Posted on 03/13/2003 8:08:49 AM PST by 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
Empty rhetoric.
Call me crazy.
Not sure I understand. If I invented "Alaska MJ" and patent it, anyone caught duplicating it for interstate sale would be illegally infringing on the patent. The claim of the CSA that it was indistinguishable from 'interstate weed' could not possibly hold.
As a drug dealer I would get a child to do the job, as most crimes use underage kids because they do not get jail terms.
Court rulings are not called facts, they are called opinions and rightly so. This is evidenced by the fact that over time, opinions are reversed and overturned.
Most conservatives believe that "right" and "wrong" are moral absolutes which do not change with time. Cultural Jihad is the only one who I have seen consistently attempt to support he drug war on these terms, which is why the arguments against his are fundamentally different (based in religion and not constitutionality).
The hurdle that you have to overcome, Roscoe, is not to prove to us that the government courts have backed government use of force against the people in the drug war - that much is obvious. Government (ab)uses its power in literally hundreds of areas to which I stand opposed, but might does not make right in any of them.
You have continually asserted that law that has been tested and upheld in multiple courts meets your standard of constitutionality. I have asked you time and again if you also apply that same standard to Roe, Brady, Lautenberg, or any other pile of claptrap that opposes the 'conservative' agenda. You have responded with commentary like:
Empty rhetoric
Brilliant. Seems to me that behind the opinions you have posted, there is little fact. Please do not pretend to be the righteous defender of truth when you have given us none.
And by the way, this is at least the fourth time I've asked with no answer: "Do you think the actions of the agents were appropriate to the situation?"
The CSA findings of fact at issue aren't "court rulings."
Get a clue.
Non sequitur. The question of such traffic involving a patent violation has nothing to do with demonstrating whether or not such traffic was occurring.
"Guilty" would be the more appropriate term if you attempted to run down DEA agents.
While he does demonstrate the tenacity of politicians and bureaucrats. He doesn't care if he's right or wrong -- neither do they. His intent is to make it appear to the unsuspecting reader that it's a lost cause and there's no use even trying to change the WOD status quo.
No doubt about my response, (THUMP...THUMP...BUMP...BUMP). I will not turn my family over to anyone who appears to be an armed gang member. The only difference is that I would steer the vehicle in a left and right oscillation as I close in and drive away to avoid the possible gunfire. An undercover police officer in gang attire should behave more cautiously than one in uniform. Not everyone will respond with the left pedal.
Contreras said the agents converged, each wearing a vest labeled "Police" on the back and "DEA" in front — another detail disputed by Villarreal's supporters.http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=180&xlc=962174
Informed discussion versus emotional screeds
My post at 191 as well as dcwusmc at 181 and Gianni at 186 are well informed posts. We've got your number and it's "cypher" -- a big fat zero/nothing.
Shriek on.
Ad hominem screed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.