Suspect in Santa Cruz killings had lived in Berkeley


Jeremy Peter Goulet

A man suspected of shooting and killing two Santa Cruz police officers on Tuesday had lived in Berkeley and worked as a barista at Cole Coffee on the Oakland-Berkeley border, according to media reports.

Jeremy Peter Goulet, 35, was shot and killed by police not long after two officers were killed at a house in Santa Cruz while answering a call, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Santa Cruz Police Chief Kevin Vogel confirmed Wednesday that the officers were killed while trying to arrest a suspect; Vogel identified them as Detective Sgt. Loran Baker and Detective Elizabeth Butler. The officers were answering a call at an address about a mile northeast of downtown at around 3:30 p.m. when the suspect opened fire.

Records show that Goulet, who had moved to Santa Cruz in September, was listed as having been a resident at an apartment complex on Benvenue Ave. near Derby St. in the Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley. He appears to have been arrested last Friday, Feb. 22, in Santa Cruz on suspicion of drunk and disorderly conduct.

According to the Chronicle, Goulet was a licensed pilot living in Santa Cruz and had previously been living with his twin brother at an apartment on Benvenue. He also was a former Marine and military police officer, according to Oregon Live.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported that Goulet, who was said to have had three weapons registered to him, including a .40-caliber semi-automatic Sig Sauer and a Baretta, was fired Saturday from a job as a barista at a Santa Cruz coffee shop, possibly because of sexual harassment toward a female co-worker. Goulet had allegedly broken into the co-worker’s home Friday night and had made unwanted sexual advances toward her, according to the paper. She had filed a report with police.

Goulet had been arrested two other times for peeping at naked women, according to Oregon Live.  In 2008, Goulet was sentenced to three years probation for peeping at a woman as she showered in her condominium in Portland, Ore., according to Oregon Live.  He was ordered to undergo sex-offender treatment after he admitted he used his cell phone to video women surreptitiously. He had had an earlier peeping conviction in California in 2000, according to the news report.

In the Oregon case, Goulet had also been charged with a misdemeanor for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, according to Oregon Live. The boyfriend of the woman Goulet spied on spotted him near her home and jumped on him. Goulet shot off the gun during the ensuing scuffle, although he later told the court he was not trying to kill the boyfriend.

When Goulet could not get along with his probation officer, he opted to go to jail, where he served two years, according to the Sentinel. 

Officer Baker, a 28-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department, leaves behind a wife, two daughters and a son who is a community service officer with the Santa Cruz Police Department, officials said. Officer Butler, who had been with the force for 10 years, leaves behind her partner and two young sons.

Police Chief  Vogel said Wednesday: “This is the darkest day in the history of the Santa Cruz Police Department.”

Would you like a digest of the day’s Berkeley news in your inbox at the end of your working day? Click here to subscribe to Berkeleyside’s free Daily Briefing.

Print Friendly
Tagged ,
Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comments policy »
  • batard

    Not fabricating, but over-stating. There were only three convictions that I’m aware of, the original Berkeley case and the two in Oregon. The rest are allegations, maybe valid, but we’ll never know.

    My point was only that you appear to be conflating it all as his “criminal record”, but that’s now how we roll in this country.

  • The_Sharkey

    I don’t like outright bans on very many things, but I think it should definitely be harder than it is right now to get a handgun and that handguns should always be harder to get than long rifles.

  • bgal4

    False, rap sheets in the US contain arrests and convictions. This is the last time I bother to respond to you. Your aim is to harangue me and spew false information.

  • guest0

    Maybe we could begin by changing the dynamic between the mentally ill person, his family, and the ‘mental health system.’ One common thread in these stories is the cycle of ‘capture and release’ of the mentally ill. Remember that Mr. DeWitt had been in and out of facilities (even injuring a care giver in one) despite his parents’ stated effort to have him detained rather than released. Surely we can do better.

  • Guest

    So was her required to register as a sex offender or not? There is a K-8 school on the same block that he lived on in Berkeley, and two more (Emerson and Willard) within a few more blocks (not to mention various preschools), and it is alarming to think that he was so close to the children and he perhaps wasn’t supposed to be.

