The leeds gang that tried to k!ll 17 year old rival in broad daylight | True Crime

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]It was a Sunday afternoon in Leeds, the 7th of July, 2024. The kind of day when families are out, children are playing, and the streets should feel safe. But on Foundry Approach and Coldcotes Circus in the Chapeltown area, witnesses saw something that would stay with them for years. A 17-year-old boy sprinting through residential streets, his face twisted in fear. Behind him, masked figures closing in. And then, in broad daylight, one of them raised a pistol, aimed it at the teenager's back, and fired.

[00:00:32]The sound echoed through the neighborhood. Parents grabbed their children, shopkeepers froze, and in that single moment, a life hung in the balance.

[00:00:41]But the boy didn't fall. The bullet never struck him. In fact, the bullet never even left the barrel. A mechanical failure, a jam, a stroke of luck or fate saved his life. And that malfunction set in motion an investigation that would lead to four convictions, years of prison time, and questions that still linger today. This is the story of Kamel Johnson and Zane Gatewood, two teenagers who walked 3 miles with lethal intent, fired a gun at a rival's back, and were stopped not by conscience, but by a weapon that refused to kill. Welcome to UK True Crime Files. If careful, UK-focused crime reporting matters to you, a quick subscribe helps us cover cases like this with the detail and respect they deserve. Kamel Johnson was 19 years old at the time of the incident. He came from Grange Crescent in the Chapeltown area of Leeds, a part of the city known for its complex history with gang activity and territorial violence. Zane Gatewood was 18 from Porson Street in Wakefield, a neighboring city just outside Leeds.

[00:01:45]Both young men were part of what West Yorkshire police described as a dangerous urban street gang, a network of teenagers and young adults bound by postcodes, loyalty, and violence. But Kamel and Zane weren't acting alone that day. They were joined by two others, a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, both of whom cannot be named for legal reasons due to their ages at the time of the offense. Four teenagers, the oldest just 19, with a plan that was as simple as it was deadly, according to evidence presented at Leeds Crown Court, the four had made a decision on July 7th, 2024, to arm themselves, to leave their own territory, and to hunt not for a specific person, not for revenge tied to a particular incident. They were searching for any member of a rival gang, any opposing face they could find.

[00:02:35]Age didn't matter, status didn't matter.

[00:02:38]The only qualification was affiliation.

[00:02:40]This wasn't a spur-of-the-moment fight, a scuffle that got out of hand, or a defensive act. It was premeditated, it was calculated, and according to prosecutors, it was meant to kill. But, what were they carrying?

[00:02:54]And how far did they get before they found their target?

[00:02:57]The four teenagers didn't leave home empty-handed. They armed themselves with an arsenal that left no doubt about their intentions. Machetes, long-bladed and capable of causing catastrophic injury, were tucked into waistbands and concealed under clothing. One of them carried bleach, a substance often used in gang attacks to cause permanent disfigurement and suffering.

[00:03:20]And then there was the firearm, a 9-mm pistol. But, this wasn't a standard weapon. According to West Yorkshire Police, the pistol had been converted from a blank-firing gun, the kind used for theatrical purposes or starting races. Someone had modified it, re-engineered it to fire live ammunition. Converted weapons like these are illegal in the United Kingdom, classified as firearms under the Firearms Act, and possession alone carries severe penalties. This one was loaded with four rounds of ammunition, and at least one of those rounds would be fired before the day was over.

[00:03:56]Armed and masked, the four set off on foot. They walked 3 mi from their own territory into Gippon, a part of Leeds controlled by a rival gang. 3 mi is a long walk when you're carrying weapons, when you're masked, when you know you're heading into enemy ground. It's not impulsive. It's deliberate. Every step was a choice. And then, on Foundry Approach and Coldcotes Circus, they found what they were looking for.

[00:04:22]A 17-year-old boy, someone they recognized or believed to be linked to the opposing gang. The details of how they identified him weren't made public, but it didn't matter. Age didn't matter.

[00:04:34]Status didn't matter. They'd found someone linked to a rival gang, and that was enough. The masked figures began to close in, attempting to corner him, to trap him in the open. The boy sensed the danger immediately.

