Portland Mercury


 
 

« No Guns In Class | Main | Interstate Businesses Consider Legal Action, Referendum, if Rename Passes on Thursday »

Monday, November 12, 2007

News Alleged Peeping Tom Beaten Shitless By Neighbors

Posted by Matt Davis on Mon, Nov 12 at 2:32 PM

Call me old fashioned, but isn’t it the cops, or at the very least, sheriff’s deputies, who are supposed to administer the “rough justice” in this town? Nevertheless, Portland Police don’t appear to have arrested a neighbor for beating an alleged peeping tom in NW Portland last night. From the cops’ public information officer, Sergeant Brian Schmautz:

On Sunday, November 11, 2007, at 11:50 pm, Central Precinct officers were called to the 2600 block of Northwest Raleigh Street on a shots fired call. When they arrived they found an area resident holding down 30-year-old Jeremy Peter Goulet who appeared to have been beaten. The area resident stated that about a month ago they saw a peeping tom in the area but did not call police. Tonight when they arrived home they saw Goulet and recognized him as the peeping tom. The resident confronted Goulet who, unbeknownst to the area resident, was armed with a handgun. The area resident and Goulet began to struggle and as they were fighting, Goulet discharged the handgun several times. A large crowd began to gather and about a dozen people stood around watching the resident fighting with Goulet. While several people called 911, no one would intervene to help the resident who was calling out for help. In fact, one person told the 911 dispatcher that he was not going to get involved.

Officers arrested Goulet on two counts of Attempted Assault in the First Degree, one count of Unauthorized Use of a Firearm, and one count Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Goulet was transported to OHSU to receive medical attention for injuries sustained in the struggle and was then taken to the Justice Center Jail. Detectives have asked that I withhold the name of the area resident and the 911 calls until they can complete their investigation. The photo of the suspect is available from the Identification Division. As you will see from the photo, the suspect was struck several times during the struggle. Anyone with information is asked to call Detective Eric Kammerer at (503) 823-0762.
“As you can see…”:
jeremy%20goulet.jpg
GOULET: “Was armed with a handgun…”

What do you think? Should the person beating him have been arrested, too? Does Goulet have civil recourse against the citizen who beat him? Or did he probably deserve it, for his alleged crimes? What would you have done in the neighbor’s position, and would you feel bad about it afterwards? For clarity: Goulet is yet to be convicted of any crime.

Comments

I don't know that anyone can really determine whether or not he "deserved it" before the investigation is completed. I mean if he pulled the gun on the citizen that confronted him before he was beaten then it's possible the person was just trying to defend themselves correct?

There you go being all rational about it.

But did the person have any business doing that to his face? I mean, there's restraint, and restraint, right?

One mans bloody face is another mans definition of restraint. If they caught him in the act of peeping then I would congratulate them on their efforts. I'm in favor of street justice though.

I don't think they did catch him "in the act of peeping," although it's not clear. It would be interesting to hear from anybody who was actually there.

Mr. Davis, please step away from the glass dick. Are you unbelievably high? This is putting restorative justice to an entirely new level. Should we feel bad for the suspect? Stay off the bubble.
It looks like the suspect received a lesson on natural consequences for unbelievably stupid behaviors--i.e.: carrying a gun. Or are you taking the approach that he should carry a gun in case those people he's peeping on has one as well?

I think I'm saying he'd never have pulled his gun if the neighbor hadn't approached him, and that the dishing out of summary justice by vigilantes against alleged sex perverts makes me uncomfortable—especially if nobody is charged.

And no, I'm not on the "glass dick." But it's a great word for a bong. Thank you.

How are you going to get your ass kicked when you're the one holding a gun? Am I missing something?

Peeping Toms with guns deserve what they've got coming to 'em. I'm fairly certain this is the first story in a series of stories we see about this dude until he kidnaps/rapes someone.

Unless he's innocent... Then it's my bad. Sorry, creepy dude.

I think the part about him being innocent is where I'm focused, here. Aren't citizens given the benefit of the doubt under the terms of the constitution?

And isn't the police bureau implying he clearly deserved it, in this press release?

I say the people that stood around, watched and didn't do anything when someone was crying out for help are the ones that should be ashamed. If my neighbor caught a peeping Tom and kicked his ass- I'd call that a caring neighbor, particularly if they fought someone holding a GUN. I do suppose the question is- whether or not he was ACTUALLY peeping- but common sense has me side with the fearless neighbor that kicked some ass.

I'm thinking if that tool pulled a gun on me, he might look a lot worse.

Common sense, or the "greater good?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hff2p705cUI

sounds like JUSTICE was served. i believe in the eye for an eye policy. Yes; neighbors should be ashamed for not helping restrain this menace.

sounds like JUSTICE was served. i believe in the eye for an eye policy. Yes; neighbors should be ashamed for not helping restrain this menace.

Robert (@12 & 13), um ... if you believe in an "eye for an eye", then explain how that fits in this situation. The point of "an eye for an eye" is to limit retribution to that which was wrongly inflicted in the first place. But the peeping tom did not beat anybody about the face. He did have a handgun, but it didn't actually inflict any damage. Your would-be rule doesn't enter into play here, but it should be noted that (a) an "eye for an eye" isn't actually part of our legal system, and (b) it doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to people you don't like.

