Lest we forget that Crimea started when we sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine, right on Russia's doorstep. How provocative is that?

The thing to remember about Crimea is that it holds Sevastopol which is a strategically vital port for Russia, it is their only port that isn't ice locked during winter. We knew full well they would have to keep hold of it one way or another, and thankfully Russia found a democratic way of doing it instead of violent.

Under the circumstances I think Russia deserves credit for being so restrained.

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 But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things.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.

I have to almost physically restrain myself as most of my friends aren't the type to have watched the movie.

Did we watch the same video?

The officer's weren't 'just watching her get mauled and restraining her from defending herself', two of the officers were trying to pull her away from the dog and the third officer was trying to pull the dog off. If I was unlucky enough to get bitten, I'm not sure what more I'd want to officers to do. About the only faster way out is shooting the dog which is admittedly risky when it's still chewing on your arm.

Reverse the situation, the dog would definitely be dead and the owner charged with assault on a police officer if not shot.

Saying "You're fine, you're fine" while just watching her be mauled and even restraining her from defending herself is in no way acceptable. They need to suspend their k9 unit immediately, it's not safe or under control.

Your video, Ashland Cops Use Taser On Restrained 18 Year Old, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

We do see it quite differently.
To me, compared to the normal police reaction to belligerent disrespect, I found them not only restrained but polite.

Almost. The judge gives some, saying both are guilty of abusing their child by deriding it's other parent and she's guilty of withholding visitations. If he had physically abused them, no judge would give him joint custody, even if it was just an accusation....not here in America. Now if SHE was a physical abuser, maybe, our courts are quite sexist in these cases.

I can judge her on how she acts when she knows she's being judged by authorities, and extrapolate reasonably that this is the most restrained she's capable of being under scrutiny, and 99.999999% of people act worse when not being judged or supervised.

I also don't find it amusing, it's clear their child will suffer.

Come here is the very first thing the cop with the body can says to her. She responds with don't f'ing touch me, dodging back around him and trying to ride off on her bike. Officer then physically restrains and tells her she IS being detained. Pretty straight so far in support of the officer unless you think ignoring the police and resisting arrest is cool.

She had very good reason to be detained as from the only report so far, she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Whether she caused it or not, tracking down teenage girl on a bike isn't going to be easy without some manner of identification first. Maybe you and I disagree this fundamentally, but in the case of fleeing the scene of an accident, not only do I think police should physically prevent that, I believe private citizens should have the right as well.

And they didn't...ever. They intentionally blocked the road....for no reason...after the bike cut off traffic in the other direction by illegally crossing. To my eyes, that makes them the original offenders and the intentional assholes.
Honking at a douchbag walking in the middle of the road, seemingly oblivious on his phone, and yelling "move" seems quite restrained compared to most drivers here in America in the same position, imo.

I do agree, it seems overly convenient that they cross and turn around to be next to the puddle.

@vil Perhaps. It is also a standard exercise in acting classes.

Instead of the teacher calling things out, it is the participants who say something true about themselves. It is to teach students to be honest, and brave, and to see that they are not freaks. Much like this video. (Although how do you know this isn't real, this "ad"? People could have volunteered to do this. Although the single bisexual didn't ring true to me -- either folks were lying or it is indeed scripted.)

Anyway, in the acting exercise, instead of boxes on the floor, it is just people standing around. Someone calls out something true about themselves, and people who have done that join them, those who haven't move away and cluster together, so you end up with two groups. Constantly moving, constantly changing, the power shifting, the emotions shifting. It is great fun and can be scary as hell as you decide how honest you want to be. How honest you CAN be.

Two favorite memories of this exercise in classes I took:

1. A guy calls out -- "everyone who has ever peed in a sink". Every guy in the class joins him -- and one woman. We all about lost it.

2. Here in PT, small town, had a class with about 25 people in it. One brave man, Jim P, I'll never forget -- he had the bravery to call out -- "everyone who has ever had a restraining order placed against them." And everyone moved away from him and he stood there alone. Only time I have ever seen that happen, someone standing alone.

Nope nope nope nope.

Fuck that noise.

Even if she was fighting (which she apparently wasn't), the cop is easily twice her size, and (hopefully) a trained police officer. He should be able to restrain her without resorting to this kind of tactic.

Hell, even if he feels the situation is that out of hand that he is unable to restrain her, use pepper spray. At least that won't leave any lasting damage.

I don't disagree that his response was more than needed, but I don't expect someone who's been taunted and hit repeatedly (and I saw the shove as WAY more than a friendly Elaine style push, and the second hit looked to be to his neck/chin, not shoulder) to think it through and be restrained, but I do agree a good pimp slap may have sufficed....a call to the cops should be the proper response, but it's clear that wouldn't work for him in a white girl vs black man incident in real life.

All that said, I still say that if you start a physical fight and you lose, badly, that's never your victim's fault, it's yours, and genitalia have nothing to do with it (unless someone gets kicked in the balls). I know <100 lb women that brag about getting high and going to bars intending to fight men, and winning those fights. Assuming gender or size makes someone not dangerous is naive.
Edit: note, his first reaction was to walk away from the taunts, and his first reaction to the first shove/hit was verbal, so decking her was technically his second choice, or third depending on how you look at it. ;-)

Just say the words "I'm making a citizens arrest", and then you can absolutely destroy that motherfucker if he tries to leave....(from what I've been told, but I'm not a lawyer). I've been told by numerous parties including police that you may use any force required to effect the arrest, up to and including deadly force (but you damn well better be able to prove it was required if you don't want to be prosecuted for killing them).

Any follow up info on what ended up happening?

WIKI-In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance.[11][12]