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.
