> but instead to say I know you reach a certain baseline level of skill in critical thinking. Given that, I am genuinely not sure why you would choose to defend the actions of the agents.

Because an application of critical thinking to the available evidence clearly exonerates the agents in this specific case.

> I wouldn't be murdered because I would comply with all of the agent's unreasonable demands.

As an objective matter of fact, the demand to exit the vehicle was reasonable and legally justified, and she was legally required to comply with it. I have already repeatedly explained why, and given appropriate citations.

The evidence does not support the use of the term "murder" to describe this killing.

> I will spare you an attempt to explain either the clear lack of reason in the agent's demands or the folly of this reasoning.

Your claim of "clear lack of reason" is contradictory to evidence and you have not even attempted to make a case for it beyond bald assertion.