I always wondered about that "outgunned" thing. It seems to me that being "outgunned" is a result of poor planning, lack of thought and bad tactics. Why deploy a SWAT team, and a whole bunch of patrol to lock down the area, when two guys can grab the suspect when he's not paying attention while going for coffee at 6 AM? Is getting up early such a chore?
I suspect that Hollywood helped build the impression of the 'outgunned' thinking. It certainly played an increasingly prominent role in some dialogue and 'action' scenes scripted.
I remember after the Miami-Dade FBI incident and the North Hollywood bank robbery, how LE training looked at being 'outgunned' more from the perspective of cops only being armed with
handguns facing determined threats who were armed with semiauto
rifles.
I spoke with the guy at my former agency who originally wrote the proposal to stop carrying revolvers and start carrying hi-cap 9's (although swat still wanted to keep their .45's, and did for some years). Somewhere in one of the plastic bins of my old training materials, I think I still have the binder of the proposal he'd submitted, which he later gave to me. I remember him explaining that he thought it might get some better traction that time around, since we'd just benefited from a large asset seizure of drug money (which funded the acquisition and transition training). That was coincidentally a few years after the Miami-Dade incident. Like some other large agencies, several years later we used the North Hollywood robbery to propose adopting a Patrol Rifle policy and training.
The planning involving
how and when to execute an arrest or bench warrant, whether high risk or not, is typically more of a day-to-day strategic and tactical consideration. Ditto the decision whether to use 'regular' patrol or plainclothes/investigations people, or request a response by a 'tactical' special enforcement or swat team to service the warrant.