The legality and ethics of pre-emptive striking

[Matt_Bernius]

This discussion is carried over from this previous thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=385138). I will ask that for the sake of discussion we keep this restricted to interpersonal conflict rather than including international conflict.

So... here's the big question. In most countries, if you have the right to defend yourself against an agressor. And that can include pre-emtively hitting a person who is threatening you with physical harm.

But what are the ethical concerns? Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?

- Matt

[YODA]

This discussion is carried over from this previous thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=385138). I will ask that for the sake of discussion we keep this restricted to interpersonal conflict rather than including international conflict.

So... here's the big question. In most countries, if you have the right to defend yourself against an agressor. And that can include pre-emtively hitting a person who is threatening you with physical harm.

But what are the ethical concerns? Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?

- Matt
I think the essential issue here is in the word THINK in your final question....

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?"

No - it is not.

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you honestly believe is going to punch you or worse?"

Absolutely!

[Wax]

In WT we are taught to strike before they do. I'm only a small fella and if I get hit by a big dude I will be struggleing to make any kind of defence to the follow up. As this may make us look like the aggressor we are taught to make at least one clear step bact before they enter strikeing range, to show any witnesses that we are on the defensive.

As for the ethical questions, if I think I am about to be hit and I have no place to run I will strike without guilt.

[OBCT]

I was out in town one night, lad pushed me (He wasn't around, in the toilet i guess, I saw a single girl which turned out to be his girlfriend if I could buy her a drink) said "You starting ?" etc, I appologised, I backed away, took the peaceful route and out of nowhere, I took a haymaker above my left eye, knees buckled a little, eyes juddered, it was horrible. Now I'll always strike first.

It sounds so nice where I live.lol

IMO, ethically just use common sense and deal with the situation accordingly.
If it's a drunk mouthy teen, walk away. If he follows and keeps grabbing you, put him on the floor softly, O'Goshi, something none too dangerous.
If you are genuinely affraid the attacker will damage you, then hit one of those buttons (knock him out).
If you're stuck, about to be done in and in fear of your own mortality, anything goes, bite, scratch, biro, mobile, cred cards untill you create the space to escape.

[Matt_Bernius]

A very wise and critical symmantic difference there Yoda. I'm writing that down and altering my vocabulary when I talk about this.

- Matt

[old timer]

A good way to "test" if someone is in your face, take one small step back, you will probably adjust your stance automatically, slowly raise your hands and slowly extend one arm out like a halt towards his chest this serves as a distance gauge, he will now make his decision to strike you or not, either way you already have the advantage of being in stance and hands up pretty close to the face, now if you think that your safety is about to be compromised hit him as hard and fast as you can, when the task is done, vanish, dont hang about for bouncers, police etc. As a word of caution from experience before you get in a situation be aware of any security cameras within that location, we even have them outside now in the town centres.

[MarioBro]

I think the essential issue here is in the word THINK in your final question....

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?"

No - it is not.

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you honestly believe is going to punch you or worse?"

Absolutely!I agree with the above 95%. If they are in your face to the point that you honestly believe they are going to attack, then you have to defend yourself pre-emptively or chance serious harm. However, I would also feel OK striking first even if I only think they are about to attack.

I look at it this way:

The other guy may mean me great harm (heard of curbing? ) whereas I would only intend to defend myself. If I have to knock him out to do so then I know I will not continue attacking once he is down, whereas the other guy might...it has happened way too many times (not to me personally). I have a family to look after and so I would never risk serious injury or death (as well as the simple survival instinct factor) in order to avoid hurting a guy who is in my face to a degree that I feel in danger.

Don't get that close and aggressive and all will be fine.

[mystererae]

I'm mostly with Yoda - but then, I could probably see myself giving a good sucker punch even to someone who was harassing me (sexually, verbally, etc) if I was harassed enough. What woman has an ethical problem with slapping someone who is getting fresh? I'm not talking about actually causing harm, though.

As Yoda said, if I honestly believed I was about to be attacked, I would attack first if I thought my chances better. If someone is in my face saying that he (or she) is going to hit me, I'll have to take them as a person of their word.

