2 ms·

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 ki

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.

lupusreal 3y ago
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.
- TexanFeller 3y ago
  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.

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.

lupusreal 3y ago

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.

TexanFeller 3y ago
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.