Throughout the history of law enforcement, there are watershed moments in which equipment and tactics changes. Being that policing is mostly reactive, many changes occur when things go horribly wrong for the police.
A bell tower in Texas changed the understanding of what one motivated, trained and mentally ill man can do.
Bank robbers in Miami (1980’s)out gunned the FBI agents which brought on the change from LEOs carrying revolvers to carrying semi-auto handguns.
Robbers in California (1990’s) outfitted with long guns and body armour ushered in the provisions for police to carry rifles.
The school shootings/mass shootings radically altered the tactics used in those circumstance with regard of time spent immobile is life lost.
In essence, the more criminals utilize the 2nd amendment for their needs, the more police have to play catch up.
Now enter the armoured van.
You can attempt to diminish the significance of that event by seeing it as a singularity or by the ridiculous assertion that the Nation Guard can mobilize fast enough to move against a moving, shooting threat with explosives and ammo at immediate hand, but the fact is that techniques in criminality are not static, but flow fluidly with the speed the technology of the times. Especially now that the issue is not simply criminal activity in which the criminal wishes to escape, but the rise of the super ultra-libertarian who view their actions as a fight against tyranny, with nothing left to lose….
So again, as the consequences of a militarized police is discussed, some time should be spent realizing the consequences of militarized criminals.
