- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Okay, I'll shut up now 
Armed Medics
- Thread starter nsmedicman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just a comment...I am in the process of joining and have been a nurse for some time...I was asked during my interview if I would have any qualms about carrying and/or using a firearm...I replied, "of course not"
Although I have much to learn about the GC I still realize and accept openly the carrying and useage of firearms by medical personnel...if I didn't want to carry a firearm I could have stayed working in ER...that has it's moments and occasionally you wish you were carrying arms...he he he just kidding.
Although I have much to learn about the GC I still realize and accept openly the carrying and useage of firearms by medical personnel...if I didn't want to carry a firearm I could have stayed working in ER...that has it's moments and occasionally you wish you were carrying arms...he he he just kidding.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I have to admit I've learned more about the GC on this thread than I have in my 5 yrs in the CF. ;D
I'd just like to have something clarified though. If a medical facility is responsible for it's own protection ie; sentries, are we not then putting medics in a position that they will have to engage the enemy in a combat situation? I know it's unlikely in a conventional setting but in a "three block war" the enemy could all of a sudden appear on your rear echelon positions.
And in regards to offensive vs. defensive weapons dosen't it depend on how you employ the weapons that determine it's classification? So if I'm a sentry for my UMS I want something that I can defend myself, my trench partner, and my facility staff with and a C7 not going to cut it.
I'd just like to have something clarified though. If a medical facility is responsible for it's own protection ie; sentries, are we not then putting medics in a position that they will have to engage the enemy in a combat situation? I know it's unlikely in a conventional setting but in a "three block war" the enemy could all of a sudden appear on your rear echelon positions.
And in regards to offensive vs. defensive weapons dosen't it depend on how you employ the weapons that determine it's classification? So if I'm a sentry for my UMS I want something that I can defend myself, my trench partner, and my facility staff with and a C7 not going to cut it.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,722
- Points
- 1,110
The crew served weapon thing came up when we had armed armoured ambs in Yugo until about 93ish - the JAG quashed it (gives it a combat vehicle silhouette). I think the closest we might be able to get away with is a C-9, as it is not a crew served weapon (don't hold your breath though). Having said that though, when I was in 11 Med in Vic, we had an entitlement to a C-2, which was our equivalent then. The Command Surg Mobile Command (yes I'm dating myself) was rather put out with us during the Ryerson-Shillington that we had M-72's on our sentry posts as well as the C-2's though...
The sentries on the facility, though could become engaged, are in fact using the self/collective defence role though - they aren't actively going out to find bad guys (oops - can we in fact do clearance patrols on our own positions?). That's how we get away with that. A great big legal conundrum - but as the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
MM
The sentries on the facility, though could become engaged, are in fact using the self/collective defence role though - they aren't actively going out to find bad guys (oops - can we in fact do clearance patrols on our own positions?). That's how we get away with that. A great big legal conundrum - but as the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
MM
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Ok thanks for that.
It's too bad that we have to be afraid of legal repraisals, physical harm or death because of the GC. If the GC was deemed unnecessary then we would only have to worry about the latter two. ;D
It's too bad that we have to be afraid of legal repraisals, physical harm or death because of the GC. If the GC was deemed unnecessary then we would only have to worry about the latter two. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
At the risk of repeating myself, I say again that I am in constant amazement at the change of procedures and attitudes existing today as opposed to my time some 50 years ago. The biggest joke in Korea was the bulletproofing provided by the GC cards. China and North Korea did NOT honour anything except themselves. We were all armed and expected to use them as required. When I was with Dog Co'y, 2 RCR and sent on patrol with the company, I was expected to both defend myself and when required to be offensive, (more so than usual). Red Cross arm bands? We didn't even know where in the stores system they were. I don't know of any medical type there who ever wore one. All MO's carried sidearms, and when I was at the RAP with 1 RCR I had to know where my weapon was at all times. As for vehicle markings-- when at 25 Fd Amb ADS, we lost an ambulance to an antitank rocket in the engine compartment one night, killing medic and driver, but all patients survived. With 4 huge crosses on a 15cwt vehicle, even at night it was easy enough to spot.
