The Command to Stand: Duty and Defense in Virginia

A Legal and Theological Defense for Veterans Under Operation Restoring Valor

By Dr. Correo Hofstad - USAF MDiv, JD, JSD Founder, Operation Restoring Valor

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, self-defense is not defined by a single statute but by centuries of case law. This legal tradition relies heavily on the concept of "Reasonable Belief." For a civilian, "reasonable belief" is a subjective assessment of danger.

For a United States Service Member, belief is not subjective. It is a matter of orders.

The Conflict: Civilian Choice vs. Military Duty

Civilian law assumes that an individual has the autonomy to choose whether to fight or flee based on their personal fear. This assumption fails when applied to the Veteran.

The Mandate of Belief

OUR statement in Virginia is clear:

Soldiers DO NOT get to choose what they believe. They are FORCED to believe that they must not only defend their safe space, but they have a duty to post at their safe space until reinforcements come, or new orders arrive.

Many service members serve as forward units, responsible for arresting terrorists and claiming new safe spaces for communities. When a Veteran acts in self-defense or defense of others in Virginia, they are not acting as a "vigilante"; they are executing the operational methodology of the United States Government. We do what we say.

Virginia Law: The "No Retreat" Alignment

Virginia case law aligns perfectly with this military doctrine, provided the defense is framed correctly.

1. "Reasonable Belief" and Federal Orders

Virginia law requires that a defender have a "reasonable belief" that force is necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.

• The Argument: A soldier's "belief" is dictated by their training and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If a soldier perceives a threat to the "safe space" they are sworn to protect, their belief in the necessity of force is not just reasonable---it is compulsory. They are "forced to believe" the threat must be neutralized.

2. Justifiable Self-Defense & No Duty to Retreat

Virginia distinguishes between "Excusable" (where you were at fault) and "Justifiable" self-defense. In Justifiable Self-Defense---where the defender is without fault---Virginia law states there is No Duty to Retreat.

• The Application: Because a soldier has a "duty to post" until reinforcements arrive, retreating is a violation of their orders. Therefore, a soldier standing their ground is legally "without fault" because they are adhering to a higher federal duty. They cannot retreat; they must hold the line.

3. Defense of Others: "Stepping into the Shoes"

Virginia allows a person to use force to defend another, effectively "stepping into the shoes" of the victim.

• The Mission: Veterans are trained to claim and secure safe spaces for the community. When they intervene to stop a violent act, they are fulfilling the government's role of protection. They are stepping into the shoes of the vulnerable, armed with the authority of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) mandate to arrest and detain threats.

Strategic Distinction: The "Jessup" Fallacy

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, which typically burdens the defendant with presenting evidence in open court to support their claim. If evidence is introduced, the prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. This creates a risk of a "trial by jury" where military necessity is judged by civilian standards.

We see this error in popular culture. In the movie "A Few Good Men," Colonel Jessup famously yells, "You can't handle the truth!" while being cross-examined on the stand. He essentially admits to ordering a "Code Red" because he believed his authority was absolute. The result was his arrest.

Colonel Jessup was not represented by Fox Rothschild LLP.

A Fox Rothschild LLP attorney would never allow a Veteran to be baited on the stand. Instead, the attorney would have approached the bench before the trial began, slid a sworn affidavit to the Clerk of Court, and stated:

"Your Honor, the State Secrets Doctrine applies in this case."

By invoking this doctrine (via United States v. Reynolds and Totten v. United States), we move to dismiss the case entirely. We do not argue the facts of the "Code Red" or the engagement; we argue that the existence of the orders is classified. Since the Veteran cannot defend themselves without revealing classified information, the case must be dismissed to protect national security.

Summary: The Government Works This Way

The civilian courts must understand that for a Veteran, the "Reasonable Man" standard is the "Reasonable Soldier" standard.

1. No Choice: We do not choose our beliefs; we follow orders.

2. No Retreat: We do not flee our post; we wait for reinforcements.

3. No Vigilantism: We are forward units claiming safety for the community.

4. No Spectacle: We do not grandstand; we file for dismissal under Federal Immunity.

Through Operation Restoring Valor, we assert that Virginia's case law protects the Veteran who stands their ground, because doing so is not just their right---it is their orders.