[madfrank]

Hi

There are rituals of attacking which as martial artists we should all be aware of, if the aggressor is displaying these or some of them it is reasonable to assume he is going to attack, in which case in my opinion a pre emptive strike is warrented.

If someone is in my face poking at me adjusting his stance getting monosylabic I'm gonna hit him.

why give the bad guy the benefit of the doubt?

if he connects you could lose your life!!!

MF

[madfrank]

Sorry i didnt address the legality issue.
I have been told by policmen if you thought and can give reason as to why you thought your were in danger you are likely to not get prosecuted for hitting first.

MF

[YODA]

Sorry i didnt address the legality issue.
I have been told by policmen if you thought and can give reason as to why you thought your were in danger you are likely to not get prosecuted for hitting first.

MF
Don't tell a Policeman you THOUGHT he was gonna hit you. Tell him you were scared and you BELIEVED he was gonna hit you.

[Timmy Boy]

But what are the ethical concerns? Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?

- Matt

I think that if people don't want to get punched they shouldn't go around trying to intimidate and/or harm others. I don't feel bad about it when I hit people who give me aggro, they should have left me well alone.

[Hannibal]

Don't tell a Policeman you THOUGHT he was gonna hit you. Tell him you were scared and you BELIEVED he was gonna hit you.

We are a bit flexible on semantics you know!

[Nick K]

I'm pretty sure YODA is legally more or less correct. The other variable is what is 'reasonable force'. There is I think a different standard applied for different situations, so (for the sake of argument, let's not get too caught up in these particular examples) if you are an able-bodied man in a minor road rage incident where there was pushing and shoving, use of a weapon would not be regarded as reasonable, whereas if you were a pensioner attacked by a knife weilding assailant it might be. My better half (who is a lawyer) tells me that the courts generally make a gender distinction as well, and that use of weapons or more marked violence by women is more likely to be regarded as reasonable. This may simply be anecdotal, however.

[Hannibal]

Reasonable is dictated by what are referred to as "Impact Factors" - I am sure this has been covered adequately elsewhere, but as a quick refresher it can be things like:

Number of attackers
Relative size of attacker/defender
Relative Skill levels
Any Weapon?
Positive mind set of attacker
Intoxication level (=higher pain threshold)
etc...

You get the gist.

Contrary to popular belief, we (as in "The Police") will not lock you up for defending yourself. You have to do something pretty serious to the attacker OR say something damn stupid in interview!

I have said it before and I'll repeat it here again:

YOU CAN DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING TO DEFEND YOURSELF PROVIDED IT IS REASONABLE - AND THAT INCLUDES KILLING

I am not advocating killing another, but you may one day have to to preserve your own life.

For those who would never throw a first shot I wish you well, but I hope you never have to realise that it is not practicable.

A scenario to mull over; you are out with your partner and leave to get an ice cream. As you come back you see they are getting hassle off an aggressive drunk. The drunk is shouting and splaying their arms and your partner is terrified. They have tried to talk the drunk down and failed and the drunk suddenly raise their handback in a threatening manner.

What do you do?

In particular I am interested in responses from the "pacifists" (group term, not a character criticism)

[OBCT]

A scenario to mull over; you are out with your partner and leave to get an ice cream. As you come back you see they are getting hassle off an aggressive drunk. The drunk is shouting and splaying their arms and your partner is terrified. They have tried to talk the drunk down and failed and the drunk suddenly raise their handback in a threatening manner.

What do you do?

In particular I am interested in responses from the "pacifists" (group term, not a character criticism)

Sorry, i'm a non-pacifist, but my 2p:
By grabbing my partners handbag, the drunk has attempted theft, and by first invading her personal space, and second grabbing her it's virtually sexual assault.
I'd step between, my partner and drunk, obtain handbag, and push drunk away whilst stepping back (giving me a moment to take in the situation, and check my partner is okay)
If the drunk persisted i'd like to say i'd go for a lock, or a sweep or a takedown, place them under citizens arrest for 'attempted theft' being 'drunk and disorderly'and 'sexual assault' and asking partner to call the Police.

