Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Anti-gun activist shot
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
Drizzt
Member
‘Anti-gun activist shot'? It's ironic, but untrue
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Saturday, August 27, 2005 Updated at 2:02 AM EDT
‘Gun foe shot dead” read a front-page headline in yesterday's Toronto Sun. “Anti-gun activist shot,” said the National Post's about the same event.
The evidence of the dead man's alleged opposition to guns came in the accompanying stories, which quoted an anonymous friend of the victim of the area who spoke warmly of how the man had organized a summer barbecue in recent years where he gave away hotdogs and T-shirts that read “Stop the Violence.”
It was surely “ironic,” this friend said, that such a fellow would himself have been taken down by the gun.
Well, not quite, but more about that in a minute.
There was a big fat inference there to be drawn, and by dawn, local radio stations had drawn it indeed, and the airwaves swelled with outrage at the slaying of the alleged activist, with everyone, from Mayor David Miller on down, duly noting with sadness that the deceased was also father of 10.
It appeared for all the world that Canada's biggest city had lost another stellar citizen — and most cruelly, lost to the gun violence that has plagued Toronto this summer one who had dedicated himself to solving the problem.
Alas and alack, there is rather less to this touching portrait than it may seem.
Delroy George Daring was the dead man, and it need not be said that his murder was vicious, brazen and cowardly. It was also dangerous, coming as it did early on a summer's night at the busy courtyard that sits in the middle of a public housing project in the Eglinton Avenue East/Markham Road area, with people out on the grounds or on their balconies.
But Mr. Daring, who died of multiple gunshot wounds (eight bullet holes were noted at the hospital where he was taken, although with an autopsy slated only for today, it is too soon to know whether some of the holes were exit wounds), was hardly a community leader — or, if he was, then that he was speaks directly to a poverty of leadership.
First of all, he had a significant criminal record that spanned a decade, beginning in 1986 when he was but 22 and one of those arrested in a major-for-its-time narcotics bust (four people were charged after an eight-month investigation into the sale of marijuana, hashish and cocaine in Scarborough) that even made one of the local papers.
By the time of his last conviction, in 1996, Mr. Daring had acquired a total of seven criminal convictions, six for drugs (both for possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking) and one for assault with a weapon.
Now to be fair, in the intervening years, it is of course possible Mr. Daring turned his life around, and developed a distaste for the criminal life.
However, there is little beyond the barbecue and the T-shirts to suggest this, and the fact that at the time of his death, he was carrying 13 “dime” bags of marijuana — an amount that could be interpreted as being either for his personal use or for selling — hints that this rehabilitation, if it was under way, was hardly complete.
Neither, I think, could Mr. Daring be put forward as a candidate for father-of-the-year.
His 10 children are apparently shared among four different so-called “baby mothers,” one of whom lives near the complex where he was shot and killed. Unless he led a quadruple life, it is probably safe to say that there are not enough hours in the day to have allowed him, or anyone else for that matter, to be an involved and faithful parent to children spread out among so many disparate households.
My purpose in noting these aspects of the victim's life is not to diminish his death, or to suggest that he deserved such a fate, or to minimize the pain and grief felt by those who surely loved him, and will miss him.
It is rather to say that leaping to label this 41-year-old man a leader or activist does a disservice to those who, within the impoverished city neighbourhoods being torn apart by gun violence, actually are working in ways large and small to better their communities and get guns off the street.
Secondarily, to know the whole of who Mr. Daring was ought to go some distance to quelling neighbourhood fears.
This was what the police call a “targeted” shooting, not a senseless act of random violence, and at least at first blush, it may have been drugs-related. Many, if not most, of the shootings in the city could be similarly classified: The victims are usually “known to police,” as the euphemism casts it, and they are also usually known to the gunmen, who are also “known to police.” And sometimes, today's victim is yesterday's gunman.
This is no hard-and-fast rule. There are heartbreaking exceptions, such as poor Howard Gairy, a bouncer who was just doing his job when — the very night before he was due to return to Michigan Tech University on a football scholarship — he was coldly gunned down at a nightclub five years ago. There are even children who have taken stray bullets, the latest little Shaquan Cadougan, who was struck four times when gunfire erupted outside his mom's townhouse.
Mr. Daring's slaying was witnessed, police say, by an estimated 20 people who were “on the ground” and an unknown number who may have seen it unfold from their balconies. As of yesterday, one person had come forward to detectives.
That just isn't good enough. There are safe and anonymous ways for citizens to co-operate with police without involving themselves in the criminal justice process if they are fearful, just as there are safe ways for citizens to report to the authorities those they see with guns.
Persuading those who live smack in the places where guns are rife — and who have the most reason to be afraid — is just one part of any potential fix to what is an enormous and complex problem.
But a good start, it seems to me, is in speaking about the issue — victims, gunmen and witnesses — in plain and straightforward language. Surely it isn't necessary to believe Mr. Daring was heroic in order to be angered and stricken by his death.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050827.blatchford27/BNStory/National/
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Saturday, August 27, 2005 Updated at 2:02 AM EDT
‘Gun foe shot dead” read a front-page headline in yesterday's Toronto Sun. “Anti-gun activist shot,” said the National Post's about the same event.
