Tlm225: I get what you're saying. If I know of areas where I feel I'd need a vest while off-duty, I also don't go to those places. However, you and I both carry guns when off-duty. How does the same logic not apply? In other words, how can it not be said thus: "If there are areas that I feel I might need a gun, I just don't go to those areas." See what I mean? One never knows where or when the off-duty gun might be needed, so the prudent off-duty LEO is always armed. How is it, then, that the exact same logic doesn't apply to the vest? Sure, you avoid "bad" places in the interest of avoiding trouble...but what about when you're in a "good" area, and trouble finds YOU? Seems to me that if you're in that situation and you need a gun, it just naturally follows that you'd also benefit greatly from having a vest. As I said earlier, wearing the vest while off-duty might seem paranoid, but there was a time that carrying a gun while off-duty was also considered "paranoid".
Seen on a bumper sticker: "Exercise. Eat right. Take vitamins. Die anyway."