The Military's Belief, Not the Individual's: A Legal Defense for Veterans
By Dr. Correo Hofstad - USAF MDiv, JD, JSD Founder, Operation Restoring Valor
In the State of New Hampshire, the legal standard for self-defense often revolves around what a person "reasonably believes." For a civilian, this is a subjective assessment made in a moment of fear.
For a United States Veteran, this "belief" is not a choice. It is a programmed response installed by the United States Government.
Under Operation Restoring Valor, we assert that when a veteran identifies a threat, they are not guessing; they are executing a validated military protocol. The "choice" to believe a threat exists was made years ago in Basic Training, not in the split second before the engagement.
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 627:4 states that a person is justified in using non-deadly force when they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to defend themselves or others from imminent unlawful force. Deadly force is justified when the actor reasonably believes another person is about to use unlawful deadly force.
-
Civilian Belief: Based on fear, emotion, and limited experience.
-
Veteran Belief: Based on Rules of Engagement (ROE) and threat identification training.
-
The Defense: When a soldier acts, they are applying a federal standard of "reasonableness" that is far more rigorous than the civilian standard. Their belief is a recognition of facts (weapon + intent + delivery system = threat). Once the criteria are met, the response is mandatory, not optional. The military made the choice; the veteran is the instrument.
Since 2011, New Hampshire has been a Stand Your Ground state. The law explicitly states that a person who is anywhere they have a right to be "is not required to retreat" before using deadly force in self-defense (RSA 627:4, III(a)).
For a veteran, "standing ground" is not just a right; it is a General Order: "To take charge of this post and all government property in view."
-
Retreat is Dereliction: In military doctrine, abandoning a position without orders allows the enemy to flank and destroy the unit.
-
The Conflict: To ask a veteran to retreat is to ask them to violate their core programming. They stand their ground because they are trained that retreat equals death---for themselves and the community they protect.
While New Hampshire does not have a pre-trial criminal immunity statute as robust as some other states, RSA 627:1-a provides Civil Immunity. A person justified in using force is immune from civil liability for injuries to the perpetrator.
We do not wait for a jury. We file a Motion to Dismiss based on the justification defense.
-
The Argument: We present the veteran's DD-214 and training records to prove that their response was a "Programmed Response" to a lethal threat.
-
State Secrets: If the prosecution challenges the specifics of the training that conditioned this response, we invoke the State Secrets Privilege. We cannot explain why the veteran knew the threat was lethal without revealing classified tactical information.
New Hampshire allows force to defend a third person (RSA 627:4).
-
Forward Units: Many veterans served in units responsible for securing populations from insurgents. They view the American public as the "protected population."
-
Intervention: When a veteran stops a violent crime, they are not being a vigilante; they are executing a Force Protection mission. They are engaging a hostile actor to secure the safety of the community.
The United States Government spent millions of dollars to train the veteran to react instantly to lethal threats. In New Hampshire, we argue that this training constitutes the "Reasonable Belief."
The veteran did not choose to be afraid. The veteran recognized a threat profile and executed the solution. The choice was made by the military; the action was taken by the soldier.
Stand Your Ground. Trust Your Training. Restore Valor.