • bargainslut on 10/12/2016 - 23:18
      +34

      Nasty indeed, no laws were broken at all. It sounds like a money making scam.

      • trongy on 11/12/2016 - 15:24
        +1

        In Victoria, the law is the Summary Offenc870/6
        es Act        . I believe that the other states have similar laws.

        • chriise on 11/12/2016 - 19:14
          +73

          You can be picked up for just being drunk on your way home? Is this Saudi Arabia?

        • trongy on 11/12/2016 - 20:33
          +46

          @chriise:

          This is nothing new. The current act dates back to 1966 when the penalty was $1.00 which is $12.50 in today's money. Presumably they re-wrote an older law in 1966 to convert from pounds to dollars.

          You should also be aware of this little gem in the same statute:

          Any person who - in a public place
          (i) flies a kite; or
          (ii) plays a game-
          to the annoyance of a person;
          shall be guilty of an offence.
          Penalty: 5 penalty units.

          That's right, you can be fined $777 for flying a kite in Victoria in 2016.

        • Wystri Warrick on 12/12/2016 - 01:59
          +6

          @trongy:

          That's right, you can be fined $777 for flying a kite in Victoria in 2016.

          S*** we are in Saudi Arabia :(, dam this draconian state.

        • Storm on 12/12/2016 - 13:15
          +1

          @chriise:

          Alcohol is banned in Saudi.

        • Serapis on 13/12/2016 - 20:17
          +3

          @Storm: and the penalty is 6+ months jail time or public flogging

        • Lucky13 on 14/12/2016 - 00:45
          +8

          @trongy: Lol imagine if he was flying a kite drunk! $1,647 fine?? Have to remember not to do that!

        • The Gent on 14/12/2016 - 01:53
          +1

          @chriise: It's illegal to be drunk in a public place…like a pub <_<

        • berry580 on 14/12/2016 - 21:16

          @trongy:
          So if I started playing Pokemon Go in the public and some parent found people playing Pokemon Go in the public is annoying, I can be given a file + 5 penalty units (wtf does 5 penalty units even mean???).

        • Serapis on 14/12/2016 - 22:59
          +3

          @trongy: I actually found this to be far worse…

          SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 - SECT 52

          Besetting premises

          (1A) Any person who together with others wilfully and without lawful authority besets any premises, whether public or private, for the purpose and with the effect of obstructing, hindering, or impeding by an assemblage of persons the exercise by any person of any lawful right to enter, use, or leave such premises shall be guilty of an offence.

          Penalty: 15 penalty units or imprisonment for three months.

          Can see this used by police to crush protests / protesters via threat of $2331.90 fine or 3 months in jail

          and some more obscene ones like:

          SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 - SECT 7

          Offences tending to personal injury or damage to property
          Any person who—
          S. 7(d) amended by No. 81/1989 s. 3(Sch. item 51.1(b)).
          (f) in a public place rolls a drum, barrel or cask or breaks in a horse to the injury of or danger to any person or damage to any property; or
          shall be guilty of an offence.

          Penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for six months or both.

          Some poor legislator must've had their childhood ruined by Donkey Kong… there's also a few sections about protecting pigeons and a bit about only being able to use certain matches (and match boxes) in certain months lol

        • Wystri Warrick on 16/12/2016 - 01:41
          +1

          @Lucky13: Bahaha. Lol best thing I've read all day, ahhh yesterday.

    • sator on 12/12/2016 - 09:57

      Maybe the rules have changed

      • tomsco on 12/12/2016 - 12:49

        Looking at trongy post, I may have just gotten lucky.

        I still think it's a bit rich that they will pursue such a high amount considering the lower fines for other offenses. I understand the waste of police resources as they have a duty of care to stay with the intoxicated person, but unless they've actually committed as serious crime (theft, assault) etc, it's just nanny state gone mad.

  • Heracles26 on 10/12/2016 - 07:39
    +27

    So the cops stopped to talk to you because you were walking slow?

    • AlienC on 10/12/2016 - 07:51
      +15

      He was probably straggling and swerving all over the place aka drunk

      Am I right boss?

