To answer the question from the OP, yes, I would. Of course it would depend upon the actual circumstances if I would follow such an order or not. If I caught someone trying to burn a food truck that was going to folks who were in desparate need, I'd probably shoot to wound, but wouldn't care that much if I was off a bit. However, if I was ordered to shoot anyone out after curfew, I'd probably let most folks get on their way home and risk being shot myself for doing it.
But hey, what do you know, found one:
Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers - following the earthquake of 1906, the troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into martial law service. Guards were posted throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated. The dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires, to prevent the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to shoot looters.
- If they're shooting at me, yeah.
- If they're a threat to a government asset such as an installation, or are rioting, then yeah.
- If they're a threat to a government official or head of state, yeah.
The question is not "would I shoot", the question is "is the order lawful". In the above 3 example, an order to fire would be lawful and would snap-to and execute it.
On second thought, in those examples, I probably would not need an order, I would probably fire without being prompted due to General Order #1.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-11-12 at 06:49 PM.
nah, I wouldn't should civilians...even if ordered to.
soldiers, government functionaries, bureaucrats, and politicians are fair game during a revolution, though.
do I agree the government has gone crazy and is tyrannical then yes I very well may protect myself and take arms against the problem.
do i think the government is fine and the people trying to take it over are crazy? then yes i will protect me and my family and may take arms against the problem