Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Slain girl's mom files $30M lawsuit against DEA
San Antonio Express News ^ | 3/13/2003 | maro. robbins

Posted on 03/13/2003 8:08:49 AM PST by wildbill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-230 next last
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
DEA says she was a decoy.

A decoy for who? For what? Her Father? He knew the DEA was outside? How did he know that? Did he have his bags packed? Have a passport handy? Did he run(no)? Where was he going to go? Why did he need a decoy?

The "decoy" angle is the most obvious cover-up accusation I have seen. It doesn't pass the smell test.

81 posted on 03/13/2003 12:13:26 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Which details are made up?

"When she hit the car in front of her, she then put the car in reverse and hit the car behind her. She then put the car back into drive and accelerated at officers who had guns drawn."

No facts to support this. Even if this DID happen, again, from her point of view, she was accelerating at PEOPLE with guns drawn - people who she could not have known were officers.

82 posted on 03/13/2003 12:15:45 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
"So, how often does underage driving, with an adult supervising, result in a shootout with the DEA??"

Not often, obviously; however, such a question is irrelevant. In addition, I contest the term "shootout". The term "shootout" implies that both sides:

a) the girl and her uncle
b) the agents

had firearms.

This was a shooting; not a shootout.

Lastly, I wouldn't say that the girl and uncle were under-advantaged (from a self-defense perspective). The girl and the uncle had a car at their disposal, which can just as easily be used as a deadly weapon, if used "effectively".

83 posted on 03/13/2003 12:16:36 PM PST by tuna_battle_slight_return
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
Actually no. The root of the problem is an officer who had forgotten his firearm training. What kind of idiot trys to stop a car by pulling in front of it when a) they do not know who is in the car. b) they have no reason to believe that anyone in the car has committed an offence other than driving with thier headlights off.
This would be an unmarked car right?
You seem to have a problem understanding relevence and cause and effect.
84 posted on 03/13/2003 12:17:17 PM PST by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: babygene
First, if she was "boxed" in she could bump into their cars, but she could hardly RAM them. She wouldn't be able to get up any speed. If they pulled closer to her, she would not have even been able to bump into them. Although she might dammage their cars, she would hardly have put them at personal risk.

A simple point that many want to overlook. It totally contradicts the claim that their "lives were in danger". I've seen "boxing in" on doznes of "police shows" like COPS and the person doesn't have room to ram anything. At best, each car would have been maybe 5-6 feet away. That's bumping at best, but not close to ramming.

85 posted on 03/13/2003 12:18:51 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
Not often, obviously; however, such a question is irrelevant

Irrelevant my butt. You made the claim of:

If you go to the root of the problem, the girl shouldn't have been behind the wheel, in the first place. If this were the case, this never would have happened.

This directly says that none of this would have happened if an underage driver hadn't been driving. So, since altercations with the DEA rarely happen due to an underage driver, your claim that the fact an underage driver was the root of this problem is, well, ludicrous.

86 posted on 03/13/2003 12:21:45 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
" When I was learning to drive, my parents would have sooner let a wild dingo drive the car at night - even around the block - than let me. Full daylight with parents in the car only, and preferably around an empty parking lot."

And I bet they never let you play with fireworks on the forth of july either...
87 posted on 03/13/2003 12:28:31 PM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
"This directly says that none of this would have happened if an underage driver hadn't been driving. So, since altercations with the DEA rarely happen due to an underage driver, your claim that the fact an underage driver was the root of this problem is, well, ludicrous."

You're implying that I said this sort of thing NEVER happens, which I never admitted to. I said it rarely happens. I stand by my original comment that had this 14 year old girl not been behind the wheel illegally that she would be alive today.

88 posted on 03/13/2003 12:31:38 PM PST by tuna_battle_slight_return
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
No facts to support this. Even if this DID happen, again, from her point of view, she was accelerating at PEOPLE with guns drawn - people who she could not have known were officers.

I'm pretty sure they could provide photo's of the scene showing the damaged cars and the car she was driving when it came to a stop.

Sadly, we cannot examine things from her point of view. But we can examine the facts. I'll spot you an "if" here, for this statement.

If she hit two cars and then drove at the agents, her Uncle was doing a poor job of teaching her how to drive. He could have stopped her from taking those actions. After all, she was 14, how would she be able to think clearly enough to hit, shift to reverse, hit again, shift to drive, turn the wheel and accelerate. Alot for a 14 year old just pulling the car around to do with her Uncle sitting beside her, isn't it?

89 posted on 03/13/2003 12:31:58 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: KEVLAR
What kind of idiot trys to stop a car by pulling in front of it when a) they do not know who is in the car. b) they have no reason to believe that anyone in the car has committed an offence other than driving with thier headlights off.