However, somebody doing that to my partner is something i'd feel fairly passionate about and i think i'd end up popping out a jab jab hook (i know it's wrong, but the drunk would hopefully learn their lesson)

[YODA]

I'm not a pacifist either - I'd drop him like a bog seat :woo:

[Thomas]

In my opinion, I will do everything I can to avoid a physical confrontation (walk away, de-escalate, avoid those situations, etc.) and if I have to fight... then I will be as quick and efficient as possible.

To do this, if I am sure (Yoda's "honestly believe") that it will become physical, then I have no problem with striking first and then getting out of there. As much as I trust the police, I would rather not wait around and risk further escalation of a situation (especially if there are other "bad guys" there).

Hannibal's scenario: Bam! I'd drop the guy and get out out of there.

My primary concern is protecting the safety and freedom of myself and the people I care for. Beyond that... they're on their own.


For another scenario... as a teacher I sometimes encounter students who are going to fight or who are threatening me. I always use the de-escalation technqiues and give them a chance to back down and walk away (or I myself do, unless I am protecting another student or faculty member). So far I have not had to become physical yet with a student... but I would not hesitate to strike first if I had to. HOWEVER, with a student I would use an open hand strike or something to stun them without leaving marks... then go into a lock or escort technique. Each situation must be balanced by the level of threat and/or repercussions of what you do. I can probably get away with knocking out some drunk guy on the street but I couldn't get away with that on a student!

(On a side note, I believe in being verbal... and would yell "Get your hands off me" or "Don't hit me again" as I pre-emptively strike... that's for the witnesses)

[kiaiki]

Pre-emptive striking is one area where a female has a definite advantage. She has the threat of violence and sexual assault from a male aggressor who will usually be larger and stronger, so her actions may be easier to defend as she may need to act earlier and hit harder than a male.

On a second point, I was taught that there is a fine distinction in UK law:
Assault does not have to include physical attack, which is 'battery'.
Assault may include shouting threats of violence and/or blocking your escape and therefore your pre-emptive strike may be a defence against an existing assault, preventing it becoming worse.
The sort of wording I recall was that if you believe a physical assault to be imminent, you may take physical action proportionate to the threat. Of course, you may need evidence, but if no witnesses are present, make sure your version is plausible - and get that in pre-emptively as well!

[Pastyti]

I think the essential issue here is in the word THINK in your final question....

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?"

No - it is not.

"Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you honestly believe is going to punch you or worse?"

Absolutely!
Hey Yoda. Happy new year. Could you explain please, the difference between the two? Is it perhaps a matter of perception?

[Pastyti]

Reasonable is dictated by what are referred to as "Impact Factors" - I am sure this has been covered adequately elsewhere, but as a quick refresher it can be things like:

Number of attackers
Relative size of attacker/defender
Relative Skill levels
Any Weapon?
Positive mind set of attacker
Intoxication level (=higher pain threshold)
etc...

You get the gist.

Contrary to popular belief, we (as in "The Police") will not lock you up for defending yourself. You have to do something pretty serious to the attacker OR say something damn stupid in interview!

I have said it before and I'll repeat it here again:

YOU CAN DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING TO DEFEND YOURSELF PROVIDED IT IS REASONABLE - AND THAT INCLUDES KILLING

I am not advocating killing another, but you may one day have to to preserve your own life.

For those who would never throw a first shot I wish you well, but I hope you never have to realise that it is not practicable.

A scenario to mull over; you are out with your partner and leave to get an ice cream. As you come back you see they are getting hassle off an aggressive drunk. The drunk is shouting and splaying their arms and your partner is terrified. They have tried to talk the drunk down and failed and the drunk suddenly raise their handback in a threatening manner.

What do you do?

In particular I am interested in responses from the "pacifists" (group term, not a character criticism)
Happy new year hannibal.

This might sound a bit odd, but I would like to understand. If the state does not kill people for violent crimes such as murder (Ie, the death penalty was abolished in 1965) why does the administration of the law which is overseen by the state, permit someone to commit murder in the name self defense?

[robertmap]

Hi All,

This might sound a bit odd, but I would like to understand. If the state does not kill people for violent crimes such as murder (Ie, the death penalty was abolished in 1965) why does the administration of the law which is overseen by the state, permit someone to commit murder in the name self defense?

