But even if that's the case, it takes 6 of you? And you jumped the hood and pulled your gun? Over beer? And tried to break the glass. Over beer? Why not just take down their license plate? And it's two girls. Someone's taking underage drinking too seriously. And they even pulled over for actual cops.
But yes, the article is unclear and the timeline does seem to be a bit out of sorts.
Well to be fair it was 7 (6 men, 1 woman), but again we are vague on details. How did they approach? Was it as a group, was it spread out? At what point did they announce who they were? Reading the article it is unclear as the phase 'after they approached us' is odd; does this mean they approached and stopped at distance? or close? or after they started approaching?
What did the agents do to identify themselves? Did the lead agent say they were ATF offices? Why wasn't the girl able to identify the badge? Did she not recognise it? (in which case there is an education issue) was it too dark? Did they just flash it or hold it badly? When did they identify themselves? Was she in the car at the time? Or did she get in afterwards?
Before she turned the engine on what was the lead up? Did they say wind the window down? Or get out? or did she do it without instruction?
If they identified themselves then starting the car would look like they are trying to leave/escape at which point the situation escalates because it goes from a simple 'check for beer' to 'why are they running? what are they hiding? Is something else going on?' thus the reaction, which might well be standard ATF training to prevent a vehicle, and an SUV at that, from leaving in that situation?
Also, it wasn't "two girls" - again the article is maddeningly unclear but it clearly states "as her roommates seated inside" & "My roommates and I" which implies there was more than 2 in the car. Now, this could have been only 3 people in total, or there could have been 4 or 5 in there.
As for the licence plate, I dare say as they drove off they would have called it in however from their point of view the people in the car are trying to run which means even if they pull the licence plates that could have just escalated into a chase which could have ended in an accident with more people hurt - logically the thing to do is to try and prevent this from happening by stopping the vehicle leaving and containing the situation - imagine the news report if they had been hiding something, got into a chase, refused to stop, lost control and crashed into someone/group of people killing someone and it came out that the agents didn't even try to stop them?
As also 'over beer' is what we can say with hind sight but in this situation but what if they had been running because they had a load of drugs in the car? or some other reason they didn't want to be stopped by the agents? If they had been the case we'd never hear of this story because suddenly they are just doing their job correctly - If the girls had just beer with them and the agents believed they had identified themselves clearly the fact they appear to have tried to run suddenly makes it about more than 'just beer'.
According to that article they didn't pull over for the police but for another agent in a car with 'sirens and lights', although no mention of it being marked.
The fact is the lack of coherent time line and lack of full details from both sides makes any one taking any clear position as 'right' nothing more than them projecting their own issues onto the situation - there is no objective way to say who was in the right here.
One of the key things I'd like to know is why no one could identify the badge because that is a key event which triggers the rest...