The evidence of the dead man's alleged opposition to guns came in the accompanying stories, which quoted an anonymous friend of the victim of the area who spoke warmly of how the man had organized a summer barbecue in recent years where he gave away hotdogs and T-shirts that read “Stop the Violence.”
It was surely “ironic,” this friend said, that such a fellow would himself have been taken down by the gun.
Well, not quite, but more about that in a minute.
There was a big fat inference there to be drawn, and by dawn, local radio stations had drawn it indeed, and the airwaves swelled with outrage at the slaying of the alleged activist, with everyone, from Mayor David Miller on down, duly noting with sadness that the deceased was also father of 10.
It appeared for all the world that Canada's biggest city had lost another stellar citizen — and most cruelly, lost to the gun violence that has plagued Toronto this summer one who had dedicated himself to solving the problem.
Alas and alack, there is rather less to this touching portrait than it may seem.
Delroy George Daring was the dead man, and it need not be said that his murder was vicious, brazen and cowardly. It was also dangerous, coming as it did early on a summer's night at the busy courtyard that sits in the middle of a public housing project in the Eglinton Avenue East/Markham Road area, with people out on the grounds or on their balconies.
But Mr. Daring, who died of multiple gunshot wounds (eight bullet holes were noted at the hospital where he was taken, although with an autopsy slated only for today, it is too soon to know whether some of the holes were exit wounds), was hardly a community leader — or, if he was, then that he was speaks directly to a poverty of leadership.
First of all, he had a significant criminal record that spanned a decade, beginning in 1986 when he was but 22 and one of those arrested in a major-for-its-time narcotics bust (four people were charged after an eight-month investigation into the sale of marijuana, hashish and cocaine in Scarborough) that even made one of the local papers.
By the time of his last conviction, in 1996, Mr. Daring had acquired a total of seven criminal convictions, six for drugs (both for possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking) and one for assault with a weapon.
Now to be fair, in the intervening years, it is of course possible Mr. Daring turned his life around, and developed a distaste for the criminal life.
However, there is little beyond the barbecue and the T-shirts to suggest this, and the fact that at the time of his death, he was carrying 13 “dime” bags of marijuana — an amount that could be interpreted as being either for his personal use or for selling — hints that this rehabilitation, if it was under way, was hardly complete.
Neither, I think, could Mr. Daring be put forward as a candidate for father-of-the-year.
His 10 children are apparently shared among four different so-called “baby mothers,” one of whom lives near the complex where he was shot and killed. Unless he led a quadruple life, it is probably safe to say that there are not enough hours in the day to have allowed him, or anyone else for that matter, to be an involved and faithful parent to children spread out among so many disparate households.
My purpose in noting these aspects of the victim's life is not to diminish his death, or to suggest that he deserved such a fate, or to minimize the pain and grief felt by those who surely loved him, and will miss him.
It is rather to say that leaping to label this 41-year-old man a leader or activist does a disservice to those who, within the impoverished city neighbourhoods being torn apart by gun violence, actually are working in ways large and small to better their communities and get guns off the street.
Secondarily, to know the whole of who Mr. Daring was ought to go some distance to quelling neighbourhood fears.
This was what the police call a “targeted” shooting, not a senseless act of random violence, and at least at first blush, it may have been drugs-related. Many, if not most, of the shootings in the city could be similarly classified: The victims are usually “known to police,” as the euphemism casts it, and they are also usually known to the gunmen, who are also “known to police.” And sometimes, today's victim is yesterday's gunman.
This is no hard-and-fast rule. There are heartbreaking exceptions, such as poor Howard Gairy, a bouncer who was just doing his job when — the very night before he was due to return to Michigan Tech University on a football scholarship — he was coldly gunned down at a nightclub five years ago. There are even children who have taken stray bullets, the latest little Shaquan Cadougan, who was struck four times when gunfire erupted outside his mom's townhouse.
Mr. Daring's slaying was witnessed, police say, by an estimated 20 people who were “on the ground” and an unknown number who may have seen it unfold from their balconies. As of yesterday, one person had come forward to detectives.
That just isn't good enough. There are safe and anonymous ways for citizens to co-operate with police without involving themselves in the criminal justice process if they are fearful, just as there are safe ways for citizens to report to the authorities those they see with guns.
Persuading those who live smack in the places where guns are rife — and who have the most reason to be afraid — is just one part of any potential fix to what is an enormous and complex problem.
But a good start, it seems to me, is in speaking about the issue — victims, gunmen and witnesses — in plain and straightforward language. Surely it isn't necessary to believe Mr. Daring was heroic in order to be angered and stricken by his death.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050827.blatchford27/BNStory/National/
TonyB
Member
I really don't get the whole"anti-violence""practice non-violence"thing...every time I don't smack some moron who clearly needs to be smacked am I "practicing non-violence'?
- Status