  • batard
  • batard

    As you please, but don’t let your ego convince you it’s personal.

    In 20 years of observing USENET, chat and comment forums, I’ve noticed that there tends to be a handful or fewer “locals” that are always present and tend to dominate the conversation. Usually there’s at least one know-it-all who repeats 2nd hand information with grand authority, a couple that just like to hear themselves talk, and a then bully or two. I think you fit in the latter; you reserve little patience for people who take exception to your “facts” and your responses cut to personal attacks very quickly.

  • bgal4

    please delete comment above which violates Bside rules

  • guest

    How on earth do you figure a rule is being violated here?

  • batardo


  • The_Sharkey

    So you’re criticizing bgal4 for personal attacks, while personally attacking her? I’m no Miss Manners, but the issue at hand is such an interesting one that fixating on personalities seems like a waste.

    The comments made by law enforcement in the Santa Cruz Sentinel story you linked to are deeply troubling. Multiple media outlets are stating that this man was guilty of crimes he was never convicted of, and Police Chiefs are calling for National databases of alleged crimes even when the individual is found not guilty or isn’t convicted.

    The idea that the Police want to set up a database where they could record allegations of crimes you never committed that could haunt you for life is pretty horrifying.

  • batard

    Fair enuf, truce on the personality issue.

    You nailed it tho, if we let due process get lost in the process then we’re taking ourselves back to a much more primitive and unhappy time. That’s why all this emotion-based pitchforks and torches argument drives me nuts. Yeah, the guy’s a creep but point of fact he wasn’t convicted of anything before he actually went off the reservation. And no, there’s no lesson in there about how we ought to treat people who “might” do something terrible. People do bad things, rarely we hope, but it happens.

  • bgal4

    If you bothered to actually read my comments, I never confused criminal records/ criminal history/ and police records. I simply restated what was reported in multiple news sources, that Goulet had a history of sexual assaults.

    As a woman who has experienced multiple sexual assaults during my youth (beating off the attackers successfully ) including an incident very similar to Goulet’s most recent sexual assault, I do not appreciate being challenged by a MAN who very likely has never defended himself from the constant harassment of such men.

    In calling me a coward and a bully it is apparent that you are prone to emotional reactivity and CLEARLY know nothing about me. I think you are the one guilty of using “all this emotion-based pitchforks and torches”.

    Nice that you are backing off, but where is the apology for all the name calling?

    btw, you still present as a dishonest reporter of facts, Goulet was convicted, an because he refused to comply with the conditions of his probation he served two years in jail. Goulet was much more than a creep, he was a sexual predator based on his criminal history; allegations of rape, arrests, convictions.

  • bgal4

    the rules are on the site for all to read

  • batard

    My comment was not clear; ‘not convicted of anything’ with respect to violent crime, which was the point I was trying to make. We have both agreed previously that there were three misdemeanor convictions. Allegations not withstanding, he may or may not have had a history of sexual assaults – we’ll never know what really happened.

    Whatever to your background and indignation, your opinions carry as much weight as anybody’s.

  • bgal4

    Right…. you had the best intentions…… however you had the nerve to call me a liar, bully and coward. Not to mention your inclination to minimize Goulet’s pathology as just a creep. Never know what really happened?? really….

    “After the second allegation(rape), the military locked up Goulet in Naval Brig Ford Island in the middle of Pearl Harbor, Wilkerson said. Goulet stayed there for several months.’

    There lies the distinction between the way women think about sexual predators and some men (you for instance). So I conclude YOUR opinions should be ignored.

  • batard

    And you continue to demonstrate the wisdom of Voir Dire …

  • Charles_Siegel

    “Police Chiefs are calling for National databases of alleged crimes even when the individual is found not guilty or isn’t convicted.”

    I don’t see that in the Sentinel article. Can you provide a quote that I can search for?

    The Sentinel article talks about this loophole:

    “Another computer system, the California’s Prohibited Armed Persons Database, is designed to keep guns from felons and the mentally ill. Goulet did not appear on that list
    because even though he served two years in jail in Oregon, they were consecutive one-year sentences. Federal law prohibits anyone from owning a gun who has been imprisoned for more than a year.”