[00:04:48]What happened when they closed in?

[00:04:50]That's where this case takes a turn that no one, not the victim, not the attackers, could have predicted. The 17-year-old victim didn't wait to find out what they wanted. He ran through the residential streets of Gippon, past homes, gardens, parked cars. He sprinted for his life. And the four masked teenagers gave chase. Witnesses later told police what they saw that Sunday afternoon.

[00:05:14]Families were outside. Children were playing. And suddenly, there were shouts, the sound of running feet. And then, figures in masks, weapons visible, chasing a terrified boy through their neighborhood. One of the gang members, the 17-year-old who cannot be named, pulled out the pistol.

[00:05:32]He raised it, extended his arm, and aimed it directly at the fleeing victim's back. In broad daylight, on a residential street in Leeds, with witnesses watching, he pulled the trigger. The gunshot cracked through the air.

[00:05:45]The sound was unmistakable. Parents grabbed their children and pulled them indoors. Shopkeepers ducked behind counters. The entire street was gripped by fear because everyone knew what that sound meant. But the boy kept running. He didn't stumble. He didn't fall. He wasn't hit because the bullet never left the gun.

[00:06:06]According to the evidence presented in court, the round had lodged in the barrel. The converted pistol, re-engineered from a blank-firing weapon, had malfunctioned. The mechanics of the conversion were flawed and in that critical moment, the gun jammed.

[00:06:21]The 17-year-old victim was running for his life.

[00:06:24]A gun was fired at his back.

[00:06:26]And the only reason this didn't become a murder case was a single mechanical failure.

[00:06:31]But the victim didn't know that yet. All he knew was that he was still being chased, still in danger, and he needed to get off the street fast. How did he escape? And what did the witnesses do next? The victim spotted a corner shop, a small convenience store on the street.

[00:06:47]With the masked gang still pursuing him, he made a desperate decision. He ran inside, didn't stop at the door, vaulted over the counter in front of the stunned shopkeeper, and bolted through the stockroom. He found the back door, pushed through it, and disappeared into the maze of gardens and alleyways behind the shop. It was a narrow escape, frantic and chaotic, but it worked. The attackers didn't follow him through the shop. Whether they lost sight of him or feared being trapped inside with witnesses or simply panicked, they broke off the chase. The shopkeeper, shaken but clear-headed, immediately dialed 999. So did several other witnesses who had seen the incident unfold. The calls came flooding into West Yorkshire Police. Masked teenagers, machetes visible, a gun fired, a boy running for his life. The descriptions were consistent, urgent, and terrifying. This wasn't a fight that had gotten out of hand. This was an armed hunt in a residential area in broad daylight, witnessed by members of the public including young children.

[00:07:52]Police response was swift. Officers were deployed to Chapeltown and the surrounding areas within minutes. The priority was clear: find the armed suspects before anyone else got hurt and recover the weapons before they could be used again.

[00:08:06]But the four attackers had scattered.

[00:08:08]They'd fled the scene, discarded their masks, and gone to ground. The question now was, where? Police didn't have to search for long. Later that same day, officers conducting searches in the Harehills area of Leeds, a short distance from the scene of the shooting, found something suspicious on Brown Hill Terrace. Gardens were being checked, side alleys searched, and officers were moving methodically through the residential street.

[00:08:35]And then they found them. The 16-year-old was discovered first, hiding in a bush in someone's back garden. He was crouched low, trying to stay out of sight, but officers spotted him quickly.

[00:08:46]When they detained him and searched him, they found a long machete still tucked into the waistband of his joggers.

[00:08:53]He hadn't even had time to dispose of it. Zane Gatewood was found in a neighboring garden.

[00:08:59]As officers approached, he attempted to jump over a fence into the next property, likely hoping to escape through the connecting gardens. But police were already surrounding the area. And he was detained before he could get far. When they searched him, they found another machete concealed down his trousers, the blade pressed against his leg. In another garden on the same street, officers located Kamal Johnson and the 17-year-old. Both were found together, and like the others, they were detained immediately. A second machete was recovered nearby, tucked into a dog kennel in one of the gardens.