I'm not a solicitor (Lawyer) but my understanding is...

You are not 'PERMITTED' to kill someone - BUT if you have a legal right to defend yourself then the law does NOT insist of you weighing your response to a nicety - SO if you were fighting an attacker and you hit him (trying to knock him out) and he died - then PROBABLY you will not be in breach of the law.

HOWEVER - each case will be looked at by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service on an individual basis - so - guess what - conflict carries risks!!!!

RUNNING - GOOD, FIGHTING - BAD.

Or if you prefer...

"A stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet"

Or if you prefer a quote from Abraham Lincoln...

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

All the best.

Robert.

[alex_000]

I'd never hit anyone if he didn't try to hit me first or "attack" my personal space while I'm backing away , thats the way i'm made. However I understand the pros and cons of my type of behaviour.

On the other hand sucker punching me is quite hard if I have visual view of the attacker. I'm always aware for signs of physical conformation and adjust the distance between myself and others accordingly.

[Hannibal]

Happy new year hannibal.

This might sound a bit odd, but I would like to understand. If the state does not kill people for violent crimes such as murder (Ie, the death penalty was abolished in 1965) why does the administration of the law which is overseen by the state, permit someone to commit murder in the name self defense?

Happy New Year to you too Pats!

"Murder" by definition is an illegal killing - i.e. unlawful. Killing another in self-defence is not illegal if the defender's action were necessary to preserve their own life or the death was an unfortunate consequence of their defensive actions.

The death penalty is retributive and pre-planned. Killing someone in self-defence is more spontaneous

does this help?

[Hannibal]

Sorry, i'm a non-pacifist, but my 2p:
By grabbing my partners handbag, the drunk has attempted theft, and by first invading her personal space, and second grabbing her it's virtually sexual assault.
I'd step between, my partner and drunk, obtain handbag, and push drunk away whilst stepping back (giving me a moment to take in the situation, and check my partner is okay)
If the drunk persisted i'd like to say i'd go for a lock, or a sweep or a takedown, place them under citizens arrest for 'attempted theft' being 'drunk and disorderly'and 'sexual assault' and asking partner to call the Police.

However, somebody doing that to my partner is something i'd feel fairly passionate about and i think i'd end up popping out a jab jab hook (i know it's wrong, but the drunk would hopefully learn their lesson)

Thanks for the reply:

A couple of points - Where's the handbag come from? I did a bit of a type and left teh space out of "hand back" so that maybe causing confusion ! No theft/robbery motivation here I'm afraid

Second, the approach does not constitute a sexual assault in the law becuase the action towards the individual is not sexual in nature, it is aggressive.

Thirdly, you have no power to arrest as a citizen for D&D!

The point I was hoping would come up (but didn't!) is that if you are willing to "take a shot" before you respond to an assailant, would you let your partner/child/grandparent take one before you defended them?

It is worth noting that the law makes no distinction whatsoever betwen a strike and a lock or grab - they all constitute force used in self-defence. In other words, if you are willing to push someone away then that counts as a pre-emptive measure in the same way as a punch. The proportionality is what is measured

For the record, the drunk would be going down very hard if it was me...assuming my slightly feisty wife hadn't decked him first!

[Hannibal]

Hey Yoda. Happy new year. Could you explain please, the difference between the two? Is it perhaps a matter of perception?

It is to do with the letter of the law

I "think" means effectively "I am not sure" so the actions you took in response could possibly be perceived as criminal

I "honestly believed" translates as "It was definitely going to happen so I reacted accordingly"

It may seem like a matter of semantics, but in interview for an assault I would be grilling you to explain why you broke someones teeth and a response of "I wasn't sure if they were hostile so I hit them" would not cut it!

By the way, there has to be a correlation between the "honestly held belief" and teh action taken - it is not a "get out of jail free" phrase, but it is worth remembering if you ever find yourself in a bit of a legal pickle

[YODA]

Thanks Hannibal :D

[OBCT]

A couple of points - Where's the handbag come from? I did a bit of a type and left teh space out of "hand back" so that maybe causing confusion ! No theft/robbery motivation here I'm afraid.

