# Refusing a Direct Order from Your Supervisor
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [June 17, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801 "2015-06-17T23:37:57Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/21 "2015-06-18T15:05:01Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> Since we’re in the realm of fiction now, why couldn’t vader just use the force to fire the weapon? Hell, why couldn’t he just force-choke the whole planet?
>
> Back to your original, real life question, I think you answered it yourself. It would depend on the situation/details.
It’s force chokes all the way down.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/22 "2015-06-18T15:17:04Z")
> [@ssgenius](#):
>
> I think even Vader would have troubles force choking an entire planet. Otherwise why build this station
Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
---
### Author:  [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/23 "2015-06-18T16:25:10Z")
> [@ssgenius](#):
>
> That brings up a good point, during 9/11 the 2 fighter jets following United 93 were strongly considering ramming their planes into United 93 but it crashed before they had the chance
>
> I think they were going to ram because they were sent up for observation and didn’t have any missiles
That has been confirmed with [interviews](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44459345/ns/us_news-9_11_ten_years_later/t/kamikaze-f--pilots-planned-ram-flight/#.VYLvZflViko)with one of the pilots, Lt Heather Penney. She flew one fighter jet while her commander, Col. Marc Sasseville flew the other on the intercept mission. Each jet had only 105 rounds of lead nosed bullets - not enough to count on taking down the plane.
Sasseville planned to ram the cockpit and Penny planned to hit the tail. They hoped to be able to impact and simultaneously eject.
> [@](#):
>
> “We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We would be ramming the aircraft, because we didn’t have weapons on board to be able to shoot the airplane down,” Penney told C-SPAN.
---
### Author:  [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/24 "2015-06-18T16:38:21Z")
> [@ssgenius](#):
>
> Thanks for the answer. What I was trying to get at is the grey area where the local commander has a closer view of the situation and counteracts his superior’s orders because he thinks they are wrong
I think this gets played up to ridiculous levels in pop culture. Hollywood always thinks that the “perfect soldier” will include unquestioning obedience to every order. In describing the “perfect soldier” Hollywood will never list the ability to do creative problem solving and to work with a team of individuals to make sure an optimal solution is arrived at. Hollywood really does believe it’s all top-down blind obedience.
In real life, two things often prevent this from happening:
1. Orders are somewhat vague or flexible, leaving the local commander enough leeway to make use of his “closer view.”
2. The local commander and other leadership have a conversation about how the closer view might impact the orders and operational objectives. They work together to come up with a solution. No one in the military wants to throw out intelligence from the folks on the ground or follow a set of orders that no longer match the situation.
Of course, there are times when you need to just do what you’re told because you don’t know the full situation or you don’t have time to discuss it in committee (there’s a little Star Wars reference for you folks). In those cases, you fall back on the obligation to obey any lawful order and you use the military code to define what lawful order means. There is a point at which having everyone on the same page is necessary even if each person has a limited view of why.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/25 "2015-06-18T17:32:38Z")
[QUOTE=ssgenius]
I suppose they would find someone else who could fire but suppose only the commander had the code to fire the weapon.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t imagine a military deploying a weapon in wartime that only one person on board could fire. What if he gets killed?
Sealed orders are one thing, but the captain better keep a copy of the instructions in his safe, and let his second-in-command know where the key is.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/26 "2015-06-18T18:17:17Z")
I’m reminded of the ST:TNG episode, where Troi is trying to earn her Lt Comm pips. She’s thrown into a holodeck scenario where the ship is under attack or something blew or Wesley let loose nanos again and she has to rescue it.
The catch is, the only way to save the ship is to send Geordi into a (radioactive? I can’t remember the details) filled Jeffries Tube to technobabble something, knowing he will die. The captain’s first responsibility is to the safety of the ship, individual lives do not matter if it will save the ship.
So, I guess I’m asking…are commanders and higher officers trained to give that order? To order someone to go on a (most likely if not definite) mission that will result in their death to serve the greater good?
---
### Author:  [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/27 "2015-06-18T18:44:08Z")
> [@kopek](#):
>
> If it is flat-out a “suicide mission and everyone will be considered dead” it’s not legal. You can volunteer for something like that, but you can’t be ordered to do it.
