Read Transcript of RM143: Will Willman Undo Does v. Snyder feat Josh Hoe
Josh Hoe of Decarceration Nation and Twitter extraordinaire joined us this week for further discussion on the Willman case that we discussed in RM142. Josh is a very generous guest and always comes prepared to challenge Larry; and this I promise is a good thing! 🙂
We start off tackling a listener comment about being partisan, and where in the world did the Adam Walsh Act come from. The short answer is, not Joe Biden.
[27:40] A deep dive into the affects of the Willman decision
[58:12] Listener question from Daniel regarding IML
[1:05:25] Second is from Christopher. He wants to know about access to email in BOP.
Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477
Email us: firstname.lastname@example.org
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Follow us on Twitter: Twitter
Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/DAmupkf
Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters
5 thoughts on “RM143: Will Willman Undo Does v. Snyder feat Josh Hoe”
The sora act is a big waste of money and hasn’t really saved any victims from from any crimes but it has made several victims to the people are on the list victims of harassment and violence from the public and people that hate all sex offenders there’s no hope in most cases most the time they put people on it for life what is the incentive for somebody to want to change if they’re labeled that they’re just going to keep wanting to offend I don’t know if that makes sense to anybody reading this but it should if you if you call someone something they might as well live up to their name. I’m personally on the list for life for crime I didn’t even commit with no hope I ever getting off I’ve been harassed even by off duty cops and had a heck of a Time trying to find a place to stay due to the restrictions and can even visit my family and stay at their house because they live too close to a school so if anyone thinks that’s fair then there’s something wrong with that and I cannot find a decent job because nobody wants to hire sex offender or it’s too close to a school or school property
You won’t get any argument from anyone here. Hopefully we can work on getting things struck down. It’ll take a whole lot of us, and a lot of $ to get there.
The police question of when using deadly force to apprehend is allowable has already been settled before SCOUTS in Tennessee v Garner. Your discussion completely missed the legal boat here. It is a legal question not what you feel, like why shoot someone in the back. The officer will walk in this case. And the suspect has now admitted he had a knife in hand when he was shot. Hello?
“This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. ” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985).
I guess you’re suggesting then that if it is already settled, we shouldn’t challenge it, or the way we think.
IMO cops shouldn’t kill people unless there is pretty extreme circumstances. A knife is certainly a deadly weapon. But generally, it can’t be used at a distance. Not like a gun can.
It doesn’t miss the boat as you say though. The point is is that 1100 people are murdered by the police annually.
The Cops did’t kill anyone here. I didn’t suggest you missed the boat, I suggested you missed the “legal” boat, which you did. To miss president in legal use of deadly force is missing the legal boat. Enuf said.