Yes, handbag/hand back confusion, oh well.

Second, the approach does not constitute a sexual assault in the law becuase the action towards the individual is not sexual in nature, it is aggressive.

It's still an assault though

Thirdly, you have no power to arrest as a citizen for D&D!

That I didn't know. Good job though really. Although i meant the citizens arrest in conjunction with the 3 things really, well 2.

The point I was hoping would come up (but didn't!) is that if you are willing to "take a shot" before you respond to an assailant, would you let your partner/child/grandparent take one before you defended them?


No, not a chance. Legally correct or not.

[Hannibal]

It is an assault, but until the punch lands and causes damage it is only a section 39 (or "Common") Assault and consequently has NO pwer of arrest (even for a bobby). There is an offence of affray, but again a citizen cannot arrest on that

So it's hit 'em or nowt!

[Pastyti]

Reasonable is dictated by what are referred to as "Impact Factors" - I am sure this has been covered adequately elsewhere, but as a quick refresher it can be things like:

Number of attackers
Relative size of attacker/defender
Relative Skill levels
Any Weapon?
Positive mind set of attacker
Intoxication level (=higher pain threshold)
etc...

You get the gist.

Contrary to popular belief, we (as in "The Police") will not lock you up for defending yourself. You have to do something pretty serious to the attacker OR say something damn stupid in interview!

I have said it before and I'll repeat it here again:

YOU CAN DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING TO DEFEND YOURSELF PROVIDED IT IS REASONABLE - AND THAT INCLUDES KILLING

I am not advocating killing another, but you may one day have to to preserve your own life.

For those who would never throw a first shot I wish you well, but I hope you never have to realise that it is not practicable.

A scenario to mull over; you are out with your partner and leave to get an ice cream. As you come back you see they are getting hassle off an aggressive drunk. The drunk is shouting and splaying their arms and your partner is terrified. They have tried to talk the drunk down and failed and the drunk suddenly raise their handback in a threatening manner.

What do you do?

In particular I am interested in responses from the "pacifists" (group term, not a character criticism)
Killing or maiming someone, is unquestionably retribution. You could just Ko em,
after all your a MA you should know the techniques. Just playing devils advocate.
You already know my thoughts on the subject.

Oh, by the way. My kids are no longer at home; son left after getting his masters and
is living about 40 miles away, and daughter away at uni 220 miles distance so I could
not defend them. As for my Mrs, she's 5ft 4in and weighs 18 stone (X 14 for our
American cousins) and would only have to fall on a potenial assailant to take them
down. As an aside, she's a tax inspector, and deserves everything she gets. After all,
you can't annoy that many customers and hope to get away with it for ever !!!

[tommy]

This discussion is carried over from this previous thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=385138). I will ask that for the sake of discussion we keep this restricted to interpersonal conflict rather than including international conflict.

So... here's the big question. In most countries, if you have the right to defend yourself against an agressor. And that can include pre-emtively hitting a person who is threatening you with physical harm.

But what are the ethical concerns? Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?

- Matt

If you feel like you are about to be struck, by striking first,I wouldn;t consider that a "sucker" punch...?

Ethically I think it is fine. You only have to be brutally honest with yourself...did you REALLY think you were about to be attacked. if the anser is yes, you have every ethical right to pre-empt. What Bush did in Iraq, was NOT ethically moral however....not to digress, but to make a point. We were NOT threatened here in the US.

[Pastyti]

Hanibal,

Looking at your argument. Surly by practicing MA, you have to be guilty of pre-meditated violence? Therefore be extension, if in the result of your 'self-defense' this results in maiming or death, you have pre-planned the murder by virtue of the training you have undergone?

[tommy]

Hanibal,

Looking at your argument. Surly by practicing MA, you have to be guilty of pre-meditated violence? Therefore be extension, if in the result of your 'self-defense' this results in maiming or death, you have pre-planned the murder by virtue of the training you have undergone?

Not neccesarily. Perhaps you can argue that true martial arts is much more than a physical art, thus the reasons for studying. Self defense is just part of it. Also, by virtue of the training, you have become more astute to real threats. Your post is excellent food for thought....

