[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.

[FreeTally]

DEA says she was a decoy.

A decoy for who? For what? Her Father? He knew the DEA was outside? How did he know that? Did he have his bags packed? Have a passport handy? Did he run(no)? Where was he going to go? Why did he need a decoy?

The "decoy" angle is the most obvious cover-up accusation I have seen. It doesn't pass the smell test.