[tuna_battle_slight_return]

What kind of idiot trys to stop a car by pulling in front of it when a) they do not know who is in the car. b) they have no reason to believe that anyone in the car has committed an offence other than driving with thier headlights off."

What sort of officers or agents would jump out like they did, unless they had reason to believe something fishy was going on? AND THE AGENTS WERE RIGHT!!! There was something fishy going on. Drugs were involved.

This was NOT a simple, innocent "driving with your headlights off" offense, as you suggest. You're conveniently leaving out the drug component.

This would be an unmarked car right?

All too often, yes. I'm not a fan of unmarked cars.

You seem to have a problem understanding relevence and cause and effect.

Why refuse to consider the root cause? A 14 year old girl was illegally operating a car. Now, does this give the agents a reason to fire upon it? If the car tries to ram them, then yes. If not, then no.

[babygene]

"You're conveniently leaving out the drug component."

What a bunch of crap. There is no "drug" component here. There was no suggestion that her or her uncle had anything to do with drugs. Her dad did, but she lived with her grandmother.

[KEVLAR]

Was there any allegation that this 14 year old was involved in any way in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of said drugs? Was she the subject of a lawfull warrant? Maybe we could ask her what she knew about her fathers business if she wasn't DEAD.
If not then no. Exactly what I have said. Other than the word of an agent who was involved in the shooting, we do not have the FACTS.

[KEVLAR]

You do realize this is essentially the same argument used by those who would like to see the second amendment done in.
The gun is evil. It must be to blame.
Same here. The drugs are evil. They must be to blame.
BS! This is no different than breaking down the wrong door at 3 am and killing the next door neighbor of a suspected drug dealer.