[Linguo]

Hanibal,

Looking at your argument. Surly by practicing MA, you have to be guilty of pre-meditated violence? Therefore be extension, if in the result of your 'self-defense' this results in maiming or death, you have pre-planned the murder by virtue of the training you have undergone?

An act of self-defense is different from pre-planned acts of violence. Self-defense is reactive and pre-meditated violence is proactive. You don't defend yourself with the intent to kill. You defend yourself with the intent to stay alive.

However, a pre-meditated act of violence can occur in the course of self-defense. Imagine if a mugger's victim successfully defends him/herself from the mugger, scaring the mugger away. Then, the would be victim decides to chase after the mugger, catching and killing the mugger. That would be a case of pre-meditation.

[Pastyti]

Not neccesarily. Perhaps you can argue that true martial arts is much more than a physical art, thus the reasons for studying.

Your post is excellent food for thought....


How come, when 99.9% of training is in the physical art? If it were to be 50/50 or 60/40 biased towards the moral side of it, I would be inclined to agree with you, but not as it stands.

Happy Jan 2nd.

[Hannibal]

Interesting logic Pats, but fundamentally flawed

If I give you a knife you can cook with it or kill with it. Your INTENTION defines the tool, not the tool itself. The same with an MA. The consequence of my self-defence may be death, but the intention isn't

Gotta fly, but see you soon

[UKscrapper]

What matters most is what you say and how you conduct yourself after the fight.
If someone is displaying threatening behaviour and gobbing off then that is common assault, at this stage if you fear for your safety you are within the law to launch a pre-emptive strike.

If during the confrontation you are saying "get away from me I dont want none of this macho ********" before launching your strike it will be totally different than saying "common you ****** I am gonna tear you a new arsehole."

Also what you say after the incident to witnesses and police will bear alot of weight on how this will affect any judicial decision, also bear in mind that in the UK most establishments and town centers are heavilly monitored by CCTV.

[madfrank]

Don't tell a Policeman you THOUGHT he was gonna hit you. Tell him you were scared and you BELIEVED he was gonna hit you.

this is semantics
its down to convincing the guy and hes not gonna be convinced by your vocabulary
its your NVC theyre trained to read

MF

[Pastyti]

Interesting logic Pats, but fundamentally flawed

If I give you a knife you can cook with it or kill with it. Your INTENTION defines the tool, not the tool itself. The same with an MA. The consequence of my self-defence may be death, but the intention isn't

Gotta fly, but see you soon
Hey Hanibal. Remember that the vast majority of the population do not practice any form of MA. Therefore when the prosecution barister (lawyer) says to the accused I understand you practice and have a working knowledge of Ma, what level have you achieved?". The jury, of which I doubt any member would be a MA'st, will hear 'killing machine'. Which way do you think the verdict will go?

[Linguo]

Hey Hanibal. Remember that the vast majority of the population do not practice any form of MA. Therefore when the prosecution barister (lawyer) says to the accused I understand you practice and have a working knowledge of Ma, what level have you achieved?". The jury, of which I doubt any member would be a MA'st, will hear 'killing machine'. Which way do you think the verdict will go?

Depends on the circumstances. There are too many variable to draw a conclusion from your statement.

[Pastyti]

Depends on the circumstances. There are too many variable to draw a conclusion from your statement.

In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
Quote from Rory A. Miller
A prison officer at an American Prison.

This I found whilst surfing other sites, and 'no', I have not taken it out of context. It was the opening statement in an article on 'The Flaw in the Drill'.

The full thing being as follows. (The first paragraph)

In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
However, in the dojo we cannot go about breaking our students So in any drill where
students are not regularly hospitalized there is a DELIBERATE flaw, a deliberate
break from the needs of reality introduced in the name of safety. In every drill you
teach, you must consciously know what the flaw is and make your students aware of
it.

So it looks like I'm not on my own with my argument.

[Linguo]

In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
Quote from Rory A. Miller
A prison officer at an American Prison.

This I found whilst surfing other sites, and 'no', I have not taken it out of context. It was the opening statement in an article on 'The Flaw in the Drill'.

