Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode: Do We Have To Do This?

Date: January 8, 2026
Hosts: Jack Armstrong & Joe Getty
Podcast Network: iHeartPodcasts

Episode Overview

This episode centers around the aftermath of a controversial police shooting in Minneapolis involving an ICE officer. Armstrong and Getty dissect public reactions, political responses, the nature of media coverage, and the legal complexities surrounding the incident. The hosts express frustration with how quickly society jumps to entrenched, emotionally charged positions, emphasizing the need for adult, rational discourse and patient fact-finding rather than instant polarization.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Reluctance to Cover the Shooting & Media Cycle

Timestamps: 02:36–03:02

• Jack expresses hesitation: “Do we have to do this?”
• Joe jokes about contractual obligations to discuss it.
• Armstrong suggests that after controversial shootings, maybe the show should just take two days off to avoid contributing to the frenzy.
• Acknowledgment that stories like this engulf the news cycle and crowd out global issues like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia (09:35).

2. The “Rorschach Shooting” Effect—Societal Polarization

Timestamps: 03:14–05:20

• Joe introduces his coined term: “Our general manager is another Rorschach shooting.” (03:14)
• Jack notes how instantly, people interpret the footage through the lens of their biases:

  “Is that the way we live our whole lives, all of us, including me? Do I see everything through the lens of my prior beliefs?” (03:36)

• Discussion of Orwell’s notion:

  “The hardest thing for someone to do is to see what’s right in front of one's face.” (04:10)

• Joe: “To the extent that's not true of you or anyone else, that is the extent to which you are a rational human being.” (04:45)

3. Leadership, Political Posturing, and the Absence of Grown-Ups

Timestamps: 06:23–07:58

• Hosts lament how officials (the Minneapolis mayor, Kristi Noem, Trump, etc.) immediately take polarized positions:

  “We got no grown-ups. There are just no grown-ups anymore who feel like … 'It's an ongoing investigation. We're not going to comment.' Nobody does that anymore.” – Jack (07:16)

• Broad agreement that politicians speak as talk show hosts or Twitter accounts, not responsible leaders.

4. The Law vs. Morality and Emotion

Timestamps: 07:58–09:24

• Joe distinguishes between legal questions and moral/intent-based public reactions:

  “This is about the law... It comes down to some very specific legal questions. Now, if you want to make a bigger moral argument about what the law should be, that's a good conversation to have.” (08:59)

5. The Dangers of “Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes”

Timestamps: 10:19–11:09

• Joe iterates a life lesson: “Don't take like 10 steps down the road of something horrible might happen and then be shocked when something horrible happens. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” (10:19)
• Jack reflects: “I've played a lot of stupid games in my life… but never the big first prize where you drown in the ocean drunk in the middle of the night or … whatever it is I'm doing.” (10:53)

6. Media Coverage & Narrative Framing

Timestamps: 17:14–18:47

• Katie Green summarizes coverage:
  • ABC: “A state of terror and fear… accounts of the fatal shooting”
  • NBC: “Woman fatally shot by ICE agent identified as… out caring for her neighbors”
  • WaPo: “Woman killed by ICE… was a mother of three and a poet.”
• Hosts push back against headlines emphasizing her status as a mom or poet, stressing those details don’t affect legality:

  “The fact that she was a poet or a mom of zero or eight doesn’t have anything to do with. … That’s not good. It's not good that she's dead. But…”—Jack (17:56)

7. The Fixation on Intent and Policy, Not Facts

Timestamps: 26:11–29:29

• Joe reads tweets/emails reacting to the shooting, one from each side, illustrating polarized and often fact-free responses.
• Meta-commentary:

  “What if the Capitol Police had abided by the standards of MAGA commentators on the Minneapolis ICE shooting, half of the January 6 protesters would have been shot to death.” (30:04)
  “That is provocative.” —Jack (30:08)

8. The Race to the Bottom—Instant Outrage and Politicization

Timestamps: 31:12–32:22

• Jack, citing the Free Press, underscores how politicians rush out hot takes to get ahead of the narrative:

