Woman medic heads up TA advert

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/3566757.stm

A volunteer soldier who treated a wounded Iraqi and then had to fire at the man's brother is to feature in the Territorial Army's new advert.
Cpl Danielle Neighbour, the head medic of C Company of the East of England regiment, treated a man with a gunshot wound at a wedding in Iraq.

The Iraqi had been shot by his brother after an argument.

Later Cpl Neighbour, 23, from Northampton, had to use her gun when the brother returned, firing his gun.
Good skills and drills that soldier :D
 
#2
"I put warning rounds over his head to suppress his fire while the others tried to scramble up behind him to snap on the cuffs."
8O

Much respect to them, sneaking up behing an armed gunman in order to slip some handcuffs on him sounds a tad risky.
 
#5
Members of the Army Medical Services are armed in order to protect themselves and their patients. If someone is contacted whilst wearing the Red Cross they are fully within their rights to return fire. Have you done your LOAC ITD?

Has anyone get her number? She sounds very feisty, outside the chain of command etc...
 
#6
SanFrancisco49ers said:
Thought medics only carried arms for personal protection?
no we dont only carry arms for protection, we use condoms too!!
 
#8
Civilian_In_Green said:
"I put warning rounds over his head to suppress his fire while the others tried to scramble up behind him to snap on the cuffs."
8O

Much respect to them, sneaking up behing an armed gunman in order to slip some handcuffs on him sounds a tad risky.
What's all the b0110cks about warning shots?? If the threat is deemed enough to use firearms then they should have been used to 'take out' the threat.

The British Army way has always been that firearms = lethal force. Once the locals know that they are going to get warning shots people, and I mean our people get hurt. Look what happened the other day when the local Iraqi Police used shots over the crowds heads to try and disperse a nasty crowd. Our lads were getting hit by petrol bombs and grenades and getting hurt.

Stick to the drills, and don't use examples of bad drills as adverts just because they got away with it this time.
 
#10
And she's a Medic, not an infantryman.

It was a wedding feast, so god knows what would have happened if she'd dropped him. As it is, in co -operation with others, she got down 5 rounds rapid and matey legged it.

No one else hurt, no one dead.

A result.
 
#11
PartTimePongo said:
And she's a Medic, not an infantryman.

It was a wedding feast, so god knows what would have happened if she'd dropped him. As it is, in co -operation with others, she got down 5 rounds rapid and matey legged it.

No one else hurt, no one dead.

A result.
It doesn't matter if she was a medic, infantryman or a bottle washer, she's a trained soldier first.

It doesn't matter if it was a wedding feast, middle of a battle or on the streets of Belfast. If the threat is deemed enough to use lethal force then single aimed shots should have been used, aimed at the center of mass of the target. Which would have killed him if they had hit.

"No one else hurt, no one dead." But leaving the locals thinking that the British soldier is a crap shot or will give armed offenders a chance. Like I say the next squaddie caught in a similar situation might not get away with it.

And as for saying "god knows what would have happened if she'd dropped him" is just going to prove that the action wasn't thought out. If the crowd had turned nasty because she'd started shooting at a wedding, just think, everyone who got angry and grabbed their AK would have it in their heads that the "British soldier is a crap shot or will give armed offenders a chance". If that had happened then I'm sure she wouldn't be in an advert for the TA.
 
#12
She made the call, maybe not the one she should have but she was there on the ground, and as you said PP shes a trained soldier, and chose what was clearly the best course of action for that situation.

Well done her
 
#13
Plant Pilot wrote

What's all the b0110cks about warning shots??
Right!

Maybe it was right for this occcasion, by luck, fortune, Allah willed it, whatever! But God (Allah) forbid it becomes written in to the Rules of Engagement.

Even Matelots are taught that there is no such thing as warning shots. Warning shots are an advert that you're sh1tting bricks,
they waste ammunition and they let the bastards get closer to you. Your warning shots may be the only shots you get off before your weapon has a stoppage...just when you need to fire the rounds that will save you and your oppo's bacon. Well, so said the Bootneck who taught me. Perhaps he didn't subscribe to fluffy give peace a chance love thy neighbour ethic either.

Which innocent bystander gets the warning round on the swede on its way down, or is otherwise unfortunate enough to be on its trajectory?

Sergeant Bootneck did say that the only thing more dangerous than an officer with a map was, Jolly Jack with a rifle. :oops:

Woman medic heads up TA advert
I know you are just repeating the BBC headline PTP, but '....heads up....' is another example of Staff College/Business Gobbledygook. :roll:

Her face may feature in it but her head is not up it. Nor is she in charge of it. :wink:
 
#14
I put warning rounds over his head to suppress his fire while the others tried to scramble up behind him to snap on the cuffs
Warning shots? B0llocks, - she's a crap shot just like me!! :D
 
#15
Plant-Pilot said:
she's a trained soldier first.
isnt she a reservist? only weapon training she probably had was at chilwell just before deployment.

Also, did you see that programme about what it takes to kill on telly the other day? talked to people who had been in contacts from WW2 to present day and there was a really high percentage that actually aimed high on purpose so that they wouldnt have another persons death on their conscience.
 
#16
I saw that programmae TURP - only 2% of human beings are capable of killing an enemy we've seen. 1% of the 2% can because they are psychotic the other 1% are "perfect killing machines" - capable of killing and then living a sane non-psychotic life.

However rehearsal of the act of killing has improved the percentage enough for armies to be effective - its just the problem the soldiers have afterwards when their mind has to live what their body has done.
 
#18
Prodigal said:
This supports something I read years ago - some USA research which showed that, on average, only 25% of soldiers under fire return effective fire - the rest just keep their heads down!
SLA Marshall's post-WWII study "Men Against Fire". He also made a set of recommendations as to how soldiers should be trained, compared with how they had been until then.

As a result, the US Army completely changed how it carried out its basic training; for instance, learning marksmanship using "figure" targets (i.e. fig.11 and fig.12) rather than an unrealistic black aiming mark on a white background....

By Korea, the estimate was that 50% of the US infantry were firing effectively, and by Vietnam it was more than 90%.

manchestermonkey said:
I saw that programmae TURP - only 2% of human beings are capable of killing an enemy we've seen.
Sounds like the programme borrowed heavily from Grossman's "On Killing" - a very interesting book.......
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316330116/?tag=armrumser-20

As others have pointed out, his theory was that the vast majority of the population can be trained to kill, maybe 2% of the population can kill at infantry distances without being screwed up by the experience.
 
#19
the programme was really interesting in the fact that it showed that we are trying to distance ourselves from the act of killing and therefore attributing the death to something else:
going from using your hands to using a rock, it was the rock that killed him not me.
then weaponary starting to put distance between combatants, swords to spears to arrows to rifles/pistols to artillery, missiles and aircraft.
 

Top