[00:09:35]A hasty hiding place that suggested panic, a scramble to ditch evidence as police closed in. But the most critical piece of evidence was to missing.

[00:09:44]The gun.

[00:09:46]Officers expanded their search to the neighboring properties and gardens. And in a garden adjacent to where the suspects were found, they discovered a black Louis Vuitton bag.

[00:09:56]Inside, the converted 9 mm pistol, still loaded with four rounds of ammunition.

[00:10:01]The weapon had been discarded in the rush to evade capture. Tossed aside, but not destroyed, not dismantled, not hidden well enough. Four teenagers, four machetes, one loaded gun. All recovered within hours of the shooting. The speed of the arrests was remarkable, but police knew they still faced a significant challenge. Did they have enough to prove who fired the shot?

[00:10:24]And would the victim cooperate?

[00:10:27]With four suspects in custody and a cache of weapons recovered, West Yorkshire police began building their case. But they faced obstacles that are all too common in gang-related prosecutions. The victim, the 17-year-old boy who had been chased through the streets and had a gun fired at his back, refused to cooperate.

[00:10:46]He told police he would not be giving a statement. He did not want to participate in the investigation. He would not testify. This is not unusual in cases involving gang violence. Fear of retaliation, loyalty to street codes, distrust of the police, or simply the trauma of reliving the event.

[00:11:04]All of these factors contribute to what investigators call victim non-engagement.

[00:11:09]Without a victim statement, the prosecution would need to rely entirely on physical evidence, witness testimony, and forensic analysis. And that's exactly what they did.

[00:11:20]Police obtained CCTV footage from multiple cameras in the Gipton area. The footage was reviewed frame by frame, and what it captured was chilling. The cameras recorded the 17-year-old defendant, the one who cannot be named, taking the pistol out of the bag, raising it with his arm extended, aiming it directly at the victim's back as he ran, and pulling the trigger. The act was recorded, timestamped, and preserved. There was no ambiguity. The moment of attempted murder was on film.

[00:11:49]Forensic teams examined the weapons. DNA evidence was recovered from the machetes, linking specific defendants to specific blades. The pistol was tested, and ballistic experts confirmed that it was a viable firearm capable of firing live ammunition. The fact that the bullet had jammed in the barrel didn't change the legal reality. The weapon was real. It was loaded, and it was discharged with intent to kill. When detectives interviewed the four suspects, they all gave the same response. No comment. No comment. No comment. It's a legal right, the right to silence, >> [music] >> and it's often used in serious criminal cases. But silence doesn't prevent when the evidence speaks for itself. The four were charged with affray, a public order offense involving violence that causes fear to members of the public, and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. Notably, they were not charged with attempted murder, a distinction that would become significant later.

[00:12:50]All four pleaded not guilty, and the case went to trial at Leeds Crown Court.

[00:12:54]No victim statement. No confessions. But CCTV, DNA, and the weapons themselves told the story the defendants wouldn't.

[00:13:02]What did the jury decide? The trial took place at Leeds Crown Court, where the four defendants faced the evidence compiled by West Yorkshire Police. The jury heard witness testimony from members of the public who had seen the chase and heard the gunshot. They watched the CCTV footage frame by frame, showing the moment the gun was raised and fired. They heard forensic experts explain the DNA links to the machetes and the pistol, and they heard the prosecution argue that these four young men had armed themselves, traveled into rival territory, and attempted to kill.

[00:13:37]The jury reached their verdict. All four were found guilty of affray and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. It's worth noting what they were not convicted of. The charge was not attempted murder, despite the fact that a gun was fired at someone's back.

[00:13:53]The legal distinction matters. Attempted murder requires proof of specific intent to kill, which can be difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the weapon malfunctioned and no injury occurred.

[00:14:07]Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life carries a serious sentence, but it reflects a slightly different threshold of proof. The jury believed the defendants intended to endanger life, but whether they specifically intended to kill was not proven to the criminal standard. On Tuesday, the 25th of February 2025, the four were sentenced.