Do you have a cite for this?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/28 "2015-06-18T20:18:03Z")
> [@Obtenebrate](#):
>
> An unlawful order is one that violates the laws they’re required to obey, so knowing the difference comes down to knowing the laws. The UCMJ gets taught in bootcamp and copies are posted all over the place, my friends who were deployed in the marines and national guard talked about getting the basics of the laws of war explained to them, and I would hope officers would get instruction on the entire text of it. There’s also local laws to contend with. If you can point to a specific law (that applies to the situation) that prohibits the action you’re being ordered to do, it’s an unlawful order and you have a duty not to obey.
>
> But fundamentally, there is still room to interpret laws in different ways, and sometimes it takes a judgement call when to refuse an order if it isn’t entirely clear whether it is lawful or not. At that point, you go with what you think is the right choice, even if you get court martialed as a result.
I’m just thinking it must be difficult for recruits to know the difference between a situation where they should trust that their officers know what they’re doing and a situation where they should disobey the orders their officers are giving them.
Coincidentally, I was just reading about the Amritsar massacre a couple of days ago and the author pointed out that the troops that shot into the crowd were mostly new recruits.
---
### Author:  [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/29 "2015-06-18T22:17:08Z")
Thanks for your responses. I did learn a lot from this thread
---
### Author:  [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/30 "2015-06-19T01:38:04Z")
If you are court martialed for disobeying a lawful order, is it an affirmative defense that you had legitimate reason to believe that the order was NOT lawful? That is to say, would you be punished for making a reasonable decision just because you were mistaken?
---
### Author:  [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/31 "2015-06-19T01:39:41Z")
> [@kopek](#):
>
> OK, this gets into fine points discussed in a class lots of years ago, and from the standpoint of the Army, but ----
>
> Legal or not would depend on survivability. If your superior has plans for rescue and there is a chance for rescue, it is legal. If it is flat-out a “suicide mission and everyone will be considered dead” it’s not legal. You can volunteer for something like that, but you can’t be ordered to do it.
In practice, fighting as infantry in ww2 was a suicide mission for a large fraction of the soldiers, was it not? I thought average combat survival times were measured in minutes.
---
### Author:  [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/32 "2015-06-19T01:41:21Z")
> [@Loopus](#):
>
> If you are court martialed for disobeying a lawful order, is it an affirmative defense that you had legitimate reason to believe that the order was NOT lawful? That is to say, would you be punished for making a reasonable decision just because you were mistaken?
More or less. You would have to prove to a group of military officers who are unlikely to see things the way you do that you had a reason to think the order was unlawful. The classes I took on it in the army basically say that you better be darn sure the order is illegal before you refuse, and I have the impression that following an illegal order, so long as it is not so clearly illegal that there isn’t a grey area, is safer than not following it.
For instance, if your officer orders you to shoot a tied up civilian in the head, unlawful. If he orders you to hotwire a civilian car, stealing it, it’s probably safe to obey even if it may be technically illegal (seizing of civilian assets in a war when you need it expediently is probably ok, and in Iraq/Afghanistan, those civilians do not have Constitutional rights)
---
### Author:  [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/33 "2015-06-19T02:20:03Z")
> [@Iggy](#):
>
> That has been confirmed with [interviews](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44459345/ns/us_news-9_11_ten_years_later/t/kamikaze-f--pilots-planned-ram-flight/#.VYLvZflViko)with one of the pilots, Lt Heather Penney. She flew one fighter jet while her commander, Col. Marc Sasseville flew the other on the intercept mission. Each jet had only 105 rounds of lead nosed bullets - not enough to count on taking down the plane.
>
> Sasseville planned to ram the cockpit and Penny planned to hit the tail. They hoped to be able to impact and simultaneously eject.
That is the interview I was thinking of. Thanks
Interesting in that these pilots were likely to do this on their own initiative. Also interesting in that there was a chance that the pilot of United 93 could have been Heather’s father
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/34 "2015-06-19T05:07:19Z")
> [@Habeed](#):
>
> In practice, fighting as infantry in ww2 was a suicide mission for a large fraction of the soldiers, was it not? I thought average combat survival times were measured in minutes.
Certainly not minutes. If that had been the case, entire armies would have been disappearing.
But it is true that if you were a WWII infantryman who was up on the battle line, you had a better than even chance of being killed or seriously wounded.
A WWII infantry unit would have around 10,000-15,000 men. About a third of that number would be line infantry, which would be taking the majority of casualties. A typical division in a combat theater would take about fifty or sixty casualties a day on average. So as a ballpark figure, if you were a WWII infantryman you had on average about a one percent chance of being killed or seriously wounded for every day you were on the line.
One percent doesn’t sound too bad until the days start adding up. If you were a soldier who went into combat in June 1944, you might stay in combat until Germany surrendered in May 1945 - that’s over three hundred days.
---
### Author:  [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/35 "2015-06-19T05:26:21Z")
> [@kopek](#):
>
> This. And the emphasis on _lawful_ for the military. In the examples in the OP the ship sacrifice is probably a legal order depending on exactly how its worded (the sailors could man rafts and escape in theory with just volunteers left behind) but shooting down an unarmed civilian airliner or plane is a lot tougher…
Good point. One thing that may be relevant is the difference between an unlawful order and a _stupid_ order. AFAIK, a stupid order (that is not otherwise unlawful) is 100% valid, as otherwise you would have the absurd result of every soldier suddenly considering themselves as an expert in everything and coming up with reasons why various orders are, in their opinion, “stupid”. You can’t run an army of 100,000 privates all bickering over whether sending troops into combat with “only” six magazines of ammo is, or is not, a good idea. Someone (usually the commanding officer) has to make the judgement call and everyone else has to respect that.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/36 "2015-06-19T06:00:04Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#):
>
> Good point. One thing that may be relevant is the difference between an unlawful order and a _stupid_ order. AFAIK, a stupid order (that is not otherwise unlawful) is 100% valid, as otherwise you would have the absurd result of every soldier suddenly considering themselves as an expert in everything and coming up with reasons why various orders are, in their opinion, “stupid”. You can’t run an army of 100,000 privates all bickering over whether sending troops into combat with “only” six magazines of ammo is, or is not, a good idea. Someone (usually the commanding officer) has to make the judgement call and everyone else has to respect that.
Tell me about it.
I remember when I was working in a prison. The guy in charge of fire and safety had written up this schedule for fire drills and it said that every building was supposed to run a fire drill every three months - on every shift. He worked an 8-4 shift so that probably made sense to him. And he got one of the executive team to sign it, so it was an official order.
I was the guy who ran the night shift - from 10:30 pm to 6:30 am. And I was now dealing with a policy that said I had to conduct fire drills in every building. Which included buildings like the school and the rec building that were never open at any point on my shift.
But it was an order. So I worked it out as well as I could. I couldn’t actually conduct a fire drill of an empty building. But I had one of my patrol officers sign out the key every three months and go down and check all the fire exits and alarms and make sure everything was working. Then I’d sign the monthly report saying we had done out scheduled drills.
This went on for a couple of years. Then at some point, one of the teachers noticed some of the stuff in her office was missing. She was in and out of her office all day so somebody probably went in while she see wasn’t there and took the stuff. But they conducted an investigation. And when they checked the key log they discovered a clue! It turns out that an officer on the night shift had been signing out the keys to that building every three months! Obviously, he had no reason to be there so he must have been going in there at night to steal things!
So at this point, I was brought in and I explained that the reason he had been signing out those keys was to conduct the fire drills. And that’s apparently the first time anyone in the administration noticed that we had been conducting fire drills for the last few years.
“Why are you doing fire drills on the night shift?”
“Because they’re on the schedule.”
“You shouldn’t be doing fire drills in the school. It’s not open on your shift.”
“I’m fully aware of that. But the school building in on the schedule.”
“But it shouldn’t be on the schedule.”
“Probably not. But I’m not the one who wrote the schedule and I’m not the one who signed it.”
“But you should have known it made no sense.”
“I knew it made no sense. But it was an order so I followed it.”
We went round and round on this until I finally got annoyed and said “Boss, are you telling me I don’t have to follow an order if I think it’s stupid?” And he obviously didn’t want to go there so the matter got dropped.
---
### Author:  [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/37 "2015-06-19T07:04:38Z")
Historically, there have been occurrences when marines and soldiers received orders to HOLD THEIR POSITIONS. It’s even more discouraging when that order is followed by FIX BAYONETS.
… or when there are no F-100s or F-4s for close air support, and all they have available are Buffs to take out an enemy postition 40 yards away from you.
---
### Author:  [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/38 "2015-06-19T13:51:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Tell me about it.
