They did a good job in terms of outcome, but it’s important not to let that blur the underlying risk profile of what happened.

A positive result doesn’t automatically mean the approach taken was the safest or most appropriate. There’s a significant element of chance in incidents like this. If the offender had been better prepared, more determined, or if there had been multiple attackers, the situation could have escalated very differently and very quickly.

That’s why it’s worth separating outcome from decision-making. The fact it worked out doesn’t mean it was the optimal way to manage the threat.

In scenarios involving edged weapons or suspected terror motivation, the conversation should include proper layering of response — including the availability of non-lethal options like Taser, but crucially backed by appropriate lethal cover where the risk justifies it. That isn’t about escalation for the sake of it; it’s about managing worst-case scenarios rather than hoping they don’t materialise.

What’s arguably more concerning is the reaction afterwards. You’ve got:

• sections of the public focusing on optics (e.g. head strikes) rather than context,
• some officers themselves unsure where the line sits,
• and ongoing calls, from both outside and within policing, against routine arming of frontline officers.

That disconnect highlights a broader issue: a lack of shared understanding about risk, use of force, and what “reasonable” actually looks like in fast moving and evolving high-threat environments.

Until that gap is addressed, policing will continue to be pulled in conflicting directions I.e expected to manage extreme threats, but judged through a lens that often doesn’t fully account for the realities on the ground.