Slain TikTok influencer Valeria Márquez said she feared for her life minutes before being shot dead during livestream
The Mexican influencer who was murdered while she was livestreaming from her beauty salon had openly expressed fears that she was going to be killed just minutes before she was shot dead.
Valeria Márquez, 23, voiced her fear in a live TikTok video just before her motorbike-riding killer struck Tuesday while pretending to deliver a gift in her Blossom the Beauty Lounge salon in Jalisco, Mexico.
4 In a moment captured live on TikTok, Valeria Márquez, 23, voiced her fear that someone was coming to kill her just minutes before she was gunned down in her Blossom the Beauty Lounge salon in Jalisco, Mexico.
Instagarm / @v___marquez
'Maybe they were going to kill me,' Márquez said during the live stream, without making clear exactly whom she was referring to.
'Were they going to come and take me away, or what? I'm worried,' she said.
Moments later, a man off-screen called out, 'Hey Vale,' to which she answered, 'Yes?' before muting the livestream.
Márquez was then handed a stuffed animal and a bag of Starbucks coffee — before she was shot in the head and chest by a man who had returned to the salon, collapsing on camera, Denis Rodríguez, a spokesperson for the Jalisco State Prosecutor's Office, told CBS News.
The man had posed hours earlier as a delivery driver, accompanied by another man on a motorcycle, who said he had an 'expensive gift' to deliver to the blond bombshell who boasted nearly 200,000 followers on TikTok and Instagram, Rodríguez said.
4 Márquez was then handed a stuffed animal and a bag of Starbucks coffee before she was shot in the head and chest by a man who had returned to the salon.
AFP via Getty Images
A person had appeared to pick up Márquez's phone, with their face briefly showing on the livestream before the video ended.
TikTok has since taken down the influencer's account.
While the killer hasn't been identified, the region is firmly controlled by one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and hitmen locally as 'sicarios' similarly target individuals with guns on motorcycles, the spokesperson said.
'The aggressor arrived asking if the victim (Márquez) was there. So it appears he didn't know her,' Rodríguez said.
4 Rodríguez said authorities are also investigating if her death was connected to the murder of a former congressman just hours earlier in the same area of Guadalajara.
@v___marquez via REUTERS
'With that, you can deduce – without jumping to conclusions – that this was a person who was paid. It was obviously someone who came with a purpose.'
Rodríguez said authorities are also investigating if her death was connected to the murder of a former congressman just hours earlier in the same area of Guadalajara, also carried out by gun-wielding men on motorcycles inside a shopping mall.
Márquez's death has brought the femicide epidemic in Mexico into sharp focus, the outlet reported.
4 Since 2001, at least 50,000 women have been murdered in Mexico.
REUTERS
Since 2001, at least 50,000 women have been murdered in Mexico, according to the United Nations.
Around 10 women or girls are murdered every day in the Latin American nation, but few have drawn as much attention as Márquez, who had crafted an online image of luxury — posing on yachts, by private jets, and in high-end boutiques.
Jalisco is ranked sixth out of Mexico's 32 states, including Mexico City, for homicides, with 906 recorded there since the beginning of President Claudia Sheinbaum's term in October 2024, according to data consultancy TResearch.
With Post wires
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NM Supreme Court finds error in sentencing of Ruidoso man convicted of murder, armed robbery
RUIRUIDOSO, N.M. (KRQE) – The New Mexico Supreme Court found that a district court made an error by imposing a three-year firearm enhancement on a man who was sentenced for a deadly shooting in Ruidoso in 2019. Travis Nolan was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and tampering with evidence for the death of Christopher Williams. Nolan was sentenced to life in prison plus fifteen years, including a three-year sentence enhancement for using a firearm in the commission of the armed robbery. Story continues below Community:ABQ bus driver speaks out on her experience of safety issues on Central route News:Homeland Security: 11 people arrested at New Mexico dairy were 'undocumented' Trending:Mexican gray wolf Asha gives birth to litter of pups Food: Two Albuquerque restaurants make Yelp's 'Top 50 Cheap Eats' list The court remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing because the justices concluded that a one-year sentencing enhancement, rather than three years, should have been imposed on Nolan for using a firearm to commit armed robbery. State law requires a one-year firearm enhancement if the offense is the defendant's first felony. The New Mexico Supreme Court did, however, still affirm Nolan's convictions. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. '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,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Why the Supreme Court just handed a big victory to gun manufacturers
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Weapons seized from members of the gang Los Zetas are displayed by police during a presentation to the press, in Mexico City. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Thursday that shuts down a lawsuit brought by the nation of Mexico against US gun companies. In Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, claiming that their products are often sold to gun traffickers who then provide these guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that up to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Unfortunately for Mexico, however, a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives American gunmakers broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.' PLCAA does contain some exemptions to this general rule. As Justice Elena Kagan explains in the Court's Smith & Wesson opinion, a gunmaker can be held liable for 'aiding and abetting someone else's firearms offense.' Mexico claims that the gunmakers aided and abetted illegal sales to cartels by 'supply[ing] firearms to retail dealers whom they know illegally sell to Mexican gun traffickers.' Mexico also faults the companies for allowing bulk sales of guns, which can enable illegal sales, and for practices such as designing guns that appeal to Mexican culture. One such gun, for example, features an image of the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, along with a quote from Zapata: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' But Kagan's opinion concludes that the mere fact that US gun companies likely knew that some of their guns were being resold in the illegal market, much less that some of their guns are designed to appeal to Mexicans, is not enough to overcome PLCAA. As Kagan explains, this conclusion largely flows from the Court's fairly recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh (2023). Twitter concerned an attack by the terrorist group ISIS that killed 39 people at a nightclub in Istanbul, including a man with American relatives. Those relatives sued several social media companies in US court, claiming that the companies aided and abetted the Istanbul attack by allowing ISIS to post content which promotes ISIS's ideology and that attempts to recruit people to the terrorist organization's cause. But Twitter warned against a legal regime where 'ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.' As a general rule, someone who provides a good or service to all comers is not legally responsible if a bad actor uses their product for a wicked purpose. If Ford sells a truck to a man who intentionally uses it to run over and kill his wife, Ford normally will not be responsible for this homicide. And so Kagan concludes that it's not enough for Mexico to show that gunmakers could have taken additional steps to prevent their products from winding up in the hands of drug cartels. Instead, 'the merchant becomes liable only if, beyond providing the good on the open market, he takes steps to 'promote' the resulting crime and 'make it his own.'' Of course, one thing that distinguishes Smith & Wesson from Twitter is that social media platforms are not weapons whose entire purpose is to injure people. If PLCAA did not exist, Mexico might have argued that the gun companies' decision to make and sell an inherently dangerous product should make them liable for the consequences of selling such a product.
