policelawnews
Region: US
Sunday 16 August 2026 19:11:02 GMT
1252
116
37
9
Music
Download
Comments
PopupPatriot :
So, uh...how much are they and where can I buy them?
2026-08-16 19:18:15
6
Vickys :
This is great. The company who makes the glove estimates compliance within the first three seconds of application. The guidance for use, is to activate no longer than 15 seconds. The activations are in fact tracked. They will be able to tell when the gloves were activated, marked by a time stamp and will be able to tell how long the glove was in use. Basically, the same thing that happens with a taser. This is an excellent force option.
2026-08-16 19:20:06
2
Tyler Martin :
I have been trained and certified as am instructor with these gloves they have been a great tool and they are tracked everytime they spark so they are similar to the taser and like those people react different to them
2026-08-16 20:19:27
3
RonnieBoy :
I want a pair. 😂🤣
2026-08-16 19:13:47
8
Svorde :
Nice!! Anything to help ICE
2026-08-16 19:16:26
4
NoCheckMarkNeeded :
I've seen enough, give these to teachers. 👍
2026-08-16 19:31:34
2
gene64gu6ui :
The ultimate tactical absurdity is that, like all weapons, a suspect can turn these right back on the officer. With a baton, Taser, or sidearm, officers train extensively on retention and weapon-retention holsters. You cannot execute weapon retention on your own hands. If a suspect grabs an officer by the wrists during a ground grapple, what is stopping them from simply forcing that live, conductive palm straight into the officer's own neck or face? Because body cameras are mounted on the center of the chest, an officer's face sits completely outside the camera's field of view. During a tight struggle on the ground, the camera will record chaos and fabric, but it will never capture the suspect redirecting the officer's hand. Since the manufacturer brags that the device leaves no physical marks and lacks closed-circuit discharge tracking, there will be zero physical or digital proof of what happened. An officer gets electrocuted by their own duty gear, collapses or loses their grip, and the official record simply shows an officer mysteriously losing control of a suspect with nothing to back up their report.
2026-08-18 15:36:20
0
Chicagowiseguys :
And the officers will abuse this power just like the abuse there authority… facts
2026-08-21 00:49:04
0
policelawnews :
Thoughts?
2026-08-16 19:11:42
1
jensandreasen163 :
Cool
2026-08-16 21:51:51
0
ERDOC :
Love glove 🧤
2026-08-16 20:34:47
1
Joe250 :
I want those for my work 😂😂👏👏
2026-08-16 21:22:29
1
Mr_Blazed_Donuts_ :
hell yeah
2026-08-16 19:20:49
1
lea davidson :
brilliant
2026-08-16 20:26:41
2
bringemigbbmn :
These people don’t realize the gloves are neuroperipheral not neuromuscular… meaning it’s localized pain not a full body lock up. Compliance Technology has a terrible data retrieval system that has many glitches. They have not fixed their data storage system…it’s still in beta format and easily corrupted. Also officer can not retrieve their firearms while these gloves are active. If they are not “on” then they can retrieve their guns but it takes 3 seconds to turn it off before they can access their firearms. If they access firearms while it is “on” … and attempt to shoot they will be “zapped”
2026-08-16 19:43:03
0
tony norman :
great job ICE 👏
2026-08-16 21:54:44
0
Cop Incognito :
Hopefully, this would minimize the cosplaying agents from unnecessarily unaliving citizens 😳
2026-08-16 20:36:07
0
FEDboyHOUAOR :
20 million won't cover the whole of ICE so it's going to be certain units that gets them
2026-08-16 23:57:39
1
irmdog :
Hope nobody gets itchy balls.
