That’s what happened. What would you regard as the optimal solution, if you could have all the equipment you desire?
It looks silly and is redundant. You could say “which tactic do I use” or “what options do I have”
In the context it was a redundant backup word. The distinction between other options wasn’t necessary so it looked like an opportunity to shoehorn “tactical” in and it’s only “correct” within the police force. Is it sensible to differentiate between “tactical” “legal” and “investigative” options?
I simply snarked about its use, where it seemed superfluous. It still seems superfluous, even if it is “correct” terminology. It keeps coming up because different people take differing degrees of offence. You’ve been most helpful in explaining its use. Boumer has gone in at the deep end and inferred that my objection to what seems like bad grammar (with faintly sinister undertones) means that I have some kind of vendetta against the police.