I'm not so concerned with the weapons themselves, so much as certain rules that go against the cops that almost feel like an institutionalized way of keeping us at an unfair (yes, unfair) disadvantage.
The biggest one is, of course, the bank ops with rebels spotting in sports hatchbacks, then driving circles around the officers involved, just waiting for them to turn their back so they can jump out and pop them in the back. However, if the officer(s) takes pre-emptive action (and let's face it, you're driving circles around an armed law enforcement official during an on-going bank robbery, there is no shadow of a doubt that you are involved) and incapacitates the threatening vehicle/individual, non-lethally or not, then we get screamed at for RDM.
I think interaction between cops and rebels isn't necessarily solely down to the weapons available to either side (though I do see a very unfair power imbalance in favour of the rebels regarding this), I think a lot of it comes down to a power-gamey mindset, the exploitation of the rules (ruleplay over roleplay) and the idea that you need to "win" every single engagement rather than let anything interesting develop.
Not strictly on topic, I realize, but I feel it's relevant to the cops v rebels debate nonetheless.
Also, just to make something clear, I have no problem whatsoever with being robbed, taken hostage etc, but there's got to be a back and to going on here. You win some, you lose some, I just don't think that "we have the better equipment so we should win everything" mentality has a place in any community that advertises roleplay as the foundation upon which it is built.
If a group of rebels get you, fair and square, go with it. If the cops catch you fair and square, go with it, don't just jump out with guns and scream "leave or die".