A lot of guns drawn breaking down door situations could be made a lot less dangerous if police stop assuming they need to break in right now. Instead, establish a perimeter and a line of communication if possible.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uvalde-shooting-police-...
Maybe this is why the police tried to move quickly?
Obviously there is no one correct answer for all situations.
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 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.
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.
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.
Here's a Google result. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-waco-raid-at-25-enough-wit...
Worth keeping in mind these guys were a nutty cult and not entirely trustworthy.
Wikipedia is not the source of truth at all.
And it's very clear knowledge that tear gas canisters cause fires in enclosed areas:
https://sourcenm.com/2022/08/05/tear-gas-grenade-thrown-by-b...
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-07/77866/
Now you go update wikipedia, if you want.
The group is still indeed a nutty cult and while the gas used may contribute to a fire, there was evidence that the Davidians did start the fire, whether or not the gas helped it grow.
And we don't know if they were a wacky cult because the ATF burned everyone to death so no interviews...
There were lots of survivors
Whether the fire was accidentally started by the tear-gas or set by the Branch Davidians themselves isn't actually all that important in deciding if they're a wacky cult or not.
This one seems to be a good enough summation: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten2.html
People from the cult did survive, did do interviews, and even brought lawsuits. A large group was released before the fires and nine more survived the entire incident. So maybe you aren’t as familiar as you think? Furthermore, we already know more than enough about the cult from _before_ the incident. It’s pretty clear they are a nutty cult.
But, I suspect none of what I wrote above matters to you. You’ll probably still say that it’s a conspiracy and the group was a normal gathering of people, ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. So I’m not even sure what I hope to gain from this response.
But you still didn't answer my question...
Where is the evidence that the Davidians started the fire?
As addressed in the upstream PBS summary and the released report linked here, arsom investigators concluded the fire started at multiple internal ignation points simultaneously etc. etc.
The report lists the physical evidence that led to that conclusion.
Naturally you can assert that the report was doctored and the evidence fabricated, others can then respond and ask where is your evidence <shrug>.
It's sad for them. Cults have a lot of innocent brainwashed people. Koresh himself probably had serious mental health problems which is pitiable.
Sure, but "right now" is a matter of perspective. There just is not a great answer to hostages being taken by armed & violent criminals. At a certain point you either need to take the initiative, or you're just responding to an opponents initiative. The best case in a situation where the criminals don't give up is an indefinite and expensive situation where dozens of highly paid people stand by feeding pizza to terrorists with a Twitter/Cnn/Facebook simulcast. Someone has to make a move at some point.
That said, I do agree with you in principle. If you can get as much information as possible while building rapport, thats ideal. Unfortunately, this isn't always an option and it is very unlikely there will be a good outcome as both parties have diametrically opposed incentives. As you stall for time and gain reinforcements the bargaining power of your side goes up, forcing a more aggressive posture from the other party. That's sort of the Nash equilibrium here, a good outcome is probably an on the ground plea deal with limited violent exchange. Not agreeing violence is the answer but not every hostage taker is John Gruber or the Money Heist crew.
Edit: I think this was kind of the rationale on 9/11. Most hostage situations on planes were resolved without huge casualties[1] and then all of a sudden non-rational actors kamikaze the planes, not only killing themselves and the hostages, but using the plane as a weapon. There are a lot of versions of this happening that substantiate taking action. I'm glad I'll likely never have to call the shots on something like this.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings