Indian-Origin Man Charged with Murder in California, Claims Victim “Deserved to Die”

In Fremont, California, 29-year-old Varun Suresh has been arrested and charged with the murder of 71-year-old David Brimmer, a registered sex offender. The incident occurred on September 18, 2025, when Suresh allegedly tracked Brimmer using California’s Megan’s Law database and fatally stabbed him outside his residence. Suresh reportedly expressed no remorse, stating that he believed sex offenders “deserve to die.”

Details of the Incident:
According to Fremont police, Suresh approached Brimmer’s home under the pretense of being a public accountant. Once inside, Suresh allegedly chased Brimmer into a neighboring house, where he continued the assault. The victim suffered multiple stab wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene. Suresh was apprehended immediately, and a knife believed to be the weapon used in the attack was recovered.

Investigation and Motive:
Investigators revealed that Suresh had no prior personal connection to Brimmer. Instead, he utilized the publicly accessible Megan’s Law database to identify and locate registered sex offenders. During questioning, Suresh admitted to targeting Brimmer due to his status as a sex offender, stating that he had long harbored the desire to kill such individuals. He further justified his actions by claiming that sex offenders “hurt children” and “deserve to die.”

Legal Implications:
Suresh has been charged with murder, armed individual causing great bodily injury, and residential burglary under California’s Penal Code. The case has raised questions about vigilantism and the ethical use of public databases in identifying potential targets. Legal experts emphasize the importance of due process and the rule of law in addressing criminal behavior.

Conclusion:
The fatal stabbing of David Brimmer by Varun Suresh underscores the complexities surrounding vigilantism and the use of public information for personal justice. While Suresh’s actions were driven by his perception of moral duty, they highlight the critical need for legal frameworks that balance public safety with individual rights. As the case progresses, it will likely prompt broader discussions on justice, morality, and the limits of personal intervention in legal matters.