M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 https://flixtc.com/uploads/lbLl94y6BOs.mp4 I'm crying, because all medical vehicles (and helicopters) are manned by armed units. I guess we all forget the law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greenfist 1863 Posted October 27, 2017 Please don't cry, I'm pretty sure it's very common and within humanitarian conventions for medical personnel to carry light weapons for self-defence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Greenfist said: Please don't cry, I'm pretty sure it's very common and within humanitarian conventions for medical personnel to carry light weapons for self-defence. Yeah, but the Red Crystal is a "protected symbol" and you are not permitted at anytime to fire upon a vehicle, person or building bearing the symbol, the medical staff manning said structures should be unarmed and non-combatant. I find it amusing that the driver of the medical HEMTT is not a medic, but an armed rifleman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redphoenix 1540 Posted October 27, 2017 Pretty sure Combat Medics carry weapons. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
das attorney 858 Posted October 27, 2017 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter7_rule25_sectionb Seems pretty clear to me. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, das attorney said: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter7_rule25_sectionb Seems pretty clear to me. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule25 Combat medics do carry weapons, but not when they're riding in the ICRC mobile.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
das attorney 858 Posted October 27, 2017 Your point being? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 1 minute ago, das attorney said: Your point being? Maybe we should put a medic in the medical vehicle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
das attorney 858 Posted October 27, 2017 How does that link have anything to do with who drives the truck? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 1 minute ago, das attorney said: How does that link have anything to do with who drives the truck? The rifleman who is armed is driving a sacred, protected symbol that you are not allowed to engage. The rifleman is a threat, and if he is driving it whilst armed the opposing forces will blow up the truck which is a violation of the geneva convention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
das attorney 858 Posted October 27, 2017 So do driver setCaptive true. Or replace him with a medical guy to suit the aesthetics of your mission. No point getting your knickers in a twist. Anyway, you're backtracking. First you say: Quote the medical staff manning said structures should be unarmed and non-combatant. Then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you start talking about the driver. It's a non-issue imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Glade 524 Posted October 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, das attorney said: So do driver setCaptive true. Or replace him with a medical guy to suit the aesthetics of your mission. No point getting your knickers in a twist. Anyway, you're backtracking. First you say: Then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you start talking about the driver. It's a non-issue imo. Never said medics are always unarmed. Never backtracked any of my statements. What I said, is that it would better fit the MEDEVAC categories of vehicles to manned by unarmed medical staff. Obviously this is a very small problem, not an issue like you said but something that can be changed simply and probably should. I mean we have a large DLC devoted to the "Laws of War" yet it is broken by NATO, the main "good guys". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
