Well Tommy B was at it again Tuesday morning about 8:10am. Talking about an incident in Blaine where a couple of buddies where out walking around at 2:00am and got hit over the head with a Cognac bottle. One of the men hit just died, Tommy said something like it's too dangerous to be walking around, even Blaine, at 2:00am without a gun. Tommy said someone comes at him at 2:00am with a bottle, he'll shoot them in the leg, or something very similar.

I am not sure if this tommy person doesn't need to take a refresher course with Joel or some one...

Last I heard shooting at the legs was a bad idea, as you are likely to miss and endanger others or your self.

I think you miss the point that there is a bit of theater involved in putting on a radio show. While I'm sure his disgust for the crime situation is real, I have a feeling he plays up his responses a bit for the radio to get a rise out of people.

People forget that it, like any other radio program, is entertainment, not journalism or public service.

I often wish that the more journalistic 'style' used on NPR could be applied to a conservative/liberterian perspective. As it is, I can get serious news but with a leftist bent out of MPR/NPR, or I can get commercial entertainment with a righty bend, but I can't seem to get serious news with a right wing perspective without reading National Review or the like.

Yeah I take people to literally at times, but that kind of Hyperbole (spelling?) fuels the fires we fought getting the MCPPA passed.

Also I think I would bet money too, that if he ever shot anyone in self defence the Prosecutor would be playing those shows for the jury.

I really don't want a right or left wing slant on my news, more of a "Dragnet Slant" - "Just the Facts Ma'am/Sir". But like that is ever going to happen

That may be, but i think what he's doing is just voicing the small instinctual voice we all have in our gut. The voice that makes humans say things like "People like that should be dragged out into the street and shot".

While we would never act on such a thought and intellectually we don't mean it, on some base level there is a desire for things like this. I think we could all admit that on some level we think that perhaps the cops or a victim should be able to shoot a fleeing criminal.

Cripes now I sound like a damn shrink. Ugh!

I suspect that until sometime in the early 20th century, it wasn't considered inappropriate to pull a firearm and shoot someone who had just committed some crime against your person or property as they tried to get away.

I'm sure there was some built-in class bias (ie, rich guy blasting poor guy) and much of it was probably considered acceptable due to the lack of a protective police force as we know it today (*cough*), but in terms of the basic morality associated with it I don't think too many people blanched at the idea of shooting theives or more violent felons in the back as they tried to run away.

I sometimes wonder if we're not approaching another historically similar time where underfunded and politically handicapped law enforcement coupled with spiraling violent crime rates won't lead society generally back to the idea that people who commit crimes can and should be stopped with whatever force is available.

I think that the suffering that people might experience due to some loss of material goods might also encourage this -- for example, the $50 taken from the woman at the gas station might be the difference between making the rent and homelessness, and general opinion might be the the cumulative negatives from losing that money to a criminal outweigh the use of deadly force.

Well that may be the case, but I certainly don't go around thinking that, but then I a pretty weird person (or so I am told).

I just don’t think that a person should go venting his/her spleen in public like that. It does no one any good, except possible the station with ratings.

I have been robbed many times living in North Minneapolis and have lost many things that have more value to me then money (a fishing lure my grandfather bought me when I was six, for instance), even enough money that I had real trouble making rent, paying bills and even getting food to eat; but not once did I want the criminals dead over it, justice yes, but I would not have shot them or had them shot.

Oh well, being to literal again I guess or something...

Absolutely correct. As soon as you take a life because that person stole an object (or money) from you, you've placed a dollar value on human life. Aside from the moral implications, I'd rather not face a lawyer asking me something like ... "So Janitor (if that is your name), it would appear that you believe a human life is worth $178.57. Is that figure the same for everyone, or do you discount under certain conditions?"

I wish I had caught the show the last couple days - sounds like it might have been interesting. Thanks for posting the transcript Matt. Normally, I don't bother listening too often. Tommy B has alway struck me as a bit of a whiner.

Philosophically, it gets a bit complicated, I think. Imagine a situation where, for example, the money that you have on you is necessary to get a loved one a needed, life-saving operation. That is, in this hypothetical, quite literally the value of a human life.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that you know that there is no other way that this loved one will get that operation without that money that you have on you.

Do you kill the robber to prevent him from taking it?

More generally, I'm not in favor of killing somebody over property, as a general principle. I am, though, very much in favor of would-be robbers thinking that they might get killed if they try to take somebody's property, as it might persuade at least some of them do something else.

In any case, in Minnesota -- with the possible exception of defense of dwelling -- it's simply unlawful to kill somebody over a property crime, so that pretty much settles the practical matter.

Good hypothetical scenario Joel.

Wouldn't the intrinsic value of the money actually be the life it would save, not the dollar value in and of itself? I know this is purely focus/spin control, but it doesn't seem to belong in the same class as somebody running off with my rice maker.

But - as you point out - this is all moot. Outside the home you can only use deadly force to directly protect a life.

There is a clear line between protecting life and protecting property. Arguing the fringe of it is pointless and coincidentally, is the reason for juries.

I've always wondered, how many of the "unsolved" crimes out there are due to a lack of interest vs police ability? I'm not suggesting police are lazy, just (maybe) cognizent of the community service aspect of certain crimes?

You can download MP3s of a few days back at KQRS.com. The morning show is available streaming for two days, starting at about 1pm the day of the show.

You can listen back a few more days an url in this format:
http://abcrad.vo.llnwd.net/o1/kqrs/KQMo ... ow8111.mp3
(that 8111 is [August][11][part1 of 2])

Typing that little snip of transcript was a bear. I don't type quickly or accurately, and they talk quickly!

I could use some clarification here. If you are robbed by someone that is using a weapon, is that not concidered a threat to your life? Shooting a fleeing burgular or a car thief is one thing. Shooting someone who is threatening you with a weapon is something else.

As far as how much a humane life is worth. Mine is worth everything to me. If someone decides to threaten my life with the use of deadly force they (not I) have decided the worth of there life to me.

I could be mistaken, but I think you pretty much missed the point of that little side discussion - it had nothing to do with ones life being in danger.

It was about the fact that if one were to shoot a robber over a stolen object, that in effect they were setting a value on a human life (the value of the object, the life of the perp).