The police aren't the initiators of the death here. They get a call that someone is shot, and that soon others will be killed, they are going to call SWAT.
There is no law of nature requiring that police departments react that way. It is up to us as a society to decide what behavior we desire.
If, for instance, I were to learn that 90% of all calls for SWAT teams are from "swatting" (baseless prank calls performed to create the reaction) while 10% were actual life-or-death situations it would affect my opinion of the right way for police to handle it.
So I think knowing the actual statistics is important.
It’s a really hard job where you have to walk the correct route through a protocol in an emergency, often while being in danger yourself
The "protocol" for police is also dictated by their unions and the way laws around police use of force are interpreted. In general they know they are safe if they simply kill a person as soon as they perceive a threat. They will be legally covered and physically out of harm's way. This therefore incentivizes them to use lethal force, because they have no incentive not to use lethal force.
Yes, police have a hard job. But it could be a lot less hard (for them) if laws and policies are reformed.
From my reading, mcherm is giving a hypothetical scenario in which the automatic response of sending a SWAT team would be unreasonable. The conclusion isn't that we exist in that hypothetical scenario, but that more information is needed in order to determine whether and how close we may be to it.
I'm not arguing for 90%, just against assumptions.
To take this further if someone malicious caused me to do something catastrophic at work should I be absolved of all accountability? Sure, I am not the person who did the malicious thing because I had no intent, but I did still do it. Maybe I shouldn’t be fired but the security policies and procedures should be changed for the entire company to prevent this from happening again.
What do the police in those countries do differently?
If you want to discuss a topic in a productive manner, the first thing to do is to honestly say something about what you believe and why.
What actual observations of the world led you to your generalizations?
To stop a shooter? Yes it is.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223855.pdf
I don't think that most SWAT responses are actually saving lives with bullets. Also included in that paper is a table showing that most frequently, SWAT is used to serve warrants.
If a warrant serving situation seems dangerous enough to use SWAT, I hope they use them and no rounds are fired. That’s a good warrant service, not a failure, in my book.
"After receiving a phone call concerning an active shooter situation, the force sent round a single officer, just to double-check. The officer was among the 7 killed by the gunman."
Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? The sheep were slaughtered because the town stopped trusting him. I'd rather the police scare a few unlucky people and waste some resources than learn to distrust our cries for help. Of course it's a tragedy that someone lost their life, but how many lives would be lost through not mobilising enough police?
"Someone else told me XYZ" doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions. The people who called in with a false report certainly share in that responsibility, but it's not solely theirs.
What are you proposing they should have done? Just waited it out from a distance?