Why don't soldiers wear a totally bullet proof suit which would cover from head to feet?
First off, if you wear totally bullet proof suit which would cover you from head to feet, it may save you from a rifle or a pistol, but it won't certainly save you from this:and definitely not this:also, most body armour is fire resistant, but not fire proof, and I can bet you all my money from my piggy bank which isn't even a pig but a tiger, that body armour, even the most advanced versions, would not save you from a military flame thrower.Current body armour is also usually made from two types of materials called Kevlar and ceramics. Once the ceramics have been hit, the vest becomes mostly useless very rapidly. Kevlar doesn't usually have that problem, but it can't stop anything better than a standard gun with any real success.If full body armour were a thing, you'd be running around in a combat situation with several hundred pounds of extra gear that became useless after the first time you were hit with a 7.62 (the AK47, which is the most common rifle in the world, is 7.62) This body armour would just be a terrible waste of resources and weight.Soldiers need to minimise their carry weight, especially in combat. The gear they wear already weighs around 80 pounds, adding to that would reduce combat efficiency, and make them easy targets for snipers and such.So in other words, like the many people who already answered this question, the two main reasons soldiers around the world don't wear armour like that of the star wars stormtroopers or the video game fallout 4 power armour is because it is heavy, and doesn't really protect the soldier that much from explosions our flamethrowers, or any other type of weapons apart from rifles.
What happens if a police officer asks me for an ID, and I don't have it on me? Will I be arrested?
R… Zy… , the OP who works at Guitar Center appears to be asking this in context of the US.There are many court cases that relate to this question. The officer must have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed to demand identification. If operating a vehicle, any traffic violation is enough. If not operating a vehicle, reasonable suspicion is still required. Loitering and just ‘looking suspicious’ due to place and time is not adequate.The cases that relate are Brown v Texas (stop and produce ID), Hiibel v 6th District ( identify by name), Kolender v Lawson (loitering, stop and identify), Terry v Ohio (stop and frisk for officer safety)But, cops often try to use obstructing justice or delaying an officer/investigation as a reason for arrest when ID is not produced.There is no law that requires carrying ID unless driving a vehicle.If the officer has reasonable suspicion, stating your name and birth date or other identifying data is adequate.There are plenty of Cop Block YouTube videos of the various interactions with cops. The 1st Amendment Audits are also interesting interactions. Often, the first contact cop is more aggressive than an LT or even Sargent.A calm response of, “I am not required to identify or produce ID unless you have reasonable suspicion of a crime. I will identify myself if you state the crime you suspect me of. Otherwise, I choose to remain silent.” Many cops will say, “You look suspicious.” Looking suspicious is not against the law. Walking away as a cop approaches is not against the law unless the cop has told you specifically to stop.It is amazing how many cops do not know these court cases and claim department policy. Local department procedure does not over-rule Supreme Court decisions.