Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

Thanks!!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote haha

>> ^sirex:

>> ^ShakaUVM:

Olbermann should take his own fucking advice on "vitriolic rhetoric", but that would require a higher level of cognitive function than he's capable of. He's an amazing fucking hypocrite.


I can only guess you missed the "i apologise for and repudiate any act or anything in my past that may have even inadvertantly encouraged violence".
....and i'm guessing that you missed it because you didn't watch it.

I watched the whole thing. I'm not directly talking about inciting people to violence, but using vitriolic words to create an "atmosphere of hate" that has him so up in arms. Olbermann is one of the angriest guys on television, so hearing these words come out of his mouth against vitriol was especially amusing to me.

The comment above me, for example, shows Sarah Palin brewing a hot cup of tea, which indicates they're unaware or uncaring the worst hatred and vitriol these days comes from people like Olbermann or Matthews, not weepy bastards like Glenn Beck.

What? There was a video here? Someone bounced their head off a brick wall? That's awful!
I must not have noticed with all the debate about geography and who gets angriest for being called something they are not.
>> ^residue:
Geography aside, did you see that guys head bounce off the ice?! That was awful!

^ That's what he does. He's the angry video game nerd. The angriest gamer you've ever heard!

Captain James Tiberius Kirk: The angriest masturbator in the universe.

He's the angriest trekkie you ever heard; he's the angry TNG nerd.

I'd downvote this if I could.

I have a neuromuscular disorder that confines me to an electric wheelchair. I've also worked for the disabled in many different ways (I won't post my resume). The percentage of people with disabilities who dislike the ADA is about the same as the percentage of scientists in the proper fields who think Climate Change is bunk or that there jesus was the son of god - but yet, Bullshit with it's Ayn Rand loving dogma would have you believe otherwise.

To be correct; many people with disabilities feel the ADA could be improved, but the "it could be improved" mentality isn't the "because it makes life for us more difficult" kind of improvement... it's the "give me more" type of improvement that Penn & Teller are very much against.

Do Penn & Teller really think Private and Public funding of things like:
- Ramps
- Wider Doors
- Bigger Bathroom Stalls with $20.00 grab bars
- Buses with access ramps for wheelchairs
- Blue Paint on Pavement
- Cuts in curbs so wheelchairs can get on them
- Electric Door Buttons

Shouldn't exist? These type of improvements don't hinder the able-bodied, and their costs in existing constructions are almost negligible.

If we can't access sidewalks because of those little cuts in the sidewalks should we pay ourselves to have it done? Or should we drive in the middle of the road with the cars? Or should we bring a little ramp with us everywhere? Or should we just stay at home and wait to die?

As for the rights issue of handicapped parking, just because the sign has a wheelchair doesn't mean people in wheelchairs use it. In fact, if you have a manual wheelchair or electric wheelchair you're probably pretty good at zooming from the very end of the parking lot where there is tons of space. Most people who use handicapped parking I find aren't visually disabled (unlike the characters in this episode of Bullshit). Handicapped parking is used most by people who can walk, but have troubles walking - thats why they get the close parking dibs. It's not a privilege because we are disabled in general that we get to park close, it's only for people who go to a doctor with a legitimate need to park close who can get the permission - just like only trucks filled with things get the dibs on the "loading and unloading zone only" parking dibs.

Seriously, this episode out of all them (and there are several that are bad) makes me the angriest. Can I do the disabled thing and ask someone to down-vote this for me on my behalf?

OMFG, ready to massively upvote just from the title.

*howto, *animation and *woohoo too!

Angriest videojug ever. Awesome.

angriest cd-rom drive ever.

No way- When I go on a video hunt, I keep text files of'em- a queue of videos to queue. Most of my published vids I got in probably two or three hardcore sifting sessions, where I'll watch dozens and dozens of CRAP videos to try and find each sifted one.

I don't think it would be something I'd be interested in. I'm jealous of my finds, and I think that others would agree. There is a certain level of cooperation to be found on VS, but some competition too. Farhad, for example, finds stuff (shpongle, what) that kicks my butt, but I think I've found a few that he digs too. We cooperate on some level, but we're also looking for the best vids for our own.

That leads to another interesting dichotomy. I'll be the first to admit- some of my sifts are pure "this will get lots of votes" - anything with richard dawkins, my penn&teller, etc. But then there are videos that I don't expect to even make it out of the queue, but I sift anyway- stuff that I feel is culturally significant, interesting , cool, or important for other reasons. Sometimes just videos that I find hilarious for my own reasons.
And so we have this dichotomy: On the one hand, anybody could post the daily show and get votes, but on the other, it's good to find quality content that would normally be missed.

To me, it is the mix of these elements that makes VideoSift strong- the "hot clips" that everybody on the internet has seen, along with the neglected super-cool "elite" gems that get passed over elsewhere.

So maybe you want to share your finds, but I'm keeping my hand close to my chest. They are my finds- and I'll sift them when my queue has room.

he is the angriest comedian ever. ever. george carlin has nothing on this guy.