Suspect Pointed Gun at Cops Before Being Fatally Shot by San Jose Police on Memorial Day

San Jose police today said a suspect pointed a handgun at officers late on Memorial Day before he was shot by police outside of a home in the Berryessa neighborhood in north San Jose.

The man, who has not been identified, died early Tuesday, police said.

Police have provided few details of the incident. They said no officers were injured, and suggested the fatally wounded suspect had not fired his weapon.

San Jose Police Media Relations posted an update on Twitter today at 9:44am.

"We can confirm that at the time of the incident the suspect was pointing a handgun at the involved Officer."

This was preceded, at 3:17am by this post:

“We can now confirm that the person who confronted our officers did not survive his injury. More to follow.”

Police said the shooting occurred at 9:43pm in the 1100 block of Tofts Drive as officers were conducting a follow-up investigation, police said. No further details were provided.

At a press conference this morning, Sgt. Christian Camarillo told reporters: “Once you guys see the investigation and see what I know, it will be really cut and dry.”

“It did not occur in the home. It occurred near the residence on the street,” he said.

Also on Memorial Day, San Jose recorded its 17th homicide of the year.

At approximately 1:07am, officers responded to the area of West Virginia Street and Prevost Street on a report of a person shot.

“When they arrived, they located one adult male victim suffering from at least one gunshot wound.," according to police.  The victim was transported to a local hospital "with a life-threatening injury,” This morning, he succumbed to his injury and was declared deceased.

There are currently no suspects identified or apprehended, police said.

The identity of the deceased victim will be released by the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office after confirming the victim’s identity and notifying next of kin.


  1. The headline would be a little more respectful if it read:

    “UPDATE: Suspect Pointed Gun at Officers Before Being Fatally Shot by San Jose Police on Memorial Day”

  2. I think they should release body cam footage before the public is expected to believe their version of events.

  3. I agree. And, I am betting that after you see it, irrespective of what it shows, you will still be critical of the police.

    If it shows what the police have said happen actually happened, will you say, “well done” to the police. Will you say, “Thank you for confronting this murderous criminal and saving our community?”

  4. Mr. Case,

    I am not an officer, but I do have this question for you. Do you produce video of everything you do before you expect others to believe you? If so, then I am impressed at your consistency in application of principle. However, I suspect you do not. Why is it then that your affairs are entitled to some presumption of truthfulness without video evidence but for peace officers, in your view, the inverse?

  5. “I think they should release body cam footage before the public is expected to believe their version of events.” — Kevin Case

    As the easiest of government occupations to criticize the police have for decades been the primary target of culture-destroyers committed to fomenting distrust of, and animosity for, American society. And, as might be expected of the desperately ambitious and deeply unprincipled, the majority of government leaders, elected and appointed, have found it advantageous to treat this targeted campaign as if it were the work of well-intentioned citizens in pursuit of something better from the most visible of their public servants.

    For the last fifty years police critics have had their way, yet if judged by the success of their alleged aims (eliminate disproportion in lawbreaking, eliminate minority distrust of police, increase minority cooperation through community policing), they have failed miserably. Blacks still treat street crime as if they hold the patent, have an exaggerated distrust of the police, and treat “snitching” as if it were prohibited by a Commandment. That said, if the critics’ efforts are viewed as aimed at bringing down the nation, their achievements (the promotion of racial divisiveness and class warfare, the ideological corruption of the administrative state, the disabling of local law enforcement and commandeering of federal authority) are nothing short of stellar.

    Read Mr. Case’s comment carefully and what is revealed is much more than his distrust of the officer’s decision-making, for if it were merely that he would count on the police administration to uncover any wrongdoing (police command costs the taxpayers millions), the (publicly-elected) district attorney’s office to expose it, and the judicial system (state, federal, and civil) to remedy it. In other words, Mr. Case has no trust for the police commanders tested, vetted, and selected to serve; no faith in the district attorney chosen by the electorate; no confidence in the judiciary (appointed or elected). So here we are, fifty years into treating all criticism of police as if it were legitimate and well-intentioned — fifty years of letting officers, individually and collectively, take it on the chin — and what we find is that government leaders in all three branches have been proved wrong, duped out of their professional credibility and public stature by the lunatic subversives they have for so long treated as reform-minded allies.

    As Mr. Case makes clear he trusts only his own eyes, his perspective, his judgment. From this we can conclude he has been truly reformed, stripped of his cultural identity and all trust of his fellow man. Quite progressive!

  6. I’m not sure what’s so hard about asking for evidence instead of believing what someone is saying, which is a fair thing. And for y’all believing that we should just believe someone, a person died. A person was killed, not your friend eating your lunch at work or something silly.

    Why would you believe someone who is willing to kill someone else?

  7. “willing to kill someone else” ???
    Would you care to expand on that, what do you mean by “willing?
    It seems like an odd thing to say in my opinion.

