Replies

"As a drug dealer I would get a child to do the job, as most crimes use underage kids because they do not get jail terms"

The problem I have with this analysis is that since the subjects knew the house was under surveillance, how would sending a child out to drive the car around to the garage fool the DEA? They'd see the driver getting into the car so the purpose of a decoy would be eliminated.

Actually, so far as I know, the DEA hasn't made the argument that they didn't know the child was driving--yet. Their argument is that they were endangered by her driving when they surrounded the car with drawn guns.

When I first posted this a few days ago I had no idea it would cause so much comment. I think it is instructive that the issues affect so many of us on this forum in so many different ways, such as:

1.Anti-drug war people see it as a result of a phony drug war gone bad which results in endless acts of oppression and errors on the part of the authorities.
2. "Law and order" folks believe that anything the police and federal agents do is permissable as long as they have the cover of line of duty.
3.Libertarians see these types of events along with with Ruby Ridge and Waco as government over-stepping its bounds with dire consequences for the Constitution and citizens.
4. Gun rights people get worried whenever it appears that a mistake might have been made with a gun.

Have I missed anyone? :-)