Posted on 02/09/2005 4:50:31 PM PST by SmithL
After a San Jose police officer pleaded guilty this morning to allegations that he molested his 11-month-old daughter, attorneys in the case described for the first time the videotaped evidence of the incident that led to his arrest last week.
Stephen Gallagher, 49, was arrested on Feb. 2 after the child's mother reported the encounter that occurred the night before, while Gallagher was babysitting, at her home in unincorporated Morgan Hill.
Deputy District Attorney James Gibbons-Shapiro said the mother installed a security camera commonly known as a "nanny cam'' because she suspected Gallagher of drinking alcohol around their daughter.
Addressing for the first time what the video showed, Gibbons-Shapiro said today that Gallagher allowed his daughter to touch his penis with her hands and mouth.
"There really was no defense in this case because there was videotape evidence,'' Gibbons-Shapiro said. "Our only hope is that as the child grows up, this event doesn't make it hard for her in any way.''
Defense attorney Dan Jensen maintains that Gallagher had no criminal intent and that the video is somewhat ambiguous.
Jensen said the two-hour video shows Jensen watching television, feeding his daughter and changing her diapers. At some point Gallagher reportedly unzipped his pants and partially pulled them down, exposing himself to the girl.
The child walked up to Gallagher without any provocation, Jensen said. He said Gallagher did not encourage the encounter, but did not prevent it, either.
Gallagher was not drinking at the time of the incident and does not have any issues with alcoholism, according to Jensen.
Jensen said the decision to enter the guilty pleas today was made because he felt a jury would convict his client due to the nature of the crime and the evidence.
"A jury would be outraged,''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Never said child-molesting was the Blue-State norm. But the article makes the whole scenario--except for the molestation--sound as if it's perfectly normal, at least normal enough that it needs no explanation. And I think that outlook is becoming very typical of Blue-State America (and the Blue-State part of states like my own). The result can only be more suffering for children, some of it truly horrific. (Indeed, we had a similar case in Georgia recently, only the "father" murdered his child to get back at the "mother"/girlfriend, who didn't even notice because she was on the other side of the country shacking up with yet another prospective "father.")
So now it's a Red vs Blue article?
I second that. Why would the daughter (very young) just walk up to him when he pulled his pants down, if she hadn't done it before, been talked into it before?
It's about a way of life that (with the single exception of the molestation itself) is celebrated among the Blues of our country. It's a culture-war article, I think, and you don't win a culture war by locking up (or executing) a few of the foot soldiers.
Yes it must have been awful for her, but if there is anything good about this, its the fact that he didn't physically hurt her but I bet if he hadn't been caught, that would have been next.
Dysfunctional households--dysfunctional families--breed this sort of behavior. The typical case involves boyfriends rather than biological dads, mostly because the biological dads don't stick around (even to babysit) in such households. Do the data support my contention? Sure do! (Sorry if you're offended by any reference to the suggestion that immoral behavior might possibly be sinful.)
Well, maybe Blues was a bit off the mark. But there is no question that the "family" (more like UNfamily) pattern described in this article has been condoned, supported and defended by the Left side of the culture war. Most of the FReepers responding to this article have gone the usual "Fry the Guy!" route, as if putting away the few of these characters who get caught would address the underlying problem. I don't think so. I think the best way to ensure the safety of children is to promote stable, two-parent (as in "mommy" and "daddy" of different genders), married households.
Christian principals in America will never fly! /sarcasm
Who are you to judge? (Kinsey thinking)
Agreed.
Does that shock you?
What I find odd is that you seem more outraged about the family structure, not the actual act of child sexual molestation.
"He said Gallagher did not encourage the encounter"
In what effing alternate universe can it be said that a man who does as this psycho did w/respect to an 11 MONTH OLD CHILD did not encourage the encounter? The child has an 11 mos olds intellect and curiosity!!!! WTF?????!!!
Of course not. But it bothers me that hardly anyone (and especially anyone at the SanFransicko Chronicle and its ilk) has any problem with dysfunctional families until kids turn up molested (or dead) in them. And even when that does happen, they offer some psychobabble to explain away the problem rather than even so much as hinting that kids without in-home moms and dads are kids at risk.
I'm 36, and I can still run to Daddy when I need something. He's told me so. :)
What's his defense? She didn't look a day under 22 months?
Gads, string this trash up already. Even easier, lock him in a windowless room, give him his service revolver with one round in it. Tell him "Justice is in your hands". If he doesn't blow his skull out, the other officers can dump some clips in him for pointing it at them.
This is so sickening, I just don't even understand where this comes from. Must simply be a demon or something. Just makes no sense at all.
AMEN!
What's his point? It's better to keep your mouth shut than say something so pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.