  “Too many politicians and senior bureaucrats have decided they must react to every tragedy according to the speed and logic of the Internet, which goads them to offer the most partisan take they can muster as quickly as possible.” (31:29)

• Joe: “Mayor Frey set the ugly tone … ‘I have a message for ICE: Get the F out of Minneapolis!’” (31:52)

9. Legal Substance—Definitions and Law in Minnesota

Timestamps: 36:10–37:50

• Joe gives the legal criteria for police use of deadly force in Minnesota:
  • “A peace officer may use deadly force only when necessary to protect … from imminent death or great bodily harm… or to arrest or prevent the escape of a person the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted a felony involving deadly force…” (37:00)
• Jack notes left-wing skepticism about using a car as a “deadly weapon”:

  “I saw that portrayed in one of the lefty news outlets yesterday as, like, rolling their eyes. Like, courts have determined that using your car, driving your car forward with an officer in front of you is assault with a deadly weapon. Like, that's just nuts to make that.” (36:40-36:57)

10. Big Picture: Societal and Political Stakes

Timestamps: 34:21–35:31

• Jack and Joe note most people’s position on the shooting is pre-determined by political feelings about immigration or Trump—details of the case are secondary.
• “If you think it's impossible for cops to do something wrong, you're nuts. And if you think the cops are always wrong in these shootings, you're nuts.” —Jack (35:37)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Confirmation Bias:
  “Is that the way we live our whole lives, all of us, including me? … Do I see everything through the lens of my prior beliefs or wishes so strongly that I'm incapable of really seeing things, truly?” —Jack Armstrong (03:36)

• On Rationality:
  “To the extent that that's not true of you or anyone else, that is the extent to which you are a rational human being.” —Joe Getty (04:45)

• On Public Officials Posturing:
  “We got no grown-ups. There are just no grown-ups anymore who feel like … 'It's an ongoing investigation. We're not going to comment.' Nobody does that anymore. … Everybody's a talk show host or a Twitter feed.” —Jack Armstrong (07:16)

• On the Purpose of the Law:
  “This is about the law ... It comes down to some very specific legal questions. Now, if you want to make a bigger moral argument about what the law should be, that's … good conversation to have. But ... I just find the whole thing frustrating.” —Joe Getty (08:59)

• On Life Lessons:
  “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” —Joe Getty (10:19)

• On Politicizing Legal Questions:
  “If you think cops can never do anything wrong, you don't know any cops. They'll tell you. Yes. Yeah, we do.” —Joe Getty (35:51)

• Summary on Legal Standards:
  “Driving your car and at an officer in a way that could hurt or kill them is absolutely assault with a deadly weapon against a peace officer. The penalties are rather severe. It is unquestionably use of deadly force.” —Joe Getty (36:10)

• On Media Framing:
  “The fact that she was a poet or a mom of zero or eight doesn't have anything to do with … what was the—who had the headline, though, about … she was out trying to help neighbors?” —Jack Armstrong (17:56)

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Opening: Reluctance and Contractual Obligations — 02:36–03:02
• Rorschach Shooting & Confirmation Bias — 03:14–05:20
• Leadership and Absence of Grown-Ups — 06:23–07:58
• Law vs. Emotion/Morality — 07:58–09:24
• Media Coverage and Headline Framing — 17:14–18:47
• Legal Definition of Deadly Force (MN Statute) — 36:10–37:50

Tone and Language

The episode weaves humor, sarcasm, and frustration throughout a substantive conversation. Jack and Joe remain skeptical and critical but work to maintain a measured perspective. They frequently highlight the absurdities of instant partisan reactions, advocate for rational and legal approaches, and weave in reminders not to conflate emotion or personal background with legal standards.

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode is a clear-eyed, often biting critique of America’s instant-gratification, outrage-driven media and politics. Armstrong & Getty push listeners to resist lazy partisanship—encouraging patience, skepticism, and rational inquiry, especially in moments of tragedy and controversy. The episode is especially valuable for those interested in how media shapes public opinion, the role of law in emotional circumstances, and the modern challenges of responsible leadership.

End of Summary