the policy in favor of protecting human life, and the policy against the FBI assuming a peace-keeping role on Indian reservations.  The latter policy might justify and immunize an order to withdraw directed solely at other FBI agents, but that is not what happened here.  Erwin withdrew all law enforcement personnel from the reservation in order to develop a plan of action.  That decision cannot reasonably be characterized as the execution of an FBI policy of non-interference.  The policy in favor of protecting life is likewise insufficient to bring Erwin's actions within the ambit of the discretionary function exception, because an individual agent's freedom to act as he believes will best protect human life is circumscribed by the rules that limit the bounds ofThose are tactical guidelines and do not address the agent's authority


4
 Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable only when the tort is committed by a government employee "acting within the scope of his office or employment."    28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) (1982).  Although Erwin had no authority to take command, he was nevertheless acting within the scope of his office when he did so.  "There is an area, albeit a narrow one, in which a government agent, like a private agent, can act beyond his actual authority and yet within the scope of his employment."   Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173, 181, 76 S.Ct. 745, 751, 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956).  According to Minnesota law, a