At 74, I don't see what the problem is. Certainly the main job is to preserve the lives of others as we (you) are trained to do, but for God's sake, CYA at the same time. Common sense should be the prime factor here.That's why you have basic training etc. The bad guys are NOT going to change their point of aim just because you may wave the GC card at them or wear the Red Cross/Crescent/ what have you. It is only a minor, capitalist nuisance. I am still a peaceful type, do not believe in war, but if anyone comes on my patch, I'll fight to preserve it and worry about the wounded later. 'nuff said. "Pro Patria"
At 74, I don't see what the problem is. Certainly the main job is to preserve the lives of others as we (you) are trained to do, but for God's sake, CYA at the same time. Common sense should be the prime factor here.That's why you have basic training etc. The bad guys are NOT going to change their point of aim just because you may wave the GC card at them or wear the Red Cross/Crescent/ what have you. It is only a minor, capitalist nuisance. I am still a peaceful type, do not believe in war, but if anyone comes on my patch, I'll fight to preserve it and worry about the wounded later. 'nuff said. "Pro Patria"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Elder Medic,
Thank you for your input. Your experience is always of value.
What you had to deal with in that theater of war is similar to what we as medics face today in Afghanistan. And hence, our attitudes should be much of the same. Having, knowing and understanding the "book" rules is essential in our roles. We should always strive to follow the rules and maintain the highest standards. A lot of the rules and emphasis on following the GC came as a result of peacekeeping operations (pko) where the belligerents looked at us to ensure we would follow the rules to the letter, before they actually would. If we as the the third party would not follow the rules of war, why should they? Unfortunately now, the leadership has not caught up to the fact that we are no longer engaging in traditional pko's, and that certain rules and now not followed by the belligerents. Also due to political considerations, maintain the highest standards of conduct, ensure that we are cya from the home front as well.
Of course, the further you are from CFMG HQ and the closer to the first line support you are, the more those rules are blurred. And, what good are rules if you are dead?
Just to put the case and point on this discussion between what the rules are and how they are followed:
As the NCO IC of a medical section (UMS) I must ensure that my subordinates understand and follow the rules of the GC as they pertain to us. But at the same time, my medics who support the rifle coys of 3 RCR do not wear the cross in the field...but they all do carry a brassard in their med pack, so that if they are captured as POW they can act in accordance with the GC.
Double standard, sure. But we still must know what the rules are and how they are supposed to work.
Thank you for your input. Your experience is always of value.
What you had to deal with in that theater of war is similar to what we as medics face today in Afghanistan. And hence, our attitudes should be much of the same. Having, knowing and understanding the "book" rules is essential in our roles. We should always strive to follow the rules and maintain the highest standards. A lot of the rules and emphasis on following the GC came as a result of peacekeeping operations (pko) where the belligerents looked at us to ensure we would follow the rules to the letter, before they actually would. If we as the the third party would not follow the rules of war, why should they? Unfortunately now, the leadership has not caught up to the fact that we are no longer engaging in traditional pko's, and that certain rules and now not followed by the belligerents. Also due to political considerations, maintain the highest standards of conduct, ensure that we are cya from the home front as well.
Of course, the further you are from CFMG HQ and the closer to the first line support you are, the more those rules are blurred. And, what good are rules if you are dead?
Just to put the case and point on this discussion between what the rules are and how they are followed:
As the NCO IC of a medical section (UMS) I must ensure that my subordinates understand and follow the rules of the GC as they pertain to us. But at the same time, my medics who support the rifle coys of 3 RCR do not wear the cross in the field...but they all do carry a brassard in their med pack, so that if they are captured as POW they can act in accordance with the GC.
Double standard, sure. But we still must know what the rules are and how they are supposed to work.
Similar threads
