system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The DOJ can and should effectively ban chokeholds without constitutional action by prosecuting officers who injure or kill suspects by using them.

The officers involved in the Floyd case has already been indicted by the DOJ, and they likely came close to indicting the officer who killed Garner (although they wound up getting stalled by anti-indictment career prosecutors until a Republican could take office, and a later judge ruled the chokehold to be unintentional - which would make reopening that one difficult). Using the logic in the Floyd federal indictment as well as those prosecutors and elected officials (including the sitting Vice President and much of the Civil Rights Division) who supported charges in Garner, the US Department of Justice should make it clear that chokeholds that kill or injure will be treated as a civil rights violation.
gpt
The issue is that doing so removes one of the few uses of force that police have that is by design non lethal. You leave police with tasers, which often fail, or riot control ammunition that most groups already seek to ban. Do you expect them to just let someone go when they resist? At this point you leave them with faulty nonlethal gear or an incredibly lethal firearm. Chokeholds, when taught and used correctly, are the perfect nonlethal technique to be used on a resisting suspect. Chokeholds temporarily cut of blood flow to the brain forcing unconsciousness while also leaving no detrimental aftermath. 

You shouldn’t be advocating the banning of chokeholds and should instead be advocating for the proper teaching of chokehold techniques.