Slain girl's mom files $30M lawsuit against DEA

San Antonio Express News ^ | 3/13/2003 | maro. robbins

[wildbill]

Slain girl's mom files $30 million lawsuit

Claiming federal agents had no reason to use deadly force against her daughter, the mother of a slain 14-year-old girl filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the two agents who she claims fired at Ashley Villarreal. The complaint seeks $30 million and potentially offers the most public review of the Feb. 9 encounter between the teenager and agents who were waiting to arrest her father, cocaine-trafficking suspect Joey Villarreal.

The case was filed in federal court a day after authorities asserted that Joey Villarreal knew about the stakeout and that his daughter was acting as a decoy when she drove along the street with her headlights off.

When investigators tried to stop her sedan, officials said, she rammed their unmarked vehicles and accelerated toward agents, who opened fire without being able to see who was at the wheel.

A lawyer for the girl's mother, Deborah De Luna Villarreal, dismissed this account as "the government laying out an alternate reality."

"I think there is a grave danger that reality is going to be distorted dramatically," said the attorney, Marynell Maloney. "How is a 14-year-old girl responsible to such a degree that she should be killed?"

The lawsuit is directed at two agents who, it asserts, are believed to have fired at the car: Bill Swierc and Jeff Kinnaman. The agents could not be reached for comment.

Authorities have not said who fired the fatal shot.

Maloney said a similar complaint against the agents' employer, the Drug Enforcement Administration, is in the works. Lawyers for Joey Villarreal have indicated they are preparing their own civil suit.

Should the case go to trial, it would offer possibly the most public review of the shooting at the intersection of South San Joaquin and Motes streets.

While the DEA and the San Antonio Police Department are separately examining the incident, it is unclear whether their findings will be released in detail.

A DEA spokesman, noting that the reviews still are under way, said it would be inappropriate for the agency to comment on the lawsuit.

The narrative described in the lawsuit says Ashley believed the agents were gang members. It also faults investigators for not seeing the girl climb into the car, emphasizing that minutes earlier she and a friend had put garbage cans on the stoop.

"This is a girl who's carrying out the trash, standing out there in the streetlight, and they're shooting her dead moments later," Maloney said. "It doesn't add up."

Described by Maloney as traumatized and grieving, Ashley's mother wasn't at a news conference held at the lawyer's office Wednesday.

Maloney said that, while the lawsuit seeks $10 million in actual damages and $20 million in punitive damages, what Ashley's mom wants most is to prove that her daughter was a victim.

"The numbers are really difficult to determine. What is the worth of human life?" Maloney said. "The main point is this thing shouldn't have happened."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mrobbins@express-news.net

03/13/2003

Click here to return

[Xenalyte]

Fireworks were okay, as long as Mom and Dad were around. Alone in the car at night was not okay.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Again, no one has even attempted to explain how she was being used as a "decoy" as the cowardly DEA claim.

No one has ever been tipped off that a drug raid was about to happen, have they?

If the agents pull up and see a car with it's lights off pull away from the house they are about to search, what are they to think?

They will likely think that the suspect they are after is fleeing the scene.

They will then stop the vehicle allowing enough time for the suspect to leave through an alternate mean.

The driver of the first car, that pulled attention away from the real target, would likely be considered a "decoy" by most people.

[KEVLAR]

Is it standard practice to use deadly force based on an assumption?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Yep. If I am in my house and you come in with a gun drawn, I assume that you intend to do me harm. I will use deadly force in that matter. If it later is revealed that you had a water pistol, my assumption still stands. If it is later revealed that you are 14, my assumption still stands.

If an agent has a car directed at him and the driver accelerates at them it is an assumption that the driver intends to hit the agent with the car. That assumption still is valid even if it is later determined that a 14 year old was behind the wheel. Remember, a car doesn't turn to nerf if a 14 year old is driving it, it can still maim and kill as if an older driver is behind the wheel.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

This is no different than breaking down the wrong door at 3 am and killing the next door neighbor of a suspected drug dealer.

This is very different, and the fact that you can't see the difference is appalling.

[Rifleman]

Yup. They would have killed whatever other innocent was driving.

[babygene]

That's the problem with your argument....

It's not permissable to use deadly force because you "believe it was the drug smuggler who was attempting to flee". Even if it had turned out to be a drug dealer attempting to flee, the shooting would not be justified unless their lives were in iminent danger. (US Supreme Court TENNESSEE v. GARNER (1985))

An officers car getting banged while trying to "box" someone in, at first glance doesn't represent iminent danger. I bet the air bags didn't even go off.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

An officers car getting banged while trying to "box" someone in, at first glance doesn't represent iminent danger. I bet the air bags didn't even go off.

