Talk:Armored car (valuables)

Citation tags

Personally, I am at a loss as to what classes as a source to back up the idea that the armour on armoured cars is there to prevent robbery. It might also be quite hard to source the specs of specific armoured cars, to see what the differences are between a bank vault on wheels and an APC. I think this is going to be one of those articles that becomes permatagged. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Robbery, by definition (legal definition), is different from theft or thievery because it involves the use of weapons, force or intimidation rather than stealth. Armor on the vehicles is there to defend against said weapons. The vehicles do not drive themselves, they are manned by personnel, and the personnel need protection. The armor not only protects the personnel, it protects the valuables as well. Here's how: It is very, very difficult to force entry into an armored car, as deadbolts (standard equipment) are in place at every door. The doors themselves are often layered with sheets of steel to deflect bullets and missiles. So, because of the deadbolts and armor, it is pointless to try and shoot out the lock. Even if the locking mechanism was disabled, the deadbolt is still barring entry. Bullet-resistant glass prevents a robber from shooting out the window or intimidating the driver to exit the vehicle or provide entry. Because of all of this armor, the driver/custodian/guard feel immune to intimidation. Because most firearms will not allow a robber entry into the vehicle, most of the potential robberies are avoided. Robbers are generally reluctant to resort to the next two options for takedown: explosives and hostage-taking. Explosives require training and hard-to-acquire materials, and often time blow up the money or valuables (see the movie Dead Presidents as an example.) Taking one of the crew members hostage while the armored car is at a bank or other place where they might exit is ratcheting up the vague and implied threat of violence to possibly a charge of pre-meditated murder in the first degree. If the crew member does not react to the threat of the killing of his associate, then nothing is accomplished. Compare banks instead: they allow robbers to just walk right inside, and contain just as much money, if not more. If one employee will not react to the threat of violence, there are many more to choose from and intimidate. Compared to banks, armored cars carry so many complications that they are seldom targeted. And it's mostly thanks to their armor. That is how the armor prevents robbery.Tsarevna (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AND for this reason, most armored car robberies are the proverbial "Inside job."--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There appears to be no difference between the two articles, except a difference in terminology. Neither article is especially long, and merging the two would be advantageous for reasons of efficiency, accuracy, synchronizing edits, and in practice, better for the reader. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with this suggestion, however I do believe that the term "cash-in-transit" is more synonymous with the article than "Armoured car (valuables)". Also, the armoured car is part of the CIT process and as such I believe that the armoured car article should become a section of the cash-in-transit article as opposed to the original suggestion. Heggyhomolit (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See [1] and learn. --84.147.44.46 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armored car (valuables). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010010620/http://www.diplomaticsecurity.org/why-businesses-use-armored-cars/ to http://www.diplomaticsecurity.org/why-businesses-use-armored-cars
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105230144/http://www.coess.org/pdf/CIT_legislations.pdf to http://www.coess.org/pdf/CIT_legislations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Firms

How could Brink's be left out of the list? Along with Wells Fargo, it's the most well known in the US. I assume they also exist at least in Europe as well. But I know this is a global forum, which is why I'm posting here. Dkelber (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Aye, one of the pictures is of a Brink's van in Hamburg, Germany. This should be added to the list if it was not already.

Tschau, Dwightol102 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

I removed a section describing the plot of the 1995 film "Heat" as a real event. Please be on the watch for vandalism!Jbaer50 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)