This is such a broad question whenever you're talking about "facing bullets in the field." Against who? Why? Are you legitimately at war under the Geneva convention? Or is it one of those "them or me" scenarios? Look at the Pacific fighting during the 2nd World War. The Japanese went into Nanking, China and raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of people in mere weeks, playing "catch" with babies on bayonets. In their case, this would be not just no, but HECK no! Now when you fast-forward just a couple years into the American entry in the war, most Pacific front line units found out the hard way why they shouldn't even take Japanese prisoners. The Japanese would pull grenades from who knows where and blow themselves up along with any Americans they could take down with them. If you were American and you got captured by the Japanese, they would butcher you alive and leave your body for all of your buddies to see, I would say yes for that instance. That's the literal definition of a "kill or be killed" scenario. When you face fanatics that want you dead, no matter if you surrender or fight, human rights are VERY hard to value when you'd be better off to die fighting than to surrender.
HUMAN RIGHTS IS DEDICATED TO PROTECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.AS UN IS OBSERVING EVERY YEAR WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY IN 10th DECEMBER.SOME OF THE POINTS WHICH WE HAVE TO FOLLOW WHILE FACING BULLET IN THE FIELD LIKE RESPECTING AND DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND MINORITY,FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW,TRYING TO MAKE JUSTICE AMONG THE PEOPLES,SO IF WE CAN FOLLOW SOME OF THE MAJOR POINTS IN THE HARSH CONDITION OF THE FIELD THEN I THINK WE CAN GIVE VALUE TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS.