CA: Fremont murder suspect allegedly admits to targeting sex offenders

This is the true purpose of the registry, I’m afraid.

There is a longer and more detailed article on Yahoo if Janice will approve this post:

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/suspect-fatally-stabbed-man-death-200334018.html

This targeted murder of people on the registry is another piece of evidence for ACSOL whenever ACSOL goes to the SCOTUS. It is very important that ACSOL collects all these news articles and cases were the registry was used for targeting.

Also, the family members of any slain or injured registrant where the court has recorded the perp used the registry to target should sue the state for being an accomplice in the injury or murder. Without the registry, then targeting wouldn’t happen.

A two-pronged approach to dismantle the registry: 1) proof the registry is going beyond its civil means and 2) fiscally make it untenable because all of these targeting attempts are costing the states heavy fines.

The constitutional promises of privacy, liberty, and equal protection are shattered by the architecture of public registries. Under SORNA, registrants are subjected not only to external surveillance but to self-surveillance—a coerced condition where individuals must monitor, report, and correct their own existence to avoid punishment. These internet posts function as digital branding, stripping autonomy while inviting vigilante violence. Defenders argue that if the registry deters even one death, it is worth it. But this logic ignores the hundreds of lives destabilized, exposed, and destroyed—through suicide, eviction, job loss, and targeted murder. The inability to challenge one’s inclusion, escape the system, or defend against public targeting amounts to civil servitude. It is not rehabilitation—it is constitutional abandonment. The coalition demands repeal, release, and reparations for those enslaved by registry surveillance.The murder of David Brimmer in Fremont, California—targeted through the state’s Megan’s Law registry—exposes a constitutional fault line. Under SORNA (42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq.), registrants are subjected to indefinite public exposure, coerced self-surveillance, and formatting that enables targeting. The registry’s architecture violates multiple constitutional protections: Fourth Amendment: The publication of home addresses and physical descriptions constitutes an unreasonable search and exposure, especially when used to facilitate violence (Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306). → Harm: Spatial targeting, stalking, home invasion, fatal attack. Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments: Registrants are denied due process—no hearing, no defense, no exit from the system (Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1). → Harm: Civil branding, coerced compliance, psychological trauma. Eighth Amendment: The perpetual exposure and risk of vigilante violence constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696). → Harm: Suicide, eviction, job loss, physical assault, murder. Thirteenth Amendment: The requirement to monitor and report one’s own existence under threat of incarceration amounts to civil servitude. → Harm: Loss of autonomy, coerced labor, surveillance trauma. Ex Post Facto Clause: Retroactive application of registry laws imposes new burdens on past convictions (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84). → Harm: Lifetime branding, inability to rehabilitate or reintegrate. Equal Protection Clause: Registrants are denied access to housing, employment, and safety based solely on status. → Harm: Economic exclusion, insurance denial, religious restrictions. In Brimmer’s case, the attacker used California’s Megan’s Law website to locate and kill him, citing a belief that registrants “deserve to die”. He had saved screenshots, impersonated a CPA, and chased Brimmer into a neighbor’s home before fatally stabbing him1. This was not random—it was registry-enabled murder. The system did not prevent harm; it facilitated it.

Disclaimer: This entry documents publicly reported harm and constitutional critique. It does not condone violence, nor does it presume guilt or innocence beyond the scope of legal proceedings. Survivor-centered framing is prioritized. All formatting choices are intentional and reflect coalition documentation standards. Jurisdictional laws vary; this entry is not legal advice. Use with care in public forums, memorial archives, or advocacy materials.