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

[Rifleman]

The fedgoons attacked the girl not the other way around. And you seem to be making the "Cops have a right to go home at the end of the shift." argument. But no they don't. Not at the cost of innocent lives and the dignity of free citizens. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. They do not have an unlimited right to use force for their safety or convienience. If they are not up to it, let 'em take jobs that they up to, like squeegy man at the all nite car wash.

They did not know who was in the car. They did not use an appropriate means to stop the car (maybe lights and a siren are too high tech for these goons.). They killed an innocent citizen. They should, AT LEAST, be sued into penury and jailed for negligent homicide. If I had my way, they would get the needle for murder and conspiracy to violate the girl's civil rights.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Why don't you give those questions a shot. Here, I'll repeat the first one for you:

Do you believe that a 14 year old girl would be practicing driving with her uncle at night with no lights on?

[headsonpikes]

"It would be nice if every 14 year old girl would be as innocent as you see to think they are."

Yes, it would. But since many of them are not, it's okay if an extra-Constitutional squad of Federal Police gun a few down.

You can't cry about the eggs when omelettes are a specialty of the house.

[KEVLAR]

I suppose I should swerve to intercept any vehicle I see driving W/O headlights then, right? People who have been driving for years sometimes forget to turn on thier headlights, some turn on thier lights a few moments after they are underway, I would think this would be more likley with an inexperienced driver.

[SteveH]

those two DEA agents wouldn't live long enough to make it to Court.

But if they did, how much would a daughter or son be worth?

Personally, I'd sue for a lot more than $30M.

It sounds to me as if the mother is angling for a settlement.

Prediction time?

My tea leaves say:

* case settled out of court (but for the full amount)

* DEA perps get "promoted" to lifetime meter maid positions, or (and perhaps more likely) see early "retirements" for health reasons

Unresolved issue:

* Does the DEA have meter maids?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

So your assertion is that a 14, look at that number, year old was practicing driving with her Uncle at night with no lights on?

She can't get a driver's permit until 15, but she was practicing at 14.

Her uncle was in the car teaching her, but he didn't go over the check points to make sure she turned her lights on.

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. All while her uncle was "teaching her how to drive."

This is what you are asserting?

[Roscoe]

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. All while her uncle was "teaching her how to drive."

He musta been teaching her drug dealer driving.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"People who have been driving for years sometimes forget to turn on thier headlights, some turn on thier lights a few moments after they are underway, I would think this would be more likley with an inexperienced driver."

Irrelevant. You have a 14 year old girl, with no license, "operating" a motor vehicle. 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.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"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. All while her uncle was "teaching her how to drive."

Priceless, well thought out paragraph that makes perfect sense to me. For what it's worth, and I'm not kissing a*s here; you're one of the few participators in this thread who is GENUINELY making sense, introducing and subsequently validating excellent points.

[FreeTally]

Do you believe that a 14 year old girl would be practicing driving with her uncle at night with no lights on?

Per the original story, she was moving the car to the garage at the back of the home. The car had been washed and waxed earlier, and it was going to rain soon. She asked if she could pull it around back under her uncle's supervision. He owned the car. No one claimed she was driving up and down the street "practicing" anything. Moving a car around the block would be a very typical thing a youngster would be allowed to do as "practice".

Do you believe that a vehicle driven by a 14 year old is less dangerous than a vehicle driven by a 40 year old?

Irrelevant question. Situation explained above.

Do you believe that a person has the right of self-defense?

Yes, especially when two cars box you in at dusk/after dark.

Do you believe that you should check the age of a person threatening your life before you take action to stop them from doing so?

I do not believe DEA agents, who supposedly have top-notch training, could reasonably believe they were being threatened by a person in a boxed-in car.

The DEA agents cleary made a situation out of a non-situation by not using common sense.

[Rifleman]

>Why don't you give those questions a shot. Here, I'll repeat >the first one for you:

>Do you believe that a 14 year old girl would be practicing >driving with her uncle at night with no lights on?

My answer: I don't give a shxt. Nothing that the occupants of the victim's car did justifies the attack and the murder of that child.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

This is decent too. I mistakenly forgot to include this piece:

So your assertion is that a 14, look at that number, year old was practicing driving with her Uncle at night with no lights on?

She can't get a driver's permit until 15, but she was practicing at 14.

Her uncle was in the car teaching her, but he didn't go over the check points to make sure she turned her lights on.

[FreeTally]

A couple questions for you that no one attempted to answer:

What exactly was she supposed to be a decoy for?

How did her father even know undercover DEA agents were outside if she was supposed to be a decoy for something?

Since the claim is that she was a decoy, Did he(the father) try to "flee" during the ordeal? Use a decoy, but sit there?

[FreeTally]

Now you are just making up details of the story.

[FreeTally]

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.

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

[KEVLAR]

NO. I do not, as you have, take all of the statements made in the story as fact. Were you there? Do you believe that this 14 year old girl was trying to injure these officers? If so, would that be based on the statements of the involved authorities alone? Or maybe we can assume her intent based on her fathers profession? What will the family gain by lying? It won't bring thier daughter back. I don't think it will get the father off the hook for any charges he may be facing. On the other hand, doctoring the story may benefit the officers involved if they were overzealous in thier actions that resulted in the death of a 14 year old child. Yes, look at that number.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Per the original story, she was moving the car to the garage at the back of the home. The car had been washed and waxed earlier, and it was going to rain soon. She asked if she could pull it around back under her uncle's supervision. He owned the car. No one claimed she was driving up and down the street "practicing" anything. Moving a car around the block would be a very typical thing a youngster would be allowed to do as "practice".

Her uncle was in the car but not driving. DEA says she was a decoy. Family says she was learning to drive and wanted to drive the car around block and put it in garage.

Ok, I'm sorry. When I read that the "Family says she was learning to drive" I assumed that meant she was practicing.

Why were the lights off on the car? Did the family normally leave a spot open in their garage for the Uncle's car? Did she hit two cars, and then drive at agents who had their guns drawn?

A lot of questions.

Of course, on this thread you would have thought that the agents hit her car and then just walked up to the window and shot her.

There are many cases where the DEA has overstepped every possible limit, but this is not one of those cases. Hanging your anti-WOD agenda on this case is like Pro-lifers hanging their case on a nutjob who kills an abortionist. It weakens your message.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

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?

You say you love this country, but you hate all laws and anyone who would enforce them.

[babygene]

"Maybe they should have looked closer while she was ramming them with her car. I'm sure that's what you would have done, right?"

Two things here that I'ed like you to consider. 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.

Second, What the hell were they firing into the car for if they were not sure exactly who was in it? The back seat could have been filled with children for all they knew.

Her bumping in to them (assuming she did not know they were cops) was a reasonable thing for her to do if they boxed her in as it has been reported. Especially if it were in a dangerous neighborhood.

Them shooting into a car where they could not identify the occupant(s) is not a reasonable thing to do. And it is very likely criminal.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Now you are just making up details of the story.

Which details are made up?