Valeria Márquez Murdered During Live Video to Fans
A Mexican influencer was shot dead in her beauty salon while broadcasting live on TikTok, El Imparcial reported.
Valeria Márquez, 23, was streaming from the salon in the Santa María shopping plaza, Jalisco, when a man arrived on a motorcycle to deliver a gift.
But, without warning, he shot Márquez in the chest and head before fleeing, the report said. The murder was captured live on camera.
The Jalisco Prosecutor's Office is investigating. The suspect was not yet identified.
This is a developing article and more information will be added soon.
Related Articles
Map Shows States Getting Hit Hardest by Online ScamsDiddy Trial: Why You Can't Watch Sean Combs' High-Profile CaseFull List of US Travel Warnings Updates for May 2025Armed Men Attempt to Kidnap Crypto Tycoon's Daughter From Paris Street
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
37 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
Various semiautomatic handguns are displayed in a case at a gun store in Dundee, Ill. (2010). On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. File Photo by Brian Kersey/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against US gun makers over cartel violence
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday in favor of U.S. gun manufacturers and blocked a liability lawsuit brought by the government of Mexico, which sought to hold the companies accountable for the trafficking of their weapons south of the border to fuel violence by the cartels. The government argued in its historic lawsuit that American firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta and Colt, were "aiding and abetting" the illicit flow of weapons across the border. Mexico sought $10 billion in damages, court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court likely to shoot down Mexico's $10B lawsuit against US gun makers Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion that federal law grants broad immunity to U.S. gun companies and unquestionably protects them from Mexico's claims. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," Kagan wrote. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 bars lawsuits against any gun manufacturer over the illegal acts of a person using one of a manufacturer's guns. But it does create an exception for claims involving a gun company's alleged knowing violation of rules governing the sale and marketing of firearms. Mexico argues that its lawsuit fell under the exception and was seeking $10 billion in damages and court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court battle spotlights guns trafficked from US into Mexico "Mexico has not met that bar," Kagan wrote for the court. "Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of 'conscious . . . and culpable participation in another's wrongdoing' needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge." "When a company merely knows that some bad actors are taking advantage of its products for criminal purposes, it does not aid and abet. And that is so even if the company could adopt measures to reduce their users' downstream crimes," Kagan concluded. The decision is the first time the high court has weighed in on the sweeping gunmaker immunity that Congress enacted aimed at protecting the industry. Mexico has only one gun store, but is awash in millions of American-made weapons, most funneled into the country by straw purchasers in the U.S. By one estimate, at least 200,000 guns flow south of the border each year. "Today's decision will end Mexico's lawsuit against the gun industry, but it does not affect our ability and resolve to hold those who break the law accountable," said David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at GIFFORDS Law Center. "All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice." Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, said that they are "disappointed" with the Supreme Court's decision. "The Mexican Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect Mexicans and to stop the crime gun pipeline," Olabuenaga said in a statement. Jonathan Lowey, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and backer of the Mexico case, said the decision is "the clearest evidence yet that the gun industry's special interest get-out-court-free card must be revoked." "The Court made clear that the door to accountability for the gun industry is not shut, and we look forward to working with Mexico further to stop the crime gun pipeline that makes Mexicans and Americans less safe," Lowey said in a statement.
Yahoo
2 hours 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.