2026-08-16 22:10:52
0
Scoobs :
Another tool to help them abuse people’s rights
2026-08-17 11:01:48
0
gene64gu6ui :
The mechanical design of these devices creates an immediate operational failure. Powering them on requires holding the button for just one second, making the conductive pads live. From that point forward, every single touch delivers a shock. In the middle of an active struggle, when is an officer supposed to take three continuous seconds to locate and hold down the off switch so they can actually secure the suspect? Leaving the device hot means the entire cuffing sequence devolves into continuous pain delivery. If every touch keeps shocking them, when is the suspect actually given the physical opportunity to stop resisting? Any resisting arrest charge involving these devices faces immediate dismissal in court. Prosecutors will not be able to establish a clean distinction between willful non-compliance and an involuntary biological reflex to unmetered, continuous electrical pain. The entire case unravels on cross-examination with one simple question: "Did you turn off your gloves before attempting to detain the suspect?" No twelve-person jury will accept the claim that every flinch, twist, and pull was intentional resistance rather than an involuntary reaction to live electroshock gloves kept on throughout the grapple. The defense will play the manufacturer's own promotional videos showing large, burly military personnel collapsing in agony. Expecting a suspect to endure that level of severe pain without reacting is completely unreasonable. Unlike a standard Taser, this device does not cause neuromuscular incapacitation that locks the body in place; it is pure pain compliance that naturally forces the body to thrash and pull away. While the underlying technology might hold utility in specialized combat or close-quarters military applications, it is catastrophically misaligned with domestic civilian policing. By turning standard protective gear into a concealed weapon, it completely destroys de-escalation: the moment officers put on standard black gloves, the public must assume a weapon is already drawn and live. If the goal is to provoke active resistance, this design guarantees it; but it does so by creating an unmanageable tactical failure rather than a defensible use of force. Any agency issuing these devices is setting its officers up for inevitable operational and legal failure. The legal and tactical pivot lies precisely in that point: the weapon does not actually have to be powered on to trigger a legally justifiable fear response. By making the tool indistinguishable from ordinary black duty gloves, the mere presence of the gear establishes an objective, reasonable apprehension of imminent pain: The Objective Fear Threshold: In criminal and civil law, self-defense and the justification for pulling away or flinching do not depend on the officer's internal switch state; they depend on what an objectively reasonable person in the citizen's shoes would believe. If the public knows an agency issues electroshock gloves, an officer reaching out while wearing them creates an immediate, reasonable belief that physical contact equals an electric shock. Destruction of the Visual Escalation Buffer: With a baton or Taser, there is a clear visual boundary between holstered and drawn. A citizen knows they are safe from the weapon until it is physically cleared from the holster. Weaponized gloves erase that line entirely. The weapon is effectively drawn the moment the officer puts on standard personal protective gear. Every routine gesture, direction, or casual touch carries the latent threat of an active strike. Inversion of Pre-Assault Indicators: In police incident reports, an individual backing away, tensing up, or raising their hands defensively prior to contact is routinely documented as a pre-assault indicator to justify a physical takedown. The stealth nature of the gloves flips this evidentiary logic entirely: the citizen's evasive movement is not preparation for an attack; it is an objectively rational attempt to avoid an unannounced electric shock. The Low-Visibility Defense: In nighttime or low-light environments, distinguishing standard leather duty gear from an active electrical weapon is visually impossible. An officer reaching toward someone in the dark with black gloves provides an open-and-shut legal justification for evasive movement. A defendant testifying, "It was dark, I saw black gloves reaching for me, and I thought I was about to be electrocuted," introduces immediate reasonable doubt that cannot be disproven. Destruction of the Benevolent Intent Narrative: The stealth profile permanently contaminates post-restraint handling. When an officer writes in an incident report, "I reached out to help the subject up" or "I placed my hand on them to roll them into a recovery position," it immediately runs into an equally credible defense: "I saw the gloves coming at me and thought he was reaching down to hurt me again." Every routine, stabilizing touch is reinterpreted as an impending shock. It completely flips the legal standard of self-defense and reasonable fear on its head: "Why did you push the officer away?" "He approached me wearing those gloves. I had no way of knowing his intentions other than assuming any physical contact was meant to electrocute me." "Why did you look so panicked on the body camera?" "Because I knew that even an accidental brush against my arm would feel like a sudden, severe electrical shock." By turning standard protective gear into a concealed weapon, the agency creates an inescapable legal and tactical trap. The citizen is forced to treat every routine approach as an active weapon deployment, while the officer loses the ability to execute basic, non-coercive physical handling without inducing panic and defensive resistance. Suggesting that an agency can bypass these issues by issuing the gloves to only one designated operator on a team collapses under basic tactical reality. When a suspect is surrounded by multiple officers, everyone is wearing standard black gloves. A citizen or reviewing jury cannot identify which specific set of hands houses the live contact pads, turning the entire contact team into six perceived electrical threats. Furthermore, if a single officer applies a live glove during a multi-officer grapple, the continuous shock induces involuntary thrashing that directly fights against the other officers attempting mechanical restraint. Compounding this is the extreme cognitive load placed on the officer operating the switch. Because the device lacks intuitive tactile feedback or an automatic safety cutoff, high-stress encounters force the officer into constant, dangerous micro-management. Diverting working memory in the middle of a fight to track timed button presses, such as wondering if the unit successfully activated in one second, if it powered off after three seconds, or if touching a partner or duty belt will cause an accidental shock, creates hesitation and tactical paralysis at the worst possible moment. Deploying an unmetered, stealth contact weapon also accelerates the push toward mandatory individual liability insurance for law enforcement. Commercial underwriters and municipal risk pools require verifiable telemetry, standardized cutoffs, and clear failure modes. Handing officers a device that can accidentally shock a bystander during routine contact, lacks duty-cycle data logging, and strips away qualified immunity creates an uninsurable liability profile that individual patrol salaries cannot carry. Adopting comic-book tech for the sake of tactical posturing does not make an agency more formidable; it simply guarantees a steady stream of lost prosecutions, tactical failures, and indefensible civil liability. The fact that this equipment has reached its fifth generation with virtually no widespread patrol adoption speaks volumes. Once agencies purchase these devices, review the mechanical limitations, and realize that drafting a legally defensible policy is impossible, the gear is quietly shelved in the armory. Department legal counsel and risk managers recognize that deploying a live contact weapon without rapid deactivation or granular auditing exposes the agency to catastrophic legal liability.
2026-08-18 02:01:24
0
To see more videos from user @policelawnews, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
