By Juliet Bost
SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco Police announced the arrest of 26-year-old Necho Goins on charges of attempted robbery, brandishing a deadly weapon other than a firearm, possession of a burglary tool, unlawful possession of a baton, and brandishing an imitation firearm in a public place after an alleged attempted Market Street robbery.
In a recent Tweet, SFPD identified Goins as “a fugitive…wanted for a Grand Theft violation” in connection with the theft of a diamond ring from a pawnshop on Mission Street in late October of last year.
Police issued an arrest warrant in addition to the charges from Thursday’s attempted robbery.
SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin weighed in on the arrest, commenting that he is committed to a public safety model that centers the needs of the community, victims, and suspects.
He said he’s monitoring the case.
In a press release, SFPD stated that officers detained Goins in the early evening last Thursday, after victims revealed they saw Goins in a Market Street hardware store.
According to the two victims, the suspect entered the store demanding money. The suspect “displayed a semi-automatic firearm” and “manipulated the slide of the firearm as if chambering a round.”
Then, victims said, the suspect “put the gun away and brandished a collapsible baton.”
The suspect ended up fleeing without money after one victim called for help from another employee. Police reported no injuries during the robbery.
During the investigation, police seized a “replica semi-automatic firearm” and a “collapsible baton” from the suspect, along with other unspecified evidence.
The San Francisco News reported later that “Goins was sent to San Francisco County Jail for seven counts of second-degree robbery.”
Additionally, authorities booked Goins on “three counts of grand theft of personal property, one count of possession of a deadly weapon, possession of burglary tools, unlawful display of an imitation firearm, exhibiting a deadly weapon, and first-degree robbery.”
Goins is currently being held without bail and is awaiting his next court date in March.
Boudin has repeatedly stressed the importance of addressing the root causes of crime through meaningful intervention. This is especially important for institutions with high recidivism rates, such as San Francisco County jails, Boudin stated during a recent community meeting.
“We need to make sure every arrest is an opportunity for meaningful intervention that gets at the root causes of crime and changes behavior more effectively than an arbitrary number of days or months or years in prison ever could,” he said.
As the investigation continues, Boudin said he will continue to monitor the case work towards an outcome that will benefit the community’s safety.
Juliet Bost is a third year at UC Davis, majoring in Political Science – Public Service and minoring in Religious Studies. They are originally from San Mateo, California. They are a member on the Chesa Boudin Recall – Changing the Narrative Project.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
I read the title here and think the SFPD must have done something wrong. But no, the SFPD did a great job getting an armed criminal off the streets.
Yes, by all means let’s be committed to the needs of the suspects/criminals.
“Yes, by all means let’s be committed to the needs of the suspects/criminals.”
A. Don’t all people have the right to due process under law?
B. Shouldn’t an effective system find ways to help people who have committed crimes to avoid doing so in the future?
You sure have a rosy view of human nature.
We do have such a system. It’s called prison, if they’re in there long enough.
I’d like to see that system improved, so that prisoners themselves are incentivized to offset some of their costs.
“We do have such a system. It’s called prison, if they’re in there long enough.”
Prison is a very poor way to achieve that.
It’s ultimately up to individuals who commit crimes, if they want to “achieve” that.
I’d suggest a system (in prison) which incentivizes them to simultaneously offset their costs and improve their skills.
And if they don’t want to take advantage of that, then stay in there until they’re no longer a threat.
(Perhaps my initial comment can be deleted, since it’s a duplicate of the one that followed. There seemed to be a problem with your website, today. It’s better, now.)
“It’s ultimately up to individuals who commit crimes, if they want to “achieve” that.”
Disagree. It’s ultimately up to us to design a system that works. Right now we spent $85,000 a year to incarcerate someone and they recidovate at 70%. So why would we continue a system that doesn’t work? Why would we not put money into education and job training. Why would we not offer more programs. Why would we release people with $200 in gate money but prevent them from getting jobs, housing, and benefits because they are convicted felons? Why are we surprised that such a system doesn’t work?
The system does work, for the vast majority of people who aren’t out committing crimes.
If that’s accurate, I’m pretty sure that cost can be reduced. But more importantly, I’d suggest a system where prisoners help offset their own costs (while improving their own skills, as mentioned).
