The courtroom was gripped by a single, haunting question: did Malique Calloo arrive at Daniel Squalls’ home intending to kill? The prosecution relentlessly challenged Calloo’s account of the events leading to the 2022 shooting, probing the depths of a long-simmering conflict.
Assistant Crown attorney Craig Houle argued that the fatal confrontation wasn’t a spontaneous eruption, but the devastating climax of years of festering animosity. He asserted that the hatred Calloo harbored for Squalls had been building for a considerable time, ultimately culminating in tragedy.
Calloo had previously testified that he shot Squalls in a sudden surge of rage, triggered by taunts about his daughter and her mother’s planned move to the United States. However, the defense conceded Calloo fired the fatal shots, aiming for a manslaughter conviction rather than a charge of second-degree murder.
The Crown relentlessly questioned the “heat of passion” defense, focusing on inconsistencies in Calloo’s story. He had visited Squalls’ apartment earlier that afternoon, searching for his daughter, but deliberately left his handgun at home, stating he didn’t want a weapon present with his child.
Yet, upon returning later, informed that Squalls wanted to speak with him, Calloo made what he described as a “last-second decision” to arm himself. The prosecutor pressed him on this contradiction: why no gun during the first visit, but one during the second, especially anticipating his daughter might be present?
Calloo responded that the second visit felt like a potential “set-up,” a dangerous trap. He claimed he intended to relinquish the weapon to a friend once he retrieved his daughter. This explanation, however, did little to quell the Crown’s skepticism.
The moments before the shooting were described as escalating tension. Calloo testified that Squalls acted as if he were armed, even uttering a menacing threat: “I should pop your dumb ass.” The taunting continued even after Calloo drew his own handgun.
Squalls, according to Calloo, brazenly pointed towards a nearby daycare equipped with security cameras, adding a chilling racial slur to his provocation. “What are you going to do about it?” he allegedly demanded. The prosecutor simply stated, “And you shoot.”
Calloo vehemently denied entering the situation with murderous intent. “Those were not my intentions that day,” he insisted. He described retrieving the handgun from his basement, driving to Squalls’ address, and confronting him, all while maintaining he hadn’t planned to use it.
“You went home, you went to your basement, you got your handgun… You pull out your handgun. You then ask Mr. Squalls, ‘Where’s my daughter?’ And you say it wasn’t your intention to shoot him?” the prosecutor pressed, highlighting the sequence of events.
Calloo, visibly distressed, explained that Squalls’ taunting and mocking pushed him to the breaking point. “I just lost my mind,” he said, acknowledging a complex relationship with the victim. “As much as I did not like Daniel, Daniel was a brother… He’s a father like I’m a father. I didn’t go there for that.”
The jury was then shown security camera footage from across the street, capturing the audio of the encounter. Though the shooting itself wasn’t visible, the chilling sound of fifteen distinct gunshots reverberated through the courtroom, a stark reminder of the violence that unfolded.
The trial continues, leaving the jury to grapple with the conflicting narratives and determine the true nature of Malique Calloo’s actions on that fateful November day.
