By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Varun Suresh, a 29-year-old Fremont resident, has been charged with murder for the fatal stabbing of 71-year-old David Brimmer, a registered sex offender. Police responded to a report of a violent altercation and found Brimmer with severe stab wounds; he was pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators determined Suresh used the Megan’s Law database to target Brimmer, posing as an accountant before pursuing him into a neighbor’s home. Suresh allegedly admitted to the killing, stating his motive was to punish a sex offender, and has been charged with murder with additional enhancements for residential burglary and being armed with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury.
Read the original article here
Indian-origin man charged for killing sex offender in California in ‘targeted attack’ has sparked a complex and, frankly, unsettling conversation. It’s a case that throws into sharp relief our feelings about justice, revenge, and the morality of taking the law into one’s own hands. The core of the matter is this: a man of Indian descent is accused of murdering a convicted sex offender in what authorities are calling a “targeted attack.”
The immediate reaction, judging from the comments, is a mixed bag. There’s a palpable undercurrent of support, with some expressing a sense of satisfaction, even admiration, for the alleged perpetrator. This isn’t surprising, given the revulsion many people feel towards those who prey on children. However, there’s an equally strong counter-narrative that unequivocally condemns the act as murder, regardless of the victim’s past transgressions. The sentiment is clear: vigilante justice, however tempting, is not justice at all. It’s a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law and opens the door to a chaotic, unpredictable system where anyone can be targeted based on someone else’s judgment.
Digging deeper into the details, we see that the accused, identified as Suresh, has a history of prior criminal activity. He’s been arrested for offenses including burglary, making false bomb threats, and criminal threats. Court documents also revealed that he had previously targeted another alleged pedophile. These details paint a picture of a man who may have a history of violent and erratic behavior. The fact that he allegedly used the Megan’s Law database to identify his victim—who had served time for a crime committed decades ago—raises further red flags. It suggests a premeditated, calculated act, not a spontaneous response.
The discussion also touches on the victim. The man Suresh allegedly killed was a convicted sex offender who had served his time in prison. Many people find this aspect particularly thorny. While the crime he committed was abhorrent, he had fulfilled his sentence and, in the eyes of the law, had paid his debt to society. This highlights the central dilemma: does the nature of the victim’s past transgressions justify the act of violence against him? The answer, legally and morally, is a resounding no.
The conversation highlights that the concept of vengeance versus justice is at the forefront. The comments reveal that some may find satisfaction in the killing, but that is not justice. Justice is typically delivered by courts and involves due process, and in this situation, the sex offender’s sentence had already been served. The idea of someone seeking revenge, even in the name of a good cause, is not socially acceptable. This could open the doors for other people to decide who to target and kill.
The racial aspect, or the mention of “Indian-origin”, is also a point of contention. While some see it as irrelevant to the core issue, others suspect a deeper, perhaps unconscious, motive for the framing of the story. This raises questions about how the media and public perception treat individuals based on their ethnicity or background, particularly in the context of crime and violence. The comments seem to imply the media may want to sensationalize the event and give more attention to the origin, which may not be entirely relevant to the case.
The situation evokes an eerie comparison to the plot of the TV show “Dexter” which may reflect society’s complicated relationship with vigilantism. In the show, the protagonist is a serial killer who targets other criminals. This is, however, where the similarities end. The accused, unlike Dexter, killed a man who had already served his time.
The whole situation, from an ethical perspective, is not black and white. Some might perceive it as “heroic” or “patriotic”, while others will see it as a horrifying instance of violence. Regardless of personal feelings, the act of premeditated murder is still a crime. And that is something that needs to be considered.