      • modsec802 on 10/12/2016 - 08:12
        +13

        Most likely he can't remember - but he probably did something stupid like walked straight across a road very slowly without looking or waiting for traffic lights etc.

        Only being a '5 'minute' walk is not a defence as there's still plenty of time to do stupid/unsafe things and potentially ruin someone else's life (if they hit you when you were drunk for example)

        • outlander on 10/12/2016 - 17:53

          You're right, no one ever stops to think about how crime affects the perpetrators lives. Guys, I think we should set aside one day a year to recognise all the stupid bad drivers, who do something stupid/bad, and have their lives ruined as a result. Sponsored by dsbunchofrandomshittynumbers

        • Kangal on 11/12/2016 - 12:29
          +8

          @outlander:
          Hello…. it's called Purge Day.
          May the odds ever be in your favour!

      • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 09:52
        +17

        yep
        i was swerving all over the place, but my house was straight down the block

        • AlienC on 10/12/2016 - 11:36
          +1

          It's cool I have been there but worse on university campus.. luckily no coppers around..

          Cops are tops haha lol

        • tik tok on 13/12/2016 - 09:39

          So, you were jaywalking ?

        • Stphen on 15/12/2016 - 15:17
          +2

          So two minutes back to your house in a straight line, 30 minutes extra with swerving (from my experience) :)

      • kyoba on 11/12/2016 - 10:31
        +33

        reminds me of that scene from Wolf of Wall Street where he was gets high as piss and he makes it to the car thinking he's driven like a pro only to actually make carnage on the road

        • Claggs on 11/12/2016 - 21:07

          The thought of this made me lol.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 21:24

      No no they pulled him over.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 07:47
    +5

    revenue attack!

  • giBzoR on 10/12/2016 - 07:51
    +8

    Wow, have nothing useful to input other then good luck and I hope you fight it!

  • AlienC on 10/12/2016 - 07:52

    Coppers are toppers

    • WhyAmICommenting on 11/12/2016 - 22:03

      Please explain?

      • AlienC on 12/12/2016 - 13:39
        -2

        It was or is a joke.

        When you see a cop you say coppers are toppers implying they are great when they are sometimes really not.

        It is sarcasm or satire I forget which one.

        Kind of like when your waiter or restaurant owner calls you buddy haha lol

        • WhyAmICommenting on 13/12/2016 - 10:02

          Fair enough, yeah some give them all a bad rap for doing stupid stuff like this.

  • andy19363 on 10/12/2016 - 07:57
    +22

    will your defence be that you were not drunk? …. or that you were not in public?

    • twoface41face on 10/12/2016 - 18:13
      +3

      Or not disorderly. I think he was being charged with being drunk AND disorderly.

      • andy19363 on 10/12/2016 - 18:19
        +4

        issued me with a fine for Public Drunkenness.

        you don't need to be disorderly….. in fact, it's a good job he wasn't

    • LongJohn92 on 12/12/2016 - 17:06

      I wonder if he could say he wasn't drunk? Would they need a Blood Alcohol Reading to prove he was drunk on the day or just the word from the two officers?

      • sator on 12/12/2016 - 20:35

        Pretty sure no. They've formed the opinion he was drunk from his behaviour and potentially smelling of alcohol. I imagine the cops would be quite good at spotting drunks since it's their job.

        • callum9999 on 13/12/2016 - 16:26
          +1

          I'd imagine they're quite good too, but there's a reason they breathalyse drivers instead of just saying "trust me, he's drunk"!

        • sator on 13/12/2016 - 21:49

          @callum9999:

          I think they breathalyse drivers b/c 0.05 is low enough to not display outward signs of drunkenness. And it also helps stop court cases where stupid drunks keep on saying they weren't drunk.

          Maybe they should give police extra powers to breath test people, but I think libertarians will be up in arms

  • 17833 on 10/12/2016 - 07:58
    +9

    Not sure what state you are in, but maybe getting some advice from legal aid in your state may be helpful e.g. https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-…

  • RockyRaccoon on 10/12/2016 - 07:59
    +18

    I was quite drunk

    and the bartender can vouch for me

    I dont think he would, as he would be liable for a $5000 fine for serving you being drunk, RSA rules

    However if you want to contest this, look up this rather than rely on some here who probably are still recovering from their own bout of PD

    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-…

    (Guessing you are from Victoria, but you havent indicated this in your profile)

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 09:53
      +1

      Yes
      i am from Vic, ill update it in my profile

      • trongy on 11/12/2016 - 15:52
        +21

        Since you are in Victoria, if you have no other prior convictions, you could apply to the court for a diversion.

        Alternatively you could turn up, plead guilty, while politely asking for leniency. The magistrate has discretion in the penalty. You will be asked what you earn, but unless you are a complete knob-head, you will probably end up paying a much lower fine or possibly a good behaviour bond. I would avoid using the close to home excuse, it sounds too close to the "just a little bit over .05" line and will probably anger the magistrate. Remember, the magistrate spends his/her days listening to all sorts of bullshit excuses from people who have done much worse things than you have done. Just apologise and keep it simple.

        Pleading "not guilty" is probably a waste of time, unless to police don't show up to court. Otherwise the magistrate will have to listen to the police evidence before finding you guilty which only slows things down. It's harder for the magistrate to be lenient if you don't look apologetic.

  • Elwes on 10/12/2016 - 08:03
    +6

    "In my defense, I was quite drunk" Ha! I think that's more a confession than a defence.

    What state do you live in?
    Not everywhere has simple public intoxication laws; some jurisdictions you also have to be disorderly, which you weren't. I've long believed that it's unjust to punish people for intoxication if they're not doing anything else wrong. I'm really surprised the fine was that high. The potential for jury nullification would be very high on something like this but it'll never go before a jury.

    I'm not a lawyer but it's probably worth talking to one, even if only to confirm that in your jurisdiction the crime is simply being intoxicated and the police don't have to prove that you did anything else wrong to secure a conviction.

    • magic8ballgag on 11/12/2016 - 08:39

      I believe it should have been: "in their defence", because it defends the Cop's argument, not his.

    • callum9999 on 13/12/2016 - 16:29
      +2

      Drink drivers aren't doing anything wrong either - until they cause a crash…

      Don't get me wrong, I don't personally equate the two but it's not as absurd as it sounds for the police to act that way. Hugely over the top, but not absurd in principle.

    • iridiumstem on 10/12/2016 - 08:13
      +32

      A person has a terrible day and goes out for a drink, decides to walk home because he lives near the pub. If that sounds like a drinking problem, I don't know what doesn't sound like a drinking problem.

      I'd agree on walking alone without anyone to look after you when you are drunk is kinda dangerous (to yourself and possibly to others). Whether what I've heard sound like a drinking problem, not so much.

      • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 09:55
        +15

        i definately do not have a drinking problem
        Just my luck that the one night out in 6 months i get hammered, i get fined

        • iridiumstem on 10/12/2016 - 16:21
          +24

          Yeah, shit happens. Whatever happens, just do remember that shit happens sometimes.

          Good luck with the fine and more importantly, whatever's happening in your life currently.

    • ThithLord on 12/12/2016 - 08:38
      -3

      Don't bother. OzB's love to sit on their moral high horse about what's right and wrong, even though they're usually in the wrong.

      You've nailed it on the head, ds98928392839. Also, stuff you - I typed out all those digits.

      • simulacrum on 13/12/2016 - 17:10

        Seems to me like ds98928392839 is the one on his moral high horse.

        Normal people without a "drinking problem" do occasionally get drunk.

        • ThithLord on 13/12/2016 - 17:27

          Op wasn't fined for having a drinking problem - he was fined for being drunk and disorderly.

          DSxxxxxxxx was wise to point out that there may be a more deep-seated issue at hand.

        • simulacrum on 14/12/2016 - 00:21

          @ThithLord:

          OP was fined for being drunk in a public place under s 13 of the Summary Offences Acr, there is no indication of disorderly conduct.

          OP stated that the reason he was drunk was because of a recent event in his personal life - we've all been there. He also indicates that he hasn't been drunk in at least 6 months - most people I know can't say that.

          ds98928392839 implies that OP being drunk in a public place is sufficient to deduce that OP has not just any underlying issue but specifically a drinking problem of the kind that one gets (presumably professional) "help" with.

          The facts as we know them are that OP had a break-up or some other personal drama, got drunk at a pub 5 minutes down the road, and was booked for being drunk in public on the way home.

          • DS thinks the most probable scenario based on available facts is - OP is an alcoholic in denial, and endangered the public.

          • I think the most probable scenario based on available facts is - OP had a personal drama, as we all do sometimes. OP got drunk, as we all do sometimes. OP decided to walk home, as we all might if we're 5 mins from home. OP got pulled up and fined.

          To me it seems like ds98928392839 making inferences based on something other than the provided facts, possibly projecting his own life experience onto OP.

    • Cusack on 13/12/2016 - 19:55

      Wow. Just wow.

  • Allan on 10/12/2016 - 08:06
    +4

    This is just an opinion. You should seek legal aid and get some advice. I would be aiming for reduction or "fair fine". If you're extremely lucky might get off with a warning.

  • Adz81 on 10/12/2016 - 08:15
    +1

    "…I ended up getting an infringement notice to pay 6 penalty units, so a fine for $870…"

    Seems like a hefty fine for "just walking home", but if you were insistent on fighting it, I'd be asking for a copy of the police report for the event (well, you can get them in SA, I had to get one in a previous life), and then seeking legal advice.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 08:32
    +14

    My first step would be very politely going to the issuing police station and asking very, very nicely to see the incident report or asking what happened in their view. There is the concept of probable cause, whereby police need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed rather than just fishing for one. While public drunkenness might be an offence, I would think they they would need to demonstrate a threat to yourself or the public. Anyhow, I think going to the police station and asking about it very nicely is free and you might get information that is crucial in deciding your next step.

    Out of interest, did they breath test or blood test you?

    One last thing is if you live within a certain distance of licensed premises or entertainment zone/districts, just maybe the police probable cause might be different. They 'might' have more powers to fish for drunks without actual incidents taking place, similar to open alcohol laws in the CBD.

    • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 09:58

      They didn't make me do a breathalyser test nor a blood test.

      i understand that walking on the road is a public place and hence why I was booked. The key issue is why I would take a cab down the block

      • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2016 - 11:35
        +5

        Sorry, but if you were drunk and walking on the road you are guilty and they had every right to blitz this during the festive season. You got unlucky. :(

        Maybe you can reduce the fine by challenging, but the guilt is textbook. The cab part doesn't matter, if there was a footpath you might have been OK.

      • ms_caz on 10/12/2016 - 12:49
        +6

        no, the key issue is that you were "walking on the road" and that you were very drunk (by your own admission).

        It makes no difference whether you were too close to be catching a cab ( and how are the police to know that anyway?). If you were walking on the footpath - obviously a different thing.

        • oneland on 10/12/2016 - 15:15
          +22

          I would say the police would know that once they checked my ID

          Let me correct myself, I was walking on the footpath not the road. I just re read my comment, the police report should state I was walking along the footpath, not the road

    • jenkemjunkie on 11/12/2016 - 15:34
      +1

      "Probable cause" is not a definition / concept defined or recognised in Australian Law. It's also called a complaint, not an incident report.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2016 - 23:45
        +1

        What terminology would you prefer? 'reasonable suspicion of an offence'? You are wrong that there is no concept of probable cause. If you were correct, there'd be a whole lot more orders and fewer crafted requests.

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 08:01
          +1

          If you went to court and argued 'the police had no probable cause' as a defence. You may as well not have went to court at all. You have been reading too much American-centric lawyer stories and the magistrate would view you as the same type of person that argues constitutional validity of fines and sovereign citizen arguments

          I am correct because I am a lawyer and have acted as a duty lawyer for people in these predicaments.

          EDIT: Reasonable suspicion is actually more on the mark. Of course you may have to define it with some case law. Court is very explicit, you can not just throw out terminology hoping they know what you mean. Even I find it ridiculous sometimes.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 10:39
          +3

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Read my post again. I said 'concept of probable cause'. Probable cause was not 'thrown out' at all, and not in court. It's your confection. I said go to the police station and ask very very nicely for an explanation and you misconstrue that as going to court and bigshotting terminology that was prefaced with 'concept'. Part of you being a lawyer might be constructing prop arguments to defeat, but where did I say that. You are just trigger happy with your show and tell. My record is 4:0 representing myself against lawyers as they are too lazy to read what is plainly in front of them. "There is the concept of probable cause, whereby police need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed rather than just fishing for one." Go and invoice me for your staple, or entertain me with some lawyer higher mathematics. That's always fun.

          Where do I use 'probable cause' as a defence? I use the concept of probable cause as a suggestion of guilt, that the OP was more than simply intoxicated to be booked, that he must have been acting it and/or a danger to himself or others. Where did I say it was a defence? Your self-satisfied spiel was cut and pasted and misapplied. Even you would admit judges use your same lifted anecdote to induct juries. Where did I even advise going to court?

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 11:13
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:

          "There is the concept of probable cause, whereby police need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed rather than just fishing for one." - citation required for concept of probable cause.

          I'd love to see your submissions in those lawyer killing cases Will Hunting.

          "same lifted anecdote to induct juries" - wtf does that even mean?

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 11:21

          @jenkemjunkie:
          I'm still waiting for your to show where I recommended going to court, when I recommended going to the police station and asking nicely for more information. Was that just your self-indulgent hypothetical?

          I'd love to see your lawyer maths in action, if we are doing requests.

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 11:28
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:

          The only way to contest a fine is if you go to court. Talking to the police with your really ,really nice probable cause argument will make no difference to the fine. Especially since you can't define probable cause at all. By all means OP can follow your really bad information which will yield nothing.

          Magistrates court also doesn't have a jury. Duty solicitors also don't invoice. The marginalised I represent don't pay for it.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 11:31

          @jenkemjunkie:
          But they are absolute suckers to test if you are happy arguing about something at length without having contributed anything constructive beforehand.

          You've also completely overlooked the possibility of not contesting based on being guilty. If you could read, I didn't say being nice would reduce the fine, but you can't read. I said be nice to try and get an understanding to form an estimation of guilt.

          How many cases have you lost?

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 11:41

          @Frugal Rock:

          You didn't contribute anything constructive. You talked about probable cause and you can't even explain it.

          "There is the concept of probable cause, whereby police need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed rather than just fishing for one." - So please explain like you would in a submission that you humbly defeated 4 lawyers with or how you'd discuss this with the police. You must have been in Kangaroo court if you think saying this crap to the police will make a difference.

          "just maybe the police probable cause might be different." - So how is this probable cause different from another probable cause?

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 11:44

          @jenkemjunkie:
          "So please explain like you would in a submission that you humbly defeated 4 lawyers with or how you'd discuss this with the police."

          Were punctuation and grammar optional at rainmaking lawyer school?

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 12:00

          @Frugal Rock:

          probable cause wasn't optional at [EDIT: insert rainmaking] lawyer school, if you talked about it, you'd fail. Writing with correct grammar on an online forums is.

          To answer another one of your edits - Duty solicitors don't really have a case file, except on the day - there's not really a win / loss ratio outside of the movies either. The accused meets me for the first time outside of a magistrate's court room who hasn't received any counsel. This is probably about 20 minutes before their initial hearing. I can do about 10-15 a day.

          EDIT: your editing is incredible, I will amend my post accordingly. I can't believe you didn't edit your roast

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 12:20

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Unlike lawyers, hubris isn't my achilles heel. My 'online' advice was given in good faith and I would still do it to estimate guilt, as there are gaps in his memory. If my advice is truly the worst ever, I'm prepared to admit it. I don't think you have demonstrated the advice is the worst in light of it being free and, at worst, wasted time, but to me, it's throwaway so take it. Worst advice ever. Now put up, bigshot. Give the best advice ever.

          If there was an open question involving my specific area of expertise and qualification, I'd answer in good faith, rather than reading the original post and carefully following the comments, only to offer zero constructive advice yourself and latch on to something inconsequential (except for your world weary Harrison Ford routine). You and your ego are the reason there is bad advice on the internet. If you are are so qualified, answer the blimmin question rather than demonstrating your effortless ability to answer it, but choosing not to.

