Two San Jose police officers shot and killed a man in San Jose on Saturday afternoon after a wild 20-minute chase on Highway 85 and through residential streets. The suspect was a 25 year old man facing a third strike conviction. The pursuit ended with officers shooting and killing the man a few blocks from his San Jose home. The two officers felt the suspect presented an imminent danger and believed the suspect was armed. The victim was convicted of two residential burglaries that counted as two strikes against him, leaving him one away from a lengthly prison term.
On the November 6,2012 ballot a “Three Strikes Law” called Proposition 36 was passed. Prop 36 revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is “serious or violent”. Prop 36 also authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent. The judge has the power to determine that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. An impact of Proposition 36 was that approximately 3,000 convicted felons who were serving life terms, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, became eligible to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence.
In this case the man hit the patrolman’s car head on which prompted officers to respond. Police say that officers described the driver pointing guns at them as they were chasing his car. Once the officers cornered the nearly disabled car two veteran officers believed the man was reaching for a gun when the officers opened fire. A cellphone video nearby shows the end of the chase and recorded the sound of multiple shots. The chase ended with the officers ultimately killing the man.
Although the officer’s believe the man had a gun, as of Wednesday investigators had not recovered the gun apparently used during the chase. A San Jose criminal-defense attorney who has represented the man in multiple prior cases was shocked that his former client had a gun. He did not believe his client was someone that would confront police with a firearm. The defense attorney described his previous client as nonviolent. He had never been charged with any weapons offenses so it is hard for him to believe that he was in possession of a firearm.