You can bet it was someone higher up trying to cover their own arse before giving permission to the cops.It has happened in Australia (Lindt cafe Sydney)and sadly staff are no longer with us.

Policing is different than a military career. Most police hope to never be in a fire fight. Although people go into the job knowing it is dangerous they expect those dangerous situations to be in simi controlled situations not involving barricaded individuals with rifles. Put them in a situation that resembles a war zone and they are out of their box.

People attracted to policing are not out of the box thinkers. They are attracted to the job in part because of order. They like uniformity, rules and certainty. Put them in an unexpected situation and they are unlikely to adapt to the novelty.

Realistically there is little the police can do to prevent mass shootings. Most of the mass shooters seem willing or even expecting to die. The only recourse to deal with a mass shooting then is to kill the assailant as quickly as possible. Unfortunately the police are trained to use deadly force as a last resource. Society expects criminals to be arrested and dealt with in a court of law. Mass shooters are not criminals but rather mentally ill or depraved. Criminals will take hostages to protect their own lives opening the door for negotiation.

In this case how do the police know if they are dealing with a criminal who is taking hostages because they just committed murder or a madman who expects to or doesn't care if they die? Confusion can look like cowardice in such a situation.

I'm not defending the actions or inaction of the police. I'm trying to be realistic. Part of being realistic is to accept that in countries where weapons are difficult to obtain such as Australia mass shootings have almost disappeared. Cultural differences may account in large part for the rarity of mass homicide in some nations but not entirely.

Strict gun laws do reduce the number of gun related homicides if they are enforced vigously. That said in the US it is irrelevant. The bill of rights provision for gun ownership is unequivocal and almost all current restrictions are technically unconstitutional. A country that doesn't follow it's own constitution is by definition lawless. Pragmatism arguments are the worst possible arguments when it comes to limiting rights because rights are not pragmatic. Pragmatism can justify anything including the wide spread corruption of the US Congress and elected officials. Our current President is a lifetime influence pedaling politician. His election was sold to the public as more pragmatic than electing orange man Hitler. Considerably criminal activity was involved in his election. His incompetence and indifference towards the law is causing great harm. It's what can be expected when people choose safety over rights and the law.

Reducing mass shootings would be an obvious good but where you have freedom you will have people who abuse that freedom and commit evil acts. Reducing freedoms is simply admitting that society has already come unraveled. To fix society we should start by prosecuting the criminal class that infests our elected offices starting with the president. Moral leadership is essential to maintaining freedom. Moral leadership may reduce the number of mass shootings or not. It's a complicated problem. What is certain however is that mass shootings for now have to be a price people are willing to pay because choosing security over freedom is the road to hell.

Disgust for police is becoming something the Right and Left share.