          Your argument with me is fruitless. I will never have respect for lawyers, having personally seen them in a conveyancing matter get smashed at the realisation that a creek and a dam weren't connected. Woops. Find me a septic smoothing function and I'll be impressed. Being a jaded and disaffected duty lawyer, not so much.

          "EDIT: your editing is incredible" - love your work.

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 12:28

          @Frugal Rock:

          "I will never have respect for lawyers, having personally seen them in a conveyancing matter get smashed at the realisation that a creek and a dam weren't connected. Woops. " - Those lawyers obviously didn't use the probable cause trump card!

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 12:29

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Avoid giving the OP actual advice away!

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 12:41

          @Frugal Rock:

          My advice: OP should take the comedy option - argue probable cause and invite you along so you can see the catastrophe

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 12:48

          @jenkemjunkie:
          I might add 'duty' to my job description when I forego preparation and no longer care about the outcome.

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 12:54

          @Frugal Rock:

          actually serious advice:

          OP should contest the jurisdiction of the fine with a new hearing. Move it to America by citing some victorian conveyancing law precedent about a damn, creek and probable cause, and then proceed. Then he should get Frugal Rock to represent him, make him a t-shirt that says "4-0" with the quote "Smashing lawyers on the daily" and he should wear that to court.

          Also, you should put 4-nil on your linked-in profile, all lawyers do that. Then teach how to prepare for a case where one has never met the person or seen the case. LOL.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 13:00

          "damn"? You really are a lawyer! Or are you dyslexic? Wow. You are top shelf. How many years of lawyering did it take you to struggle with three letter words?

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 19:51

          @Frugal Rock:

          Man you're roasting me with some real zingers!!!

        • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2016 - 20:16

          @jenkemjunkie:
          If it's any consolation, far smarter lawyers than you have been undone by not knowing what a 'dam' is.

          Can you desecrate the English language some more for my amusement? "You may as well not have went to court at all." is shucky dang darn golden.

        • jenkemjunkie on 12/12/2016 - 23:59

          @Frugal Rock:

          HAHAHAHAHAHAGAGHAHA! Probable cause lawyers aye. That ask police nicely to probable cause themselves out of a mischief!

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 00:09

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Captain Scrabble Jr, if I change my name to 'Past Participle', will you innately ignore me?

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 00:30

          @Frugal Rock:

          I'm changing mine to probable cause!!! Will you talk about me all the time!?

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 00:52

          @jenkemjunkie:
          Here's your OzBargain Kris Kringle Advent Calendar, Captain Catastrophe. It's a list of two letter words. Those three letter words can be tricky little suckers, hey? Today is A:

          AA rough jagged lava found in Hawaiian volcanos
          AB an abdominal muscle
          AD short form of advertisement
          AE one (Scots.)
          AG+ agriculture
          AH (verb) to say "Ah" for joy etc
          AI a three-toed South American sloth
          AL+ an East Indian tree
          AM+ a present tense of the verb be
          AN+ as in ifs and ans, things that might have happened, but which did not [adj]
          AR+ the letter "R"
          AS to that extent
          AT+ in the position of
          AW+ exclamation of disappointment
          AX+ (verb) to work on with an axe
          AY+ an affirmative vote (also AYE)

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 08:56

          @Frugal Rock:

          Why are they all capitalised?

        • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 10:42

          @jenkemjunkie:
          You can choose:
          1) For maximum rockstar emphasis and razzle dazzle like your EDITs.
          2) They were copied and pasted from a generic Scrabble site.
          3) Because I didn't want to confuse your humble vocabulary centre with further confusing 2 letter word trickiness.
          4) They are to be spoken patronisingly slowly and phonetically, to mock your inability to spell 'dam'.

          Why are you getting self-conscious with your responses? You were comparatively less unfun during your unaware bullish macho phase. I want it back. You used the term 'catastrophe' to describe the consequence of following my advice. What would that 'catastrophe' entail, and how many catastrophes have your clients suffered (of paying the original fine plus court costs)?

        • jenkemjunkie on 13/12/2016 - 11:50

          @Frugal Rock:

          You're more than welcome to come watch me work. You'll see I'm the best of the best - I'll even weave probable cause in one of my submissions just for you, and then turn it into a hilarious spelling bee argument.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join