    That seems like a loophole that would be fairly easy to close. Change the law so it prohibits gun ownership by anyone who has been imprisoned for more than a year in total, rather than more than a year in a single sentence.

    The other loophole it talks about is this:

    “Goulet, 35, did not appear in the National Crime Information Center — which includes FBI, federal, state,local and foreign criminal justice agencies and some courts — in part
    because the database is based on felony or serious misdemeanor court convictions. The Oregon misdemeanors were for carrying a concealed gun without a permit and for “peeping” into a woman’s home.”

    That also seems like an easy loophole to close: change the definition of serious misdemeanor so it includes peeping into someone’s home while carrying a gun. I would feel very seriously threatened if I learned that someone with a gun was peeping into my window, wouldn’t you?

    Closing these loopholes would not lead to a loss of due processor take us back to a more primitive time. On the contrary, they would take us forward to a less primitive time, where we have fewer gun-carrying criminals wandering the streets.

  • Charles_Siegel

    “point of fact he wasn’t convicted of anything”

    If he wasn’t convicted on anything, why did he spend time in jail?

  • The_Sharkey

    Friday morning, as Santa Cruz police
    returned to patrols with Santa Cruz County sheriff’s deputies standing
    at attention, Sheriff Phil Wowak said the detectives’ killer was
    unlisted because he was only charged with the crimes and not convicted.

    Maybe I’m reading more into this than I should, but to me this suggests that the Sheriff thinks that people should be listed in databases based on alleged criminal activity.

    As far as prohibiting anyone who has been jailed for more than 12 months from owning a firearm, why should a man who gets jailed for cheating on his taxes, or some other non-violent crime be barred from owning a firearm for life? Should a starving man who steals food for his children and gets 13 months of jail time because he can’t afford a decent lawyer be prohibited from ever owning a firearm? Does that seem fair, or appropriate to you?

    And the article is throwing around the word “loophole” too much. While the database problem with two non-consecutive 1-year jailings not appearing is a loophole, thinking that the penalty for a specific crime should be harsher isn’t a “loophole” by any definition.

  • The_Sharkey

    Arrests and allegations are not convictions. I know innocent people who have been alleged of criminal activity and had to fight those allegations in court. Allegations, arrests, and convictions are not the same thing.

    It sounds like this guy was a real creep, but simply being arrested on suspicion of a crime does not make someone guilty.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I thought he was just explaining why the man was not on the list.

    Have I suggested that penalties for specific crimes should be harsher? I suggested that peeking while carrying a gun should be defined as a serious misdemeanor, so he would be on this list. Whether the penalty should be changed is a separate discussion.

    “Should a starving man who steals food for his children and gets 13 months of jail time because he can’t afford a decent lawyer be prohibited from ever owning a firearm?”

    Apparently, that is the law now: you cannot own a gun is you were sentenced to more than a year in prison for a given crime. We have to draw the line somewhere.

    I could give an extreme example in the other direction: If the wealthy head of a mob of drug dealers can afford to hire a slick lawyer who gets him a sentence of exactly 12 months for a crime, should he be allowed to own a gun? If he is convicted ten times, and his slick lawyers get him a sentence of exactly 12 months for each conviction, should he be allowed to own a gun – as he is now?

  • The_Sharkey

    I would argue that changing the classification so that it appears on a permanent record in a Federal database is indeed a change in penalty. I’m not disagreeing with you on the change in classification, but it’s important to note that a change that makes something a permanent ping on a Fed database is a form of punishment.

    Like many other gun laws in the USA, Federal prohibitions are sometimes arbitrary and unfair. Prohibiting someone who’s committed something like tax fraud from going duck hunting seems pretty stupid, in my book.

  • batard

    I think the federal prohibition actually refers to “convicted of a crime that is punishable by 1 year or more”, which is slightly different and cuts more to the intent.

  • bgal4

    Exactly, different databases, the focus of the article was the databases that inform eligibility to own firearms.

  • bgal4

    I am fully aware, and I made that clear in all my comments.
    I have been arrested, tried and found not guilty.

  • Ol’greySurfDude

    and we will trust who, you? to make that decision. No, thanks

  • guest

    >I he wasn’t convicted of anything, why did he spend time in jail?
    Question of the year!