Cops are pretty brave when shooting the unarmed and the confused, specially when they are minority and fleeing. An actual armed guy ready for confrontation… not so much. Where are those million dollar SWAT teams with all the military equipment?
This is not a trolling question, but an honest request. Can someone explain what difference it would make if we could resolve the differences in the timeline? From this perspective, it seems that the differences are fairly small, and that actions other than those taken by police would not have saved lives. Most of the stories I have read–like this one–point out discrepancies but give little or no interpretation to what those discrepancies mean in terms of saving or not saving lives. The readership here is exceptional; I’m sure someone has a good, coherent answer.
All of this “after-the-fact” focus on police response times should ONLY be used for helping to improve procedures for responding to what will inevitably be future NRA-sponsored mass shooting events.
It should NOT be used to fault-find what was an unprecedented event, in terms of scale, complexity, and logistics.
Ok, I’ll have a go. Dispatching security personnel or LEOs to the 32nd Floor immediately and distracting the shooter away from the outside of the hotel to the inside of the hotel down the hallway might have made a difference?
Always easier to look at a difficult situation afterward and suggest ways that might have made it go better than during the heat of battle.
That said a lot of people and groups of people have been know to try and tell the story of events in a way that makes them look good afterwards.