>
> I remember when I was working in a prison. The guy in charge of fire and safety had written up this schedule for fire drills and it said that every building was supposed to run a fire drill every three months - on every shift. He worked an 8-4 shift so that probably made sense to him. And he got one of the executive team to sign it, so it was an official order.
>
> I was the guy who ran the night shift - from 10:30 pm to 6:30 am. And I was now dealing with a policy that said I had to conduct fire drills in every building. Which included buildings like the school and the rec building that were never open at any point on my shift.
>
> But it was an order. So I worked it out as well as I could. I couldn’t actually conduct a fire drill of an empty building. But I had one of my patrol officers sign out the key every three months and go down and check all the fire exits and alarms and make sure everything was working. Then I’d sign the monthly report saying we had done out scheduled drills.
>
> This went on for a couple of years. Then at some point, one of the teachers noticed some of the stuff in her office was missing. She was in and out of her office all day so somebody probably went in while she see wasn’t there and took the stuff. But they conducted an investigation. And when they checked the key log they discovered a clue! It turns out that an officer on the night shift had been signing out the keys to that building every three months! Obviously, he had no reason to be there so he must have been going in there at night to steal things!
>
> So at this point, I was brought in and I explained that the reason he had been signing out those keys was to conduct the fire drills. And that’s apparently the first time anyone in the administration noticed that we had been conducting fire drills for the last few years.
>
> “Why are you doing fire drills on the night shift?”
> “Because they’re on the schedule.”
> “You shouldn’t be doing fire drills in the school. It’s not open on your shift.”
> “I’m fully aware of that. But the school building in on the schedule.”
> “But it shouldn’t be on the schedule.”
> “Probably not. But I’m not the one who wrote the schedule and I’m not the one who signed it.”
> “But you should have known it made no sense.”
> “I knew it made no sense. But it was an order so I followed it.”
>
> We went round and round on this until I finally got annoyed and said “Boss, are you telling me I don’t have to follow an order if I think it’s stupid?” And he obviously didn’t want to go there so the matter got dropped.
Nice story…except it actually proves the opposite of what you hoped it would.
Just because you or your supervisor believe something is stupid, it doesn’t make it so. It’s kinda the reason why we don’t allow the inmates to run the asylum.
In fact, the U.S. the National Fire Code requires both monthly and quarterly fire alarm tests. So, it’s the Law.
It also requires regular quarterly fire drills which should conducted during all shifts of the day.
While running a fire drill in a building that’s unoccupied at the time may seem odd, running a test of the alarm system when it is completely unoccupied is usually the ideal situation.
---
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/39 "2015-06-19T14:02:14Z")
> [@dracoi](#):
>
> I think this gets played up to ridiculous levels in pop culture. Hollywood always thinks that the “perfect soldier” will include unquestioning obedience to every order. In describing the “perfect soldier” Hollywood will never list the ability to do creative problem solving and to work with a team of individuals to make sure an optimal solution is arrived at. Hollywood really does believe it’s all top-down blind obedience.
>
> In real life, two things often prevent this from happening:
>
> 1. Orders are somewhat vague or flexible, leaving the local commander enough leeway to make use of his “closer view.”
> 2. The local commander and other leadership have a conversation about how the closer view might impact the orders and operational objectives. They work together to come up with a solution. No one in the military wants to throw out intelligence from the folks on the ground or follow a set of orders that no longer match the situation.
>
> Of course, there are times when you need to just do what you’re told because you don’t know the full situation or you don’t have time to discuss it in committee (there’s a little Star Wars reference for you folks). In those cases, you fall back on the obligation to obey any lawful order and you use the military code to define what lawful order means. There is a point at which having everyone on the same page is necessary even if each person has a limited view of why.
This is very true. When I was in the military, orders were always supposed to include the “2-up” intent when delivering orders. 2-up being your commander and your commander’s commander. Now, of course each level up is kept more concise. There’s no need to get into the all the little details of the your commander’s commander’s intent. But it is very useful to have an understanding of what they are trying to do. We were also taught to always ask when the situation changes “Would my commander have given me the original set of orders if he had known about the situation as it is now?” And understanding the overall intent is what allows you to answer that question reasonably well.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801/40 "2015-06-19T14:10:19Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> Hell, why couldn’t he just force-choke the whole planet?
I assume instead of crying out in terror, they’d just gasp and sputter a little.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-a-direct-order-from-your-supervisor/722801.md?page=3)