Actually in the military the defense of "I was just following orders in not a viable offense. I just looked it up under the means of military personnel following "unlawful orders". In the military you take an oath to protect the Constitution and follow the orders of the president and your superiors. However what happens when your superiors give an unlawful order, like killing unarmed presumed innocent civilians? This phrase was most used during the Vietnam war when there were many cases of unlawful orders being presented to soldiers and the decision had to be made whether to follow them or not. In one case a platoon captain in 1968 in Vietnam supposedly was ordered to "lay waste" to a village under presumed orders from his commanding officer. The commanding officer had supposedly ordered this platoon captain to "kill every living thing”. When the platoon captain was in court after ordering his platoon to round up and gun down every civilian in the village, he used the defense of "I was just following orders". The defense did not stand and he was charged with 22 counts of murder, because even though he was following orders he was not following the Constitution and such within the constitution it is illegal for murder to occur. So in this scenario of the trooper we would be undergoing this very exact same sentiment. The trooper is ordered to kill presumed innocent civilians by the General Garza without any proof that they are dangerous other than the ramblings of a mad man. In this case, within military protocol this would be to stop an unlawful order from taking effect. You can choose the light side point and still be within the legal bounds of real military. I am adding both articles form where I referenced my points: https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey-an-order/ https://www.thebalancecareers.com/military-orders-3332819