Unlike a Taser, the device does not fire probes through the air. It resembles an ordinary tactical glove and can deliver an electrical charge when an officer makes physical contact with someone.
That distinction could matter during close-range struggles, when officers sometimes have only seconds to decide how much force is necessary.
Homan addressed the technology Thursday during an appearance on Fox & Friends, arguing that officers need alternatives before a confrontation reaches the point where a firearm becomes necessary.
“You can’t just go from 0 to 100, right, and the first thing you go for is lethal force.”
That argument comes after deadly encounters involving federal immigration officers generated fierce political controversy earlier this year.
In Minneapolis, Alex Pretti was shot and killed during a confrontation involving Border Patrol personnel in January. Another high-profile encounter resulted in the death of Renee Good after an incident involving an ICE officer and her vehicle.
Those cases became rallying points for critics of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign.
Homan’s argument is that providing officers with additional less-lethal options could help prevent future confrontations from reaching that point.
The G.L.O.V.E. is intended for precisely that narrow space: situations in which verbal commands have failed, physical resistance is occurring and officers need to gain control without immediately escalating to more dangerous weapons.
The manufacturer, Compliant Technologies, says the electrical sensation stops when physical contact ends.
Supporters of the technology also point out that the device is not entirely new. Correctional institutions and law enforcement agencies in more than 20 states have reportedly used the technology.
One law enforcement official, Hall, said he has personally experienced the device repeatedly during training.
“It’s just a safer way,” Hall said. “It’s safer on the inmate. It’s safer on the staff. And most of the time we get compliance.”
Compliant Technologies says there have been no documented injuries resulting from use of the device.
That hasn’t stopped civil-liberties advocates from sounding alarms.
The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the technology, describing the G.L.O.V.E. as “a recipe for harm to the public.”
That reaction highlights a familiar debate surrounding less-lethal law enforcement technology.
Police agencies argue that additional tools can reduce the likelihood that officers will resort to firearms during volatile encounters. Civil-liberties organizations counter that devices designed to inflict pain can themselves be abused, particularly when officers use them against people who pose little immediate threat.
Similar battles erupted when Tasers became increasingly common in American policing.
The ACLU raised concerns about injuries, unnecessary pain and the possibility that officers could deploy Tasers in circumstances where greater restraint was warranted. Amnesty International also attacked the devices, at one point calling Tasers “brutal weapons.”
Critics cited hundreds of deaths associated with Taser incidents as evidence that “less lethal” does not mean harmless.
Yet Tasers eventually became a routine component of police equipment across the country.
ICE’s new glove is likely to trigger the same fundamental argument: whether giving officers another force option makes encounters safer or simply creates another opportunity for misuse.
The difference is that the political stakes surrounding immigration enforcement are considerably higher.
Democrats and progressive organizations have spent months attacking the Trump administration over aggressive ICE operations, while Republicans argue that federal officers are being placed in increasingly hostile situations while enforcing immigration law.
Every deadly encounter intensifies that fight.
A successful less-lethal tool could potentially change the equation by giving agents another method for controlling physically resistant suspects without drawing a firearm.
That doesn’t mean the G.L.O.V.E. should be deployed without safeguards.
Training, clear use-of-force standards and accountability will determine whether the technology actually reduces injuries rather than simply adding another weapon to an officer’s arsenal.
Homan indicated that ICE isn’t simply handing the devices out immediately. The agency is developing a training program before officers begin using them operationally.
That may ultimately be the most important part of the rollout.
The administration will undoubtedly face criticism from activists who oppose both the technology and ICE’s broader enforcement mission. But opponents will also have to confront an uncomfortable question.
If federal officers are going to conduct arrests — and some of those arrests inevitably involve physical resistance — what tools should they have available before reaching for lethal force?
Homan’s answer is straightforward: give them more options.
And if the G.L.O.V.E. can end a violent struggle without an officer or detainee being seriously injured, the administration will have a powerful argument for why those options matter.
