>It sounds like a ridiculous idea for sure, but where are we exactly with full body armor and bullet proof visors (full body suit is even better than just a fro

>It sounds like a ridiculous idea for sure, but where are we exactly with full body armor and bullet proof visors (full body suit is even better than just a frontal bulletproof shield)? That's usually what SWAT (and the comparable paramilitary "police" forces of other nations; most places call them 'gendarmes') are wearing. That armor (ostensibly a Level IV ballistic vest) will not protect against multiple hits, but it will protect against most rifle fire (including what's supposed to be armor-piercing). The helmets are not as resistant, though, and areas not actually covered by armor are naturally not protected at all. The reason that normal beat cops don't wear this is twofold: the first is that this armor is extremely heavy (and isn't guaranteed to protect, and being hit will still turn you into a casualty), and the second is that officers wearing heavy armor everywhere will lead to citizens asking more questions about what they need to be protecting themselves from. A "cop" who is in reality a paramilitary soldier with assault rifle at the ready [bonus points if it's fully-automatic; police ultimately don't need to provide that kind of suppressing fire] is not "serving and protecting", they're "seeking and destroying". Of course, the way you minimize suspects shooting it out with the cops is by not making non-violent offenses life-destroying ones (i.e. criminal justice reform) and following the other Peelian principles, but that would require intelligence, moderation, and persistence from the public (as well as the police, of course), which is understandably yet unfortunately rare.