Mexican TikTok Beauty Influencer Fatally Shot During Livestream
A 23-year-old beauty influencer was shot and killed May 13 during a livestream on TikTok while working at her beauty salon in the city of Zapopan, according to the Jalisco Attorney General's Office.
The victim, Valeria Marquez, was known for her beauty and makeup videos, amassing nearly 200,000 followers across Instagram and TikTok. The fatal shooting occurred Tuesday evening inside her salon on Avenida Servidor Público in the Real del Carmen neighborhood, according to a
According to the official statement, police responded to an emergency call at about 6:30 p.m. and found Marquez dead at the scene. Paramedics confirmed she no longer had vital signs.
The initial investigation indicates that Marquez was inside her establishment when a man entered and fired at her, according to the press release.
The attack was captured in part during a TikTok livestream. Seconds before the shooting, Marquez was seen sitting at a table, holding a stuffed toy. She was heard saying, 'They're coming,' before a voice in the background asked, 'Hey, Vale?' Marquez replied, 'Yes,' and then muted the livestream audio.
Moments later, she was shot, and a person appeared to pick up her phone, with their face briefly visible before the video ended, according to eyewitness accounts.
Related Stories
5/14/2025
5/12/2025
Earlier in the livestream, Marquez had said she was concerned about someone who had come to the salon with an 'expensive gift' while she was away. She told viewers she did not plan to wait for the person to return.
Authorities are investigating the killing under protocols for femicide—the killing of women or girls for reasons of gender—according to the Jalisco state prosecutor. The investigation is being coordinated by an agent of the Public Ministry and police investigators.
National Crisis
The killing comes amid a national crisis of gender-based violence in Mexico. Last year, there were 847 reported cases of femicide nationwide, with 162 cases in the first three months of this year, according to Mexican
Mexico is tied with Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia for the fourth-highest rates of femicide in Latin America and the Caribbean, with 1.3 such deaths for every 100,000 women in 2023, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Jalisco ranks sixth among Mexico's 32 states for homicides, with 906 recorded since the beginning of President Claudia Sheinbaum's term in October 2024, according to TResearch data consultancy.
Calls for Reform
'State-level authorities must prevent, investigate and punish femicides with due diligence,' said Edith Olivares Ferreto, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico.
She added, 'Each femicide has an appalling impact on the victims' families, who, in their search for access to the truth, justice, and reparation for the harm done, also suffer re-victimization by the authorities.'
The organization's 2021 report documented systemic failings in investigations, including improper crime scene examination, insecure evidence storage, and insufficient forensic work, which increase the risk of impunity for perpetrators.
As the investigation into Marquez's killing continues, authorities urge the public to await official updates.
Reuters contributed to this report.
From
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Tyreek Hill's ex unbothered by Dolphins star's pool escapades with mystery gal pal
Tyreek Hill's ex went to her 'favorite place' as the Dolphins wideout was spotted holding hands with a mystery woman in Orlando on Sunday. Keeta Vaccaro, who filed for divorce from Hill on April 8 following a domestic dispute, enjoyed a beach day with her friends in Miami on Monday, according to photos posted to her Instagram. 'My favorite place to be 🌊🌸☀️,' the tech entrepreneur wrote, including a few beach emojis. Advertisement 6 Keeta Vaccaro enjoyed a beach day with friends in Miami on June 2, a day after her ex, Dolphins wideout Tyreek Hill, was spotted with a woman in Orlando. Instagram/Keeta Vaccaro Vaccaro posed in a green bikini while standing in the ocean in a few snapshots. Another clip featured Vaccaro and Hill's 7-month-old daughter, Capri, playing in the sand. Advertisement 'Beach day with my girls ☀️💕🫶🏽,' she added. 6 Keeta Vaccaro looked stunning in a green bikini while in Miami Beach on June 2, 2025. Instagram/Keeta Vaccaro Her posts came after Hill had a pool day of his own. Advertisement The All-Pro wideout looked flirty while swimming with an unnamed brunette woman in a pool for hours at Evermore Bay Resort, according to TMZ. 6 Keeta Vaccaro enjoyed a beach day with her daughter Capri and friends in Miami on Monday. Instagram/Keeta Vaccaro It came less than two months after Vaccaro filed for divorce, calling her marriage to Hill 'irretrievably broken,' on April 8 — a day after police responded to a domestic dispute at their Miami residence, during which their infant daughter was present. Police made no arrests and said their daughter appeared to be in good health. Advertisement 6 Tyreek Hill and whife keeta Vaccaro attend the 2025 Miami Open at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida on March 23, 2025. JLN Photography/Shutterstock After that, Vaccaro alleged in a separate emergency court filing that Hill disappeared in the aftermath of their dispute for two nights, only to return and take their daughter without her mother's consent. The motion requested temporary exclusive use of the couple's home for Vaccaro, along with limiting Hill's access to Capri to 'supervised timesharing.' During a Dolphins practice last week, Hill told reporters that he has attended church and therapy over the past month. 6 Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill (10) talks to reporters during the Miami Dolphins OTA on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at Baptist Health Training Complex. Icon Sportswire via Getty Images 'It's tough. Only thing I'm going to say is, man, money is a crazy thing for a lot of people,' Hill said. 'But I mean, for me, we just going to let the details just handle itself, you know what I'm saying? Because at the end of the day, the truth always comes out, right? 'My job is just to be a great father to all of my kids and be the best player I can be and be the best leader I can be for these guys in this locker room, man. So, I'm going to stand strong on that and I'm going to stand firm on that.' 6 Miami Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill (10) runs drills during an NFL football practice, Wednesday, May 28, 2025, in Miami Gardens, Fla. AP Advertisement Hill and Vaccaro married during Miami's bye week in November 2023. They were featured in the first season of Netflix's 'WAGs to Riches,' which premiered in January.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
