Details...

Client 1: Burt comes in and is bitching about the ticket he received. He was charged with exceeding the posted speed. He is pissed. I hear a couple of the standbys:
"Must have been a new cop." (He has been on the force for over five years)
"He's trying to fill his quotas."
"He must have been having a bad day or something."
So the guy is fairly outraged at this ticket. The officer tells him he was doing 60 in a 45. Burt tells the officer that he was driving 52. The officer points out that even if that is true, then Burt was still speeding by his own admission. So the officer charges Burt with exceeding the posted speed and not 60 in a 45. He is actually doing Burt a favor as exceeding the posted speed is a less serious offense.

Then Burt tells me that he got another ticket. In this one, he is charged with reckless driving. And what was he doing to get charged with reckless driving? Try 130 miles per hour in a 45. Seriously. So that officer way undercharges him. Is he happy overall? No. All he can focus on is the first unjust ticket.

Client 2: The police report says that the officers are hanging out watching a drug house. They see vehicle park in front of the house. They see a couple of people light up. Then the car rolls away. They get behind the car and run the tag. Expired (PSA -- if you are doing drugs in your car, please be sure to have your lights on and inspection and registration current) registration. They pull the car over. Portis is driving. There are two passengers. They see a crack pipe on th passenger's side floorboard. The passenger gets up and a crack rock falls out of his lap. They question the two passengers and both say that all three of them were enjoying some crack.

My client has no criminal record and he is about fifty years old. He has a full time job. His version of the facts: He is driving along when he sees two people who need a ride. He lets them get in the car. They get in the car and he gives them a ride. Then he gets pulled over by the police. Do people actually think that their lawyers aren't even interested in the truth?

Client 3: Dudley is hanging out at a sports bar. He is out in the parking lot talking to some girls out front standing in the "To Go Parking" spots. A car pulls up and wants to park there because the guy has placed an order to go. Dudley decides to show off for the girls and not move out of the spot. He stands there, refuses to move, mocks the guy, and gives him the finger. After the guy goes to park elsewhere, Dudley goes into the sports bar.

Dudley is sitting at the bar having his drink. He turns around and sees the angry guy from the car quickly approaching him. So Dudley -- realizing that he treated the guy poorly outside and was in the wrong -- hauls off and punches the guy in the face. Dudley is astonished when the "asshole" then goes and has a warrant taken out for Dudley's arrest for assault. Dudley simply can't believe the nerve of the guy.

Dudley: "So Eddie, that's self-defense, isn't it?"
Me: "No."
Dudley: "Why not?"
Me: "Well, he would have to have hit you first. Did he hit your first?"
Dudley: "No. But he was coming at me fast and he looked crazy."

So Dudley thinks that if you do something outrageous and offensive to someone and that person then acts outraged or offended, then you should be able to punch that outraged and offended person in the face. Perhaps Dudley should consider a job that involves making foreign policy decisions for the United States.