  8. “I’m not sure what’s so hard about asking for evidence instead of believing what someone is saying” — Cat
    What constitutes “evidence” is the whole of the available facts and information connected with an incident. The assumption that “one piece” of evidence (e.g. body cam footage), especially if not already examined by those demanding to examine it, will, without context, provide the illumination necessary to make a fair and intelligent judgment is juvenile.
    When a police agency withholds information, be it for a few hours, days, or longer, the level of belief asked of the public is not for unqualified acceptance; what is asked for is trust in the process of the investigation and the integrity of those investigating (as well as those overseeing and judging the investigation from various agencies). Absent this low-level of trust it would be necessary to jail every officer involved in using any level of force in the line of duty, which would empty the ranks of every agency and end your right to any form of lawful, organized protection.

  9. CAT : When you say, “Why should we believe someone who is willing to kill someone,” were you referring to the person who came after the police with a loaded an illegal gun? Did you see the video? This guy came out of his house armed. He chased a person while armed. He then stalked the officer, approach from the rear in a stealth manner then pulled his pistol (which he was legally excluded from owning or possessing) and pulled open the officer’s car door while pointing his pistol at the officer. All of those acts would easily pass for an “assault with a deadly weapon” charge — all felonies. Neither officer approached him or in any way did anything to him. Just as when he pull a loaded pistol on a teenager in a road rage incident, it would appear that he was in a murderous rage.

    What he should have done is call the police if he thought that he was being stalked or harassed by someone. Merely stay in his home. He was under no threat inside his home. He created the deadly confrontation.. He went after them when they presented no threat. He is responsible for his own death. He never retreated (like the one officer did). He was the aggressor.

    Just image if a white person had done exactly the same thing to a black neighbor while merely sitting his car. You and the murderous mobs would be howling racist, white supremacist, murderer, etc. The cacophony of accusations will go on for years, schools would be named after the victim. The charges of racism would never stop. And yet, because this thug was black, all of the scrutiny is on the officers.

    All that said (as harsh as it is to read and to write this) there will be more come out in this case. Both officers will be able to testify as to what he said to them which may or may not further bolster the officer’s need to fire his weapon. His record of gun threats will come out, his previous record will come out.

    And worst of all, the climate that has been created by the false narrative about the police “hunting down black men” is causing more problems like this.

    It is very sad that this young man died. It is sad that whatever rage was in him that caused him to push the original incident with the teenager into a felonious assault with a weapon rather than just driving away, and whatever caused him to go after these two officers while illegally caring a gun we will never know.

    It is truly a tragedy for his family. One can only wonder what grief they are suffering. Everyone should support them and peacefully mourn their loss and grief.

    It is also a tragedy for the police officers and their families. Contrary to the false narrative, no police officer every wants to shoot anyone. No police officer ever wants to shoot a suspect because they know that their careers will be over and they will be engaged in litigation and public harassment for decades and possibly as long as I live — particularly if the person who they shoot is black.

    Many more whites are killed by police officers than blacks. When was the last time you saw white people riot because a white person was killed by a police officer — even when the officer was wrong?

    By all means, mourn, but let’s wait for all the facts to come out, which will take about a year given how the DA handles this type of case. If the officers did something wrong, we can address it then. But keep in mind who was the aggressor! Who was carrying an illegal weapon? Who was carrying a gun when he was excluded from carrying or possessing, and he knew it! Marches, stopping traffic, and vandalism or worse, arson, doesn’t solve anything. Nor does spewing anti-police rhetoric.

    I am willing to wait until we see all the evidence; however, based on what we have seen so far, the facts, history, and video weigh heavily against the suspect.

  10. My opinion – This is the best possible outcome for our society. And even though his family may be grieving, the general public is simply relieved. Relieved to know he’s not out there, and that they or their own loved ones won’t become his victims in the future. It seems fairly obvious he was a chronic troublemaker and an extremely dangerous sort of criminal, with aggressive and violent behaviors that would have only continued and probably accelerated.

    This outcome is preferable to incarceration or endless (and likely futile) attempts to rehabilitate such a person. Both of those paths are abusively expensive and result in the citizens being further victimized in the form of the onerous taxation that is needed to create and maintain these mostly useless institutions, agencies, processes, etc. The main societal value in the penal system is simply the isolation/separation of aggressors/troublemakers from the rest of society. That is eclipsed by the massive costs, because the same benefit could be achieved without any of that cost.

    There just isn’t any ROI and while that may seem callous, it stems from the mandate for prioritizing the general welfare – no species can thrive or survive long if it is perpetually sapped by enough of its weakest/worst members. Just like an organism is weakened (or even killed) by a parasite infection, societies are weakened and even destroyed by those who subvert it and drain enough vital resources from it – a form of collective suicide.

    We are in peril of this right now in so many ways. From suborning the invasion of the nation, to madly going into unrepayable debt, to negating the fundamental values of our Republic by allowing fraud and cheating and subversion to go unchecked and unpunished, and by coddling criminals because we have forgotten or never learned the basic reason that the government exists in the first place – which is to safeguard the natural rights of man, for all citizens.

    This one Bad Guy isn’t even a zit on a gnat in terms of the total harms that our society is plagued by – but they all add up. Death by a thousand cuts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *