Skip to content

You Tell Us: A gang injunction could have saved my daughter’s life

on November 9, 2010

The city of Oakland is a beautiful place. It’s visually attractive from the hills to Lake Merritt to the Port and Jack London Square. We have the Raiders, the A’s, and the Warriors. We are lucky enough to have Children’s Hospital to heal our wonderful children. The fabulous architecture, gardens and multi-colored sunsets are gorgeous. And the weather is perfect, with or without fog. There are many residents, like myself, that believe Oakland could still be one of the best cities in the Bay Area to live in, because of all we have. I just wish I could enjoy it.

But we live under the threat of gang violence every moment of every day. From the north, east, west and south no one is safe from mindless, murderous groups with guns. My shy and innocent teen daughter was slaughtered by stray bullets meant for someone else, fired from a carload of boys out for revenge of some rival, or who knows what, on a beautiful sunny afternoon in North Oakland. We did not live in the area; my girl drove two girlfriends there to visit another friend. They took a stroll to get some ice cream and as they returned, a car pulled up, bullets were fired by unskilled shooters at some males in the area, but their bullets killed my daughter instead, immediately. She was such a lovable person. She did not belong to a gang. She preferred using her free time working a job for the extras that she wanted, or to have friends over, or to be in her room listening to music. She had no drugs or alcohol in her body at autopsy. She did not run the streets. My girl did not deserve to be murdered and she did not know her murderers.

Her family does not deserve to live in grief for the rest of our lives, but we will now because these murderers take lives without thought or care and they use guns.

If the anti-gang injunctions were in place before she was slaughtered, she may still be alive. If they were in place today throughout the city, like in North Oakland now, maybe these wonderful kids that were shot recently due to gun/gang violence would be alive, not murdered (or fighting for their lives in the hospital). They are not coming back. No matter how hard we pray or wish, these kids, our kids, will never come back to us. They will have no graduations, love, marriages, homes, children, grandkids, hugs or kisses.

And they are gone for no reason at all. It is time to save our kids, loved ones, friends and ourselves from this horrible fate. The injunctions include restrictions on only those verified, gang affiliated offenders with criminal pasts. The pain we feel after losing our kids to murder is endless and ever-present and should not happen to one other person. We need to stand behind our city officials, City Attorney John Russo and Police Chief Anthony Batts, as they are trying to keep us alive, including the children and families of these murdering gang members. We cannot determine how many lives are saved by these injunctions, but we can count how many lives are lost, as we do, one by one, sometimes day by day, until the end of the year when we tally over 100. Whose child will be next? Yours? And aren’t we all tired of hearing gun shots all the time, everywhere?

The attorneys representing the anti-gang injunction opponents speak without first hand knowledge of the life-crushing blow these gang-related murders make on the remaining family members. If they truly knew that 24 hours a day, without stop, we feel ripped apart, shattered, unable to breathe, unable to function, terrorized, often vengeful, lost and hopeless, they may re-think their positions. But most likely, these attorneys will not understand what they are doing until one of their own children is randomly murdered by those they represent. To represent someone in court for their criminal acts is the job of the criminal attorney, however, defending the right of these offenders to continue their criminal acts, while using guns, is far from ethical, moral or human. These attorneys should be defending the right of life for the hundreds of victims slaughtered by their gun-using clients.

And they talk of a conspiracy? The conspiracy is the hot air, smoke and mirrors they present to the public defending  their client’s heinous crimes.

The city of Oakland can be a beautiful place to live in again; however, with these anti-gang injunction opponent attorneys advocating the need for gang mentality and criminal actions against the innocent by their representation, we won’t stand a chance of having a peaceful existence in this beautiful city. How can they do that to us? Where do these attorneys live?

D. Davis is an Oakland resident.


You Tell Us is Oakland North’s community Op-Ed page, featuring opinion pieces submitted by readers on Oakland-related topics. Have something to say? Send essays of 500-1,000 words to We’d love to hear from you!

All essays reflect the opinions of their authors, and not of the Oakland North staff or the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Oakland North reserves the right to edit submissions for length, clarity and spelling/grammar. You Tell Us submissions must be written in civil and non-offensive language. We do not publish hate speech, libelous material, unsubstantiated allegations or rumors, or personal attacks on individuals or groups.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.


  1. len raphael on November 9, 2010 at 9:12 am

    You are absolutely correct.

    -len raphael, temescal

  2. Oakland Resident on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 am

    It’s obvious that D. Davis and the victim’s family have paid the highest price for gang violence, and that they are in a state of profound grief. But an injunction is not going to stop gang violence.

    • H on November 9, 2010 at 11:30 am

      If the boys from Ghost Town and Acorn know who to look for in North Oak (reverse is true), why do you think that the cops would be so obtuse as to not know who the players in the D game are? Oakland resident, the drug game is like a business, but instead of lawyers enforcing copyright protection and advertising to increase market share you have street muscle to keep things regulated. Most of the young men who are on the corners aren’t gunslingers, but there are a few who are. They are the ones causing the mayhem or protecting the profits depending on what side your on. An injunction won’t stop gang violence, but it might make a heavy hitter (gang enforcer) think twice before heading out of the house strapped (carrying a gun), because he faces a greater likelihood of being stopped by the police. It is like referring attorney to the State Bar, they know that they are on the radar.

  3. len raphael on November 10, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Supporters of the GI never claimed it was a cure for street violence, just one more tool to save some lives until long term solutions are applied, if ever.

    Supporters of GI aren’t naive or blind to the civil liberty risks and potential costs. it has tobe strenuously monitored and modified or even abandoned if abused.

    But all of this is probably moot because with the priorities of the city council and our new mayor there will be so many police layoffs that there won’t be enough cops to enforce a gang injuncture. So we’ll never know if the GI was a good or a bad idea.

    -len raphael, temescal

  4. Gabriel Gilberto on December 7, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    I’m not opposed to gang injunctions, as a previous comment stated they can be one of various tools for addressing the epidemic of violence in our communities. I do question, however, why it is that the only neighborhoods with gang injunctions are those that are experiencing gentrification(Bushrod, Fruitvale. The problem of drug related violence and gang murders is most severe in deep East Oakland (60s-90s) and West Oakland (20s-30s). Do the families in these communities not deserve the same police enforcement as those in areas undergoing rapid gentrification?

  5. bob on December 8, 2010 at 1:13 am

    It is a little disturbing that City Council member Jane Brunner is also a lawyer in the law firm Siegel & Yee, which is representing the gang members for free. Kind of perverse when an elected politician votes to cut the police department, and then her law firm represents gang members so they can keep pimpin’ and gang bangin’ in Fruitvale. Does this trike anyone else as odd, or I am just crazy?

Oakland North welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Oakland North assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.

Photo by Basil D Soufi
Oakland North

Oakland North is an online news service produced by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and covering Oakland, California. Our goals are to improve local coverage, innovate with digital media, and listen to you–about the issues that concern you and the reporting you’d like to see in your community. Please send news tips to:

Latest Posts

Scroll To Top