[00:14:29]Campalale Johnson, 19 years old from Grange Crescent in Chapeltown, was jailed for 7 years and 2 months. Zane Gatewood, 18 years old from Porters Street in Wakefield, received the same sentence, 7 years and 2 months. The 17-year-old, the one identified as the shooter in the CCTV footage, was sentenced to 7 years and 5 months, a slightly longer term reflecting his role in pulling the trigger. The 16-year-old, the youngest of the group, was given 4 years and 9 months, a reduced sentence that took his age into account. Four young men, the oldest just 19, now facing years behind bars for a crime that nearly ended in murder. The sentences reflected the severity of the offenses, possession of a loaded firearm, the use of machetes, the terror inflicted on a residential community, and the intent to cause serious harm, but they also sparked debate. A debate that continues in communities affected by gang violence. What did the lead detective have to say about the case?

[00:15:32]Detective Chief Inspector Michael Herbert, who led the investigation for West Yorkshire Police, issued a statement following the sentencing.

[00:15:40]>> [music] >> His words were measured but firm, reflecting both the gravity of the crime and the impact it had on the local area.

[00:15:47]He said that the CCTV footage showed a terrifying incident unfolding on a Sunday afternoon in a residential area witnessed by a large number of people, including young children. He emphasized that these four individuals had armed themselves with a viable firearm and machetes and had gone hunting for a rival gang member. They clearly did not care about the consequences of their actions nor the fear they brought to the local community.

[00:16:14]That final point, the fear brought to the community, is worth pausing on. This wasn't a crime that happened behind closed doors or in an isolated location or in the dead of night. It happened at 3:00 in the afternoon on streets where families live, where children play, where people go about their daily lives.

[00:16:34]Witnesses described hearing the gunshot, seeing the chase, watching masked figures with weapons moving through their neighborhood.

[00:16:42]Parents pulled their children inside, shopkeepers locked their doors, and the psychological impact of that, the sense that violence can erupt at any moment in a place that should feel safe, lingers long after the arrests are made and the trials are concluded. Seven years and two months for Kamal Johnson and Zane Gatewood, seven years and five months for the 17-year-old who pulled the trigger, four years and nine months for the youngest member of the group. These are substantial sentences, particularly for individuals so young, but they also sit in a complicated space legally and morally. On one hand, the intent was clear. Four teenagers armed themselves with lethal weapons, walked 3 miles into enemy territory, hunted for a rival, and fired a gun at someone's back. The only reason the victim survived was a mechanical failure, a stroke of luck that had nothing to do with restraint or mercy. The prosecution argued, and the jury agreed, that the intent was to endanger life. The community was traumatized. Children witnessed armed violence in their own neighborhood. On the other hand, no one was physically injured. The weapon malfunctioned. The defendants were teenagers, the youngest just 16 years old. The charge was not attempted murder, and the sentences reflect that legal distinction. Some will argue that these sentences are appropriate, that they balance punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly for the younger defendants, who will still be in their 20s when they are released. Others will say it's too lenient. That firing a gun at someone's back, regardless of whether the bullet left the barrel, should carry a sentence closer to what attempted murder would bring. That the terror inflicted on a community, the weapons carried, and the premeditation involved warrant harsher consequences.

[00:18:36]There's no objectively correct answer to that question. Sentencing guidelines exist, but they allow for judicial discretion. Public opinion varies, and cases like this one sit at the intersection of youth justice, gang intervention, community safety, and the limits of the criminal justice system.

[00:18:54]What is clear is that this case represents a broader issue, the availability of converted firearms, the territorial nature of gang violence, the culture of silence among victims, and the involvement of teenagers in serious premeditated crime. These are are problems that a single sentence, or even a single prosecution can solve. If you're from Leeds or if cases like this matter to you, I'd value your perspective in the comments, respectfully.

[00:19:22]What do you think? Does the sentence fit the crime? And what, if anything, could prevent cases like this from happening in the first place?

[00:19:30]If careful, fact-based UK crime reporting is something you want to see more of, consider subscribing. We cover cases with care, with context, and with respect for the victims and the communities affected. Stay safe.