Did you read what happened? The DEA was about to move to make an arrest when a vehicle in front of the residence pulls away with it's lights off. The obvious interpretation of those events is the target of the raid is trying to flee. When you then intercept the car, the car rams 2 of your vehicles and then drives at an agent.

This wasn't a Bonny and Clyde ambush where the cops just started shooting. If the car had come to a stop, even after ramming the first car, there wouldn't have been a shooting.

90 posted on 03/13/2003 12:36:21 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
"people who she could not have known were officers."

If you're going to introduce an element of complete and total conjecture to your argument, so will I.

The uncle, upon seeing the agents, yells to the girl, "These f*ckers are cops. Ram 'em! Now!". And let's assume she does as the uncle suggests.

What say you?

91 posted on 03/13/2003 12:38:41 PM PST by tuna_battle_slight_return
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
stand by my original comment that had this 14 year old girl not been behind the wheel illegally that she would be alive today.

I dont care if you stand by your idiotic comment or not. Its ludicrous, as all can see.

92 posted on 03/13/2003 12:46:08 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
PLAIN-CLOTHED OFFICERS

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Her dad sells drugs. What would be your first thoughts if this happened to you in the same situation?

And the entire incident probably lasted less than ten seconds. Given that two cars obviously come out of nowhere and box her in, guys not wearing police uniforms jump out with guns drawn, could you even think for a second she panicked? She isn't a seasoned driver. Experienced drivers make driving errors under pressure. Her age isn'y why she was killed. Poor judgement by two cops is.

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

93 posted on 03/13/2003 12:51:54 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Yes I did. The "obvious intrepretation of those events" was obvoisly incorrect, the subject of the arrest was not in the vehicle.

94 posted on 03/13/2003 12:54:30 PM PST by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: KEVLAR
What kind of idiot trys to stop a car by pulling in front of it when a) they do not know who is in the car. b) they have no reason to believe that anyone in the car has committed an offence other than driving with thier headlights off."

What sort of officers or agents would jump out like they did, unless they had reason to believe something fishy was going on? AND THE AGENTS WERE RIGHT!!! There was something fishy going on. Drugs were involved.

This was NOT a simple, innocent "driving with your headlights off" offense, as you suggest. You're conveniently leaving out the drug component.

This would be an unmarked car right?

All too often, yes. I'm not a fan of unmarked cars.

You seem to have a problem understanding relevence and cause and effect.

Why refuse to consider the root cause? A 14 year old girl was illegally operating a car. Now, does this give the agents a reason to fire upon it? If the car tries to ram them, then yes. If not, then no.

95 posted on 03/13/2003 12:56:29 PM PST by tuna_battle_slight_return
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
"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?"

Yes, When you pull in front of someone and put on your brakes to box them in, you should expect that there is a possibility that you will get hit.

Now when the inexperienced driver hits the brakes, the car behind her rear ends her. This girl must have been very frightened just before she got her brains blown out.

I think you need to take your meds... Your not looking at this objectivly.
96 posted on 03/13/2003 1:00:12 PM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
"You're conveniently leaving out the drug component."

What a bunch of crap. There is no "drug" component here. There was no suggestion that her or her uncle had anything to do with drugs. Her dad did, but she lived with her grandmother.
97 posted on 03/13/2003 1:03:43 PM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
Was there any allegation that this 14 year old was involved in any way in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of said drugs? Was she the subject of a lawfull warrant? Maybe we could ask her what she knew about her fathers business if she wasn't DEAD.
If not then no. Exactly what I have said. Other than the word of an agent who was involved in the shooting, we do not have the FACTS.
98 posted on 03/13/2003 1:05:46 PM PST by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: babygene
I think you need to take your meds... Your not looking at this objectivly.

I think there are too many people "taking their meds" on this thread. I agree that the DEA has file cabinets full of cases where they over step not only legal lines of conduct but moral lines as well. This is not one of those cases.

This isn't a "14 year old against the DEA" case.
This is a "vehicle attempting to flee the scene and endangering agents" case.

The fact that she was 14 have no bearing on the danger involved in this case. As has been pointed our repeatedly on this thread, "They didn't know who was in the car." Of course those making that claim then try to make her age a factor. But you can't have it both ways. Either they knew she was 14, or they didn't know who was driving. If they didn't know who was driving, then it is reasonable to assume that they believed it was the drug smuggler who was attempting to flee.

99 posted on 03/13/2003 1:12:46 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle_slight_return
You do realize this is essentially the same argument used by those who would like to see the second amendment done in.
The gun is evil. It must be to blame.
Same here. The drugs are evil. They must be to blame.
BS! This is no different than breaking down the wrong door at 3 am and killing the next door neighbor of a suspected drug dealer.
100 posted on 03/13/2003 1:12:58 PM PST by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-230 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson