Why I want to be a lawyer

Because I could get to say this:
Your Honor, controlling precedent on the instant matter is State v Gilchrist, (2003 Ohio 2601) where the Fourth District Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio held that a man could in fact bark at a police dog without fear of punishment and that such conduct was protected by the First Amendment. As this Constitutionally-protected right was clearly established at the time of Stephens' arrest, Stephens is entitled damages under U.S.C §1983.

Of note is that the plain language of the statute which my client allegedly violated says that "No person shall recklessly do any of the following: (1) Taunt, torment, or strike a police dog or horse" where "Taunt" is meant to mean "a sarcastic challenge or insult," "to reproach or challenge in a mocking or insulting manner," or to "jeer at." This is impermissibly overbroad. I certainly have a right to state "I say my good police horse! You are viewed as a law enforcement officer, but can you count how many fingers I am holding up on this hand? Oh my, it appears you are inferior to that German horse of much fame who can accomplish such a feat."

Am I allowed to only study the ridiculous elements of case law?