In any case, how much does it cost to let them out, to commit more crimes? In a system that seems to “work” for those who don’t engage in those activities?
Unless prisoners themselves help pay for that cost, it’s not likely that this would reduce your claimed $85,000 per year that they’re already costing. Why is it society’s responsibility to pay even more than that, for people who’ve committed problems for others?
I believe we are in agreement, except (perhaps) for “who” should pay for that – the rest of their lives, if needed.
Students are already saddled with debt which never “disappears” on its own. Why should those who commit crimes be able to totally avoid responsibility for the costs that they’ve inflicted upon others?
Of course, your example also ignores the fact that older people generally don’t commit as many crimes – even with only $200 in their pockets. Why is that, do you suppose?
Shouldn’t an effective system find ways to help people who have NOT committed crimes to avoid poverty, homelessness, lack of access to healthcare, treatment for MH/addiction, etc.?
And what is the VG, or you and your family doing to support those efforts to avoid that. Sanctimonius verbage, $$$ from “others”, $$$, time, effort, from VG or from you, or your family?
I think I know your choice.
You make a statement in the form of a question… reminds me of certain other posters…
In my view we are making a mistake putting $85,000 per person on the back end rather than the front end which speaks to the point.
What if we put $85,000 in the front end, and still need to spend $65,000 on the back end because only some of the people respond to the front end? Was it worth it?
Also, it may take 20 years to see the results.
Or if a criminal is given a one year sentence we can set them free and take the $85,000 and give it to them if they pinky swear never to commit another crime.
There is a difference between suspects and criminals.
In reading this story the perp described is sounds more like a criminal than a suspect. S I’ll sick to criminal.
Well well my my I do declare, it’s attitudes like this be is why Chesa has uh to protect him be them suspects 😉
Too bad you missed our webinar yesterday
LOL Alan, I tried to quickly change my comment before the shot clock expired and obviously failed. I didn’t want to waste one of my 5 fixing it.
Yeah, too bad. My loss, oh well…
“Yeah, too bad. My loss, oh well…”
It’s on video on the article, but one thing they noted is that with realignment, more people are spending time in local custody, and yet the jails are not set up with program like the prisons have (even though the prisons are inadequate). For example, the Yolo County jail is right next to Woodland Community College and yet there is no way for a person incarcerated there to access the programs even though studies consistently show a very strong connection between in-custody education programs and a reduction of recidivism – why does that make sense?
It doesn’t. That’s why they should be kept in prisons (along with whatever programs are offered to them).
There’s a lot of violence in local jails (as a result of realignment), as well. I’ve previously posted an article regarding that.
Realignment (shifting those in prison to local jails) seems to be an enormous mistake. Almost as bad as just letting them out to commit more crimes.
Also no way for a person incarcerated there to access potential victims 😐
Hey, don’t blame me. That’s how a large chunk of people see it and always will see it, so maybe back off on the overarching statements and make it clear we’re talking about people who aren’t violent and show they deserve to have access to rehabilitation programs . . . and admit there are are a certain chunk that are violent and do need to be kept from society. If you make these blanket statements that everyone can be saved with sufficient subsidy, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow. And no we don’t know that’s it’s gonna be . . . alright.
[By the way, DG already posted 5, so he doesn’t get to post anymore 🙁 ]
” If you make these blanket statements that everyone can be saved with sufficient subsidy, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow. ”
I don’t believe I ever said “everyone” can be saved with sufficient subsidy.
Actually 6, but who’s counting?
7 . . .
I was saying that as an overstatement, to point out the movement’s overstatement. The public reacts the same way to the movement as you did to my statement.
The implication, the way it’s often worded, may be understood within the movement, but if you want to win more people to your side, you (the movement) needs to clarify that there are indeed violent people who need to be locked up. This is great for signaling to fellow movement people, and I understand the want to go extreme because y’all feel the current system is too extreme the other way, but it doesn’t work and will cause a backlash. You may have noticed the reaction to certain people/policies recently. It doesn’t help your cause. Or, choose not to believe me. Fine.
And that’s all from me folks . . . and I am oughta here!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Keith O… you’re forgetting the ‘Golden Rule’… “them that have the gold, make the rules”… and therefore, are exempt…
In CEQA terms, it’s probably a ‘categorical’ or ‘statutory’ exemption…