That’s the difference between active shooter and barricaded suspect situations. Best practice for an active shooter is to immediately intervene with the first officers to arrive on scene with whatever equipment and training they have on hand, and I’ve seen footage of many instances of officers responding quickly and decisively in those situations. Uvalde was an instance of negligence and cowardice and in my opinion the laws regulating the police aren’t sufficient to hold the Uvalde police department accountable for what they allowed to happen.

What about these two scenarios make them analogous to you?

Do you earnestly believe that a situation where the police actively hear shooting is the same as one where an anonymous phonecall says something is happening?

We're comparing Waco and Uvalde, in both cases there was shooting and police had reason to believe that kids were in harms way. The situations, while not identical in all regards, are close enough to demonstrate the point that law enforcement need to make these kind of calls on a case-by-case basis. Neither one approach nor the other will always be correct, and obviously the police won't always make the right call.

In Waco they did NOT have reason to believe the kids were in imminent danger. The imminent danger was from the FBI who started the fire that killed all those kids.

Neither side of this partisan dispute can conclusively prove their version of events about who started the fire. It may be the case that you're right, but you may also be wrong. You should at least be able to consider the implications of the hypothetical scenario in which the authorities made a good faith best effort to end the confrontation with a minimum loss of life but still failed despite this intent and effort. Even if you're pretty sure that isn't what happened here, the main point is that going in guns blazing is not necessarily the best solution to an armed standoff, and there may instead be situations in which waiting it out and letting hostage negotiators do their work is the best course of action.

Furthermore, the example of Uvalde demonstrates that waiting it out is not always the correct course of action. This proves that there isn't one single correct approach that can be applied to all situations. Law enforcement must be given the flexibility to respond on a case by case basis, because different circumstances may call for completely different approaches.

I agree with you that there isn't one correct approach in these situations. I can't agree that there was any possibility of authorities having made a good faith effort in the situation though. The government lost any shred of credibility and moral high ground when they brought M1 Abrams tanks into the situation. The children are in danger so we'll point a high powered tank cannon at the house? How will tanks save the children? Not to mention breaking the longstanding policy of not using military weapons against US citizens. That situation was an authoritarian massacre similar in style to Tiananmen Square.

You're conflating allegations of child abuse with hearing gunshots in an elementary school. These two situations are in no way "close enough to demonstrate" anything.

Waco was very plausibly perceived as a Johnstown scenario, in which the children would be subjected to a murder-suicide pact if another ending wasn't forced.

FWIW, I think you've made a clear, defensible point. I'm unsure if I agree with it, but given the exasperated/incredulous response you're getting, I'd pull the ripcord. People seem unwilling to engage in good faith here. But I appreciated your thoughts!

People are engaging in good faith, they are just emphatically disagreeing with the statement of the premise. "Good faith" doesn't require me to accept the thesis of the other person if it's a bad thesis. People are correctly identifying how the situations in Waco and Uvalde were extremely different.

Either you are being disingenuous here or you legitimately dont understand the difference. The authorities had no reason to suspect that children were being actively killed on a time sensitive basis in Waco. It was a PR dick-swinging contest that got all those 'victims' the feds cared about killed. The two are not even in the same galaxy, let alone the same ballpark.

Waco is politically contentious with hot takes mostly falling along partisan lines. Everybody likes to believe they know the truth about what happened, that this truth is evident to everybody else, and that anybody who claims to subscribe to a different narrative knows they're wrong about it but sticks with their version anyway for tribal political reasons.

I don't know what the law enforcement on the ground at Waco during those days truly believed, but I believe it is plausible they thought themselves in a violent confrontation with a cult that would rather die than surrender, and given that framing it is at least plausible they believed it would end in a Johnstown style murder-suicide pact if another ending wasn't forced quickly.

Maybe it wasn't really that sort of cult but they believed it was and acted on that belief. Maybe they were pretty sure the kids would be all unharmed but decided to go in anyway because they were bored or angry or psychopathic or something, and all their talk about saving the kids was just cynical excuse making. I don't know the truth for certain and I don't think you do either, but I believe it is at least plausible that law enforcement at Waco had good intentions and nevertheless failed to deliver a good outcome. If you're not willing to even consider the implications of that possibility, then I'm afraid you're lost to the politics of it.

While we can never know the motivations of the people who were burned alive as part of their rescue, we can in fact know the motivations of the feds because it was all pretty well documented. They were concerned that the branch dividians had illegal weapons. They never once mentioned any other motivation in any warrant application, memo, or otherwise. There was some frantic post hoc invented pearl clutching after the operation was bungled at a truely unprecedented level and excuses were needed to prevent embarrassment of powerful people, but none of that came up before the feds killed a bunch of children and needed to make a case why that was nessessary and part of a professional and skilled law enforcement operation.

There is a reason that event inspired generations of domestic terrorists, and it was not because the feds had the moral high ground and executed an efficient, well planned and researched operation.The overwhelming evidence is that Waco was about ATF agents getting to finally cosplay some of their deepest fan fictions and it got people killed. It was the moral equivalent of dropping a 1000 ton bomb on a crowded village in the middle east and being shocked when it produced a generation of fanatic jihadists. It was one of the stupidest and least professional things the feds have ever done, and that's an illustrious list.

The issue is not about finding the correct answer for all situations. The issue is finding the correct answer for most situations.

that's not a slow-down situation.

That's a situation where the person in charge decided they were just not going to do their job and give orders, while everyone else thought it was OK to sit around and wait for orders.