Cal High senior ID'd as teen killed in Fremont shooting


A teenager who was fatally shot while he and another person were driving in Fremont last week has been identified by the Alameda County Coroner's Bureau as 17-year-old Damani Chadly, who was a senior at California High School in San Ramon.

Officers who responded to a shooting in the 34000 block of Torrington Court at 11:18 p.m. on Dec. 4 found Chadly with multiple gunshot wounds in the passenger seat of the vehicle, which had crashed into a home at the corner of Chaucer Drive and Torrington Court, police said.

Chadly was pronounced dead at the scene at 11:35 p.m.

Police said witnesses reported a second male running away from the scene and officers located him nearby at about 11:50 p.m. suffering from gunshot wounds.

The second victim was transported to a hospital to be treated for his injuries but has since been released, according to Fremont police spokeswoman Geneva Bosques.

The investigation into the shooting is continuing and no one has been arrested, Bosques said.

"This has been a tragic loss for California High School and greater San Ramon Valley Unified community. Our hearts and thoughts are with the student's family and friends," school district spokeswoman Elizabeth Graswich said Thursday.

Coroner's officials didn't list a city of residence for Chadly, but he was identified as a senior at Cal High.

-- Story by Bay City News Service, with DanvilleSanRamon editor Jeremy Walsh contributing.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


4 people like this
Posted by Hillary
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 20, 2018 at 6:13 pm

So sad....So sick of these violent drug dealers preying on our youth...keep the drugs and illegals out!!! The kid made a mistake, but shouldn't cost his life. Teens also think weed is harmless due to legalization...great job California...

Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 20, 2018 at 7:21 pm


Where did you see drug dealers mentioned?

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 20, 2018 at 7:35 pm

Google incident

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 20, 2018 at 7:41 pm

Id take an illegal immigrant family in place of this legal citizen drug dealer any day of the week.

We should deport criminals - citizens or not.

Cant imagine the family's devastation.

2 people like this
Posted by Laws
a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 21, 2018 at 9:24 am

It’s illegal to carry a loaded firearm. Did he have a permit to carry? It’s legal to purchase and use weed so why did they drive all the way from San Ramon to Northgate in Fremont to buy dope. I suspect there is more to this story.

Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 am

BobB is a registered user.


"We should deport criminals - citizens or not"

Of course that violates the US constitution.

Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 21, 2018 at 10:26 am

BobB - I'll sidestep the discussion about the 1st and 2nd amendment relative to active actions in violation of existing constitutional amendments and offer two more meaningful discussion points -
1. Amendments have and can change (18th)
2. If not willing to change wrong or right - nothing says we can't deport a citizen......we just may have to let them back in if they find a way to get back ;)

Joking aside, if punishment for certain crimes were to send someone to Honduras for goodwill work as punishment for their actions in the US - don't you think the deterrent would be high to not committing that crime? Probably cheaper than us holding them in jails. Potential upside if they actually do some good in a developing country. And if they "escape" from Honduras and make the journey into the U.S., hey, also lesson learned. Welcome back, we're glad to have you again.

Point is - there are people more deserving, than those in this country, dying to get here, contribute, and build a future. And while that may hold true for those here that aren't criminals - they get to stay. But for criminals, that don't appreciate what they have, send them away and let the more deserving person stay.

Rights are guaranteed, I understand that, but they're still "earned", and today "earning" these rights means you fell out of your mom on land that just happens to be inside the US longitudinal and latitudinal lines - so if we already define criteria, is this really the right criteria to define? Not saying we shouldn't honor it today and perhaps in the future, but if the basis for "earning" rights exists, there must also be a corollary means to "lose".

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,257 views

Jammed BART trains demand innovative thinking moving forward
By | 9 comments | 969 views

After falling at airport, Chris Miller finds stepping back from civic duties a tough start
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 74 views