Matt, seriously dude, your moral compass is in dire need of re-calibrating if you are worried about a few bruises on an armed prowler who discharged his weapon when confronted by his victim.

If anyone deserves criticism for doing that to Mr Goulet's face, it's his parents. Seriously, dude was whacked with an ugly stick long before he got caught peeping.

tODD - He did have a handgun, but it didn't actually inflict any damage.

Would you have preferred it if Mr Goulet's victim had been shot? Seriously, some prowler pulls out an unlicensed weapon when confronted by one of his victims and your first response is to assume that the police got the basic facts of the case wrong and to blame the victim for defending himself?

Keep Portland weird, I guess.

SP (@16), please read the context of my comment. None of your assumptions or assertions about what I said are correct.

This is some anti-men bullshit. When is everyone going to stop using the male gendered "peeping tom" label? For years I have struggled to get the word out, the word is Pat. Peeping Pat.

Let's all remember "Inncoent Until Proven Guilty" still applies, what if Mr. Goulet was just walking by this guys house and he gets jumped by the assumption he slightly resembled the "Peeping Tom" don't draw your own conclusions. I did'nt read Mr. Goulet's side of the story. Yes, he was carrying a gun. I am applying to carry a weapon myself. Portland is becoming very dangerous and gun permits are on the rise in just about every county in this area. AND, in the news lately, we hear alot about innocent people getting jumped, beaten & killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just some thoughts to ponder.

A quick call to the sheriff's office should confirm whether this guy had a concealed-weapons permit.

But that might require, y'know, like reporting 'n' stuff. ;)

how did "innocent until proven guilty" even get in the american lexicon? apparently given this, jose padilla, and guantanamo bay, americans don't actually believe this principle that is supposed to make us so much awesomer than, say, pakistan.

obviously peeping toms are grody scum (who need psychiatric help). but no one has finished the part of the equation that makes *this guy* a peeping tom. in fact, it sounds a little shaky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

What really happened?
The "month ago" when the suspect was originally caught peeping through a window at the "friend" with his video phone. The victim scuffled with the suspect then. So he was able to get a clear face shot.
The suspect then showed up at the victim's doorstep a "month" later waiting for the victim to return home. The suspect had a gun. Put two and two together. Did he plan on killing my friend?
What would you have done?

If I were you, Friend of the Victim, I'd call me, right now, on 503 294 0840. And talk it over. We can set the story straight in print.

JQS:"But that might require, y'know, like reporting 'n' stuff. ;)": That might be how they do it in Arkansas, buddy. But not around here. PS: did you see that "friend of the victim" comment?! Holy shit!

FoV, you should call matt davis. hearing more details of the story did make beating this guy up more reasonable-sounding. before, it sounded kinda like the boyfriend grabbed a random guy on the street and started kicking his ass (not that half the commenters here saw anything wrong with that).

Dear Friend of the Victim, why didn't your friend call the police the first time? AND, I didn't see a mention in the interview with "Your Friend" that there was a scuffle the time Mr. Goulet was caught Allegedly peeping in the bathroom window. Also, If he lives right next door, why did it take "your friend" a month to recognize him, and how did he recognize him in the dark?

I personally think that the residents should stand up for each other, and not let one man do the fighting. I don't think the fighting was nessisary, but the others watchin should have jumped in to subdue the gunman. What would have happened if he suspect shot anyone? Or 2 people? We should all take a stand from people who break the law!

I personally think that the residents should stand up for each other, and not let one man do the fighting. The the others watchin should have jumped in to subdue the gunman. What would have happened if he suspect shot anyone? Or 2 people? We should all take a stand from people who break the law!

well said Matt Evans i agree.. (Todd) Seems to me like your implying that this menace//peeping tom is like
anyone else ie..the rest of us..no sir..as i understand you can't make sense out of nonsense..so you must use common sense & according to my frame of reference ie..ideology..JUSTICE was served..peace

well said Matt Evans i agree.. (Todd) Seems to me like your implying that this menace//peeping tom is like
anyone else ie..the rest of us..no sir..as i understand you can't make sense out of nonsense..so you must use common sense & according to my frame of reference ie..ideology..JUSTICE was served..peace

If the Portland Police wouldn't have taken 12 minutes to arrive, Danny wouldn't have had to beat his face for 12 minutes to try to restrain him. It was the PPD responsibility to "protect" us, and they didn't do their job. Danny was doing what he could to protect everyone from this creep. Do you really think he was peeping in their bathroom window with a gun in his jacket with no intentions to hurt his girlfriend? Creepy... He used a DEADLY weapon against Danny. Danny was doing what he could to contain the violent person. Since no one could offer help, he did what he could.

If the Portland Police wouldn't have taken 12 minutes to arrive, Danny wouldn't have had to beat his face for 12 minutes to try to restrain him. It was the PPD responsibility to "protect" us, and they didn't do their job. Danny was doing what he could to protect everyone from this creep. Do you really think he was peeping in their bathroom window with a gun in his jacket with no intentions to hurt his girlfriend? Creepy... He used a DEADLY weapon against Danny. Danny was doing what he could to contain the violent person. Since no one could offer help, he did what he could.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).

Blogtown End Hits: The Merc's Music Blog MOD: Merc on Design 2008: Merc Election Coverage Mercury Eat and Drink Guide  

Our Friends

Our Enemies