A definition of "tank" includes that it be a tracked vehicle. No such thing was evident in the pictures in the article. Let's leave the rhetoric to the other folks, shall we, and just deal in the facts.
FACT: at most, the black police vehicle with a gunner's hatch is an armored personnel carrier and that would be stretching the term.
FACT: the military Humvees appear to have been up-armored, based on the windows/doors. However, I could see no weapons on any of the military personnel. How does this qualify for "martial law" if the military is deployed without weapons?
“How does this qualify for “martial law” if the military is deployed without weapons?”
According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]).
I define it as government use of force to control the population. “Shelter in Place” has become the cute name liberals use for “Martial Law”.
This was a massive police operation to restrict the movement of the suspect and then do a search and arrest him. The police succeeded in restricting his movement because he stopped and hid in the boat. The police were getting ready to pull out when the boat owner called in and reported seeing something suspicious. The operation would have failed without that tip, and it is arguable if he might have been able to get someone to pick him up or if he would have bled to death first.