So, in yesterday's Houston's Chronicle, there's this article about a guy arrested for exposing himself. His defense is he "could not have exposed himself to an undercover cop because that which is alleged to have been exposed is too small to have been seen."
Yep, you read that right.....his manhood was too small for the officer to have seen it being exposed, had he actually exposed himself (which he denies doing). He was found guilty of exposing himself and brought up the size of his member in his appeal.
Here's the other part of the story that's hard to believe. "He said he went to the park during a 20-minute work break and just wanted to talk to someone." Okay, men don't talk about marriage and family to people they know....let alone to some stranger the meet in the park, who suggests they go behind the bathroom to talk.
Back to the 'does size matter' question...."Secondly, the urologist testified that given the officer's own description of how the doctor (Oh, yeah, the guy's a doctor) allegedly showed off, the illegal part of the alleged display would have been concealed by the doctor's palm, which the urologist measured as being more than half again as large as the subject at hand [2.8 inches]." In other words, when the doctor whipped it out, his fist would have been covering his manhood, because the fist was bigger than the member and the officer couldn't have seen anything.....
I don't know about you, but I don't think this guy is built, in more ways than one, to be hero material.
To read the whole article by RICK CASEY, to go http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5954517.htm You'll have a great chuckle!