The hitting of the cars was never asserted as the reason for the shooting. It was the acceleration of the suspect's car at agents in the road that the DEA says caused the shooting.

If the photo's of the scene show her car came to a rest "boxed in", then the agents are up a creek and deserve to go to jail. If, however, they can show that by hitting the two cars she opened a lane and tried to escape through the lane, even though agents, on foot, were in that lane, then the shooting seems justified.

The assertion that "she hit our car, so we shot her" has only been made by people on this thread.

[Rifleman]

Anitius Severinus Boethius wrote: So everyone is allowed to defend themselves except for law enforcement authorities, right? When a vehicle is being driven at you, you should just let it hit you because you knew it was a dangerous job when you took it, right?

Various cops used to be called peace officers and their job was to protect and serve. I approve of that. Now they are called law enforcement officers, aka "muscle for the state".

The girl did not "drive her car at them" they drove their cars at her, and she was trying to get away from attackers. They assaulted her. And then they killed her when she defended herself.

If the fedgoons are a special class, samuri who may "test their swords' on us without consequences they had better expect to not be treated as peace officers. They are blood thirsty, murdering scum. If the girl's family choose to kill them I would cheer them on and donate money to their legal defense fund.

If the goons had one ounce of manhood or honor they would write a letter of contrition and blow out their brains. If they could add some guts to that mix they would confess to the murder of that girl and take their medicine. But they have none of those virtues, not a particle, not an atom.

[Just another Joe]

There is one thing that I haven't seen brought out yet.
If the DEA agents were there to arrest the father, had they just arrived?
Or did they have the house under surveillance?
If they had just arrived they had no idea who was in the car and should not have tried to stop it in that fashion.
If they had the house under surveillance they did know who was in the car, knew the young girl was driving, mistook the uncle for her father, and tried to stop the car. This would have been a breakdown in the surveillance as the father was not in the car.

The young girls inexperience could have led her to drive with lights off and take off at a higher than normal rate of speed.
When confronted with a situation such as being boxed in by two cars panic sets in and she goes back and forth, the agents get out of their car, draw their weapons, the girl sees men with weapons and tries to run them over or just drives in their direction trying to get out of the situation.

I have a few questions...
Was the house under surveillance?
Were there uniformed officers present?
Why did agents, when confronted with a car that was ramming theirs, get out of the car and stand in harms way? Is that standard procedure?

[KEVLAR]

I will ignore your last comment as you have ignored the many questions posed to you. What is appalling is the effects of the WOD. What is even more appalling is your support of it.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

If you are ever in a situation where a law enforcement officer ever saves your life, or the life of one of your loved ones, you need to repeat this to them.

But of course like all anti-law types, you can always take care of yourself, right?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

What is even more appalling is your support of it.

Who says I support it? You just assume that because someone can see the agents side that they are the enemy. Sorry, but you have blinded yourself with your hatred. Try to look at it from the agents side:

We see a car pulling away with no lights.
We fear it is our suspect escaping.
We box in the car.
The car hits the vehicle in front and then hits the vehicle behind it.
The car then turns to where agents are approaching the car and accelerates.
We fire as our fellow agents are in trouble.

Have you lost the ability to see things from other points of view?

[Rifleman]

Don't characature my posts. I know a number of cops who are capable, brave peace officers.

Those DEA goons are not fit to carry those guy's jocks.

As to an LEO saving my life or a loved one. I doubt that an LEO would bother. A peace officer might.

[anka]

there you go, making sense again...

[wildbill]

The house was under surveillance. The DEA says they saw the father drive away in another car I believe. The agents claim to have been wearing vests with ID on them and say they identified themselves. This is disputed by local residents and Swat team vests seem inappropriate for surveillance work.

I don't know why they didn't step out of the way. The girl's car seems to have been completely hemmed in.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the report of the DEA.

[wildbill]

I believe the narrative about gang members came from the uncle who was in the passenger side. He was monitoring her driving around to the garage entrance in the back of the house.

In a gang infested area like San ANtonio, if some folks cut your car off and jump out at you with guns, you might well panic. Especially at 14.

[KEVLAR]

More assumptions, I never said I hated anyone.
You are assuming that the agents story is factual.
I already pointed out that the agents have a motive to distort what took place. As I asked before, what motive would anyone else have for misrepresenting the course of events?
I am quite capable of seeing anothers point of view.
However, when the other point of view does not make sense, I will question it. The agents had no business stopping the car in the manner in which they did. Thier FEAR is not justification for the shooting of a non-suspect. If a marked car had attempted to stop this vehicle and the driver had done what you and the agents claim, my opinion would be different. That is not what happened in this case.

[TLBSHOW]

Good and I hope she wins it all from the fake drug war!

[TLBSHOW]

in fact she should sue for 1 billion dollars