The full thing being as follows. (The first paragraph)

In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being.
However, in the dojo we cannot go about breaking our students So in any drill where
students are not regularly hospitalized there is a DELIBERATE flaw, a deliberate
break from the needs of reality introduced in the name of safety. In every drill you
teach, you must consciously know what the flaw is and make your students aware of
it.

So it looks like I'm not on my own with my argument.

The original scenario you provided offered nothing in terms of context. We didn't know the circumstances that brought the "accused" to court. Was the "accused" defending their life or using excessive force? Was there a weapon present? etc. If the person is being prosecuted because they were defending themself, then some other factors are present. The jury would take into consideration other factors besides the fact that the individual happens to be trained in MA.

What is a pre-meditated act of violence? It's an act of violence conceived in advance with the intent of injuring a specific target. Generally speaking, training MA is not pre-meditated because it does not have a specific target. You can not pre-plan something without intent and a target. If there is no target intended, there is no pre-meditative act.

The quote you offered does not state that MA training is a pre-meditated act of violence. It defines it as an activity that provides you with certain skills. They might be violent skills, but they have no specific target.

Now you have to make the distinction between self-defense and pre-meditated acts of violence. Pre-meditated acts actively pursue a target (murder, robbery, mugging, kidnapping). There is some level of pre-planning involved. You CHOOSE your target. Self-defense doesn't choose a target. It responds to being a target.

Can MA skills be used for pre-meditated acts of violence? Absolutely. However, it isn't the MA training that is a pre-meditated act, but the actual violent act that is pre-meditated.

Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.

[Pastyti]

What is a pre-meditated act of violence? It's an act of violence conceived in advance with the intent of injuring a specific target. Generally speaking, training MA is not pre-meditated because it does not have a specific target. You can not pre-plan something without intent and a target. If there is no target intended, there is no pre-meditative act.

You quite obviously pre-meditate the targets you chose on the human body, which could belong to anyone who 'upsets' you. If you didn't intend to use your skills, you would not train in MA's

The quote you offered does not state that MA training is a pre-meditated act of violence.

In what way does it not? (In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being) How more specific does this need to be in order to satisfy you?

You CHOOSE your target. Self-defense doesn't choose a target. It responds to being a target.

You make choice's based upon the training you have recieved, in so doing you have pre-meditated (thought through and pre-planned if you prefer) certain targets on the human frame that you are going to punch, kick and so on. Therefore by an application of logic pre-meditation, or if you prefer, being prepared in advance.


Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.

Not necessarily, if you have been influenced, or brainwashed, hypnotised (See fighting arts forum on Bushido (B.A.M.A. in the uk) an interesting read) or had your natural mindset altered in any way from the one you were born with. Any type of Pavlovian training, would in my opinion automaticaly mitigate against the second part of your, well thought through and writen argument.

[enquirer]

Ok, this is just my opinion, in a case of self-defence, where the defender has skill in a martial art, he or she will not defend themselves differently (in law) just more effectively. Provided the degree of force used is still "reasonable" (which you are not expected in the heat of the moment to be able to judge precisely) and you do not continue after the threat ceases then your actions will be legal.

Just remember that the person who attacked you will almost certainly lie their head off in court. Get witnesses, make a good statement to the police, hope its on cctv. Don't let them get away with it.

[Linguo]

You quite obviously pre-meditate the targets you chose on the human body, which could belong to anyone who 'upsets' you. If you didn't intend to use your skills, you would not train in MA's

Choosing the targets on the human body and training MA are two different acts. Your MA training may have provided you with the knowledge and the skill to deal with your assailant's body, but training in and of itself is not the pre-meditated act. The pre-meditated act would be one in which you used this knowledge on a specific target.

In what way does it not. (In the end, a martial artist is training to injure, cripple or kill another human being) How more specific does this need to be in order to satisfy you?

Because that other human being does not exist at the moment of training. There is no target involved in the training. It simply is training. You are learning skills. Even in sparring, the purpose is not to injure a specific person, but to develop your skills. It is like learning to shoot a gun. Learning to shoot in and of itself is not a pre-meditated act of violence.

You make choice's based upon the training you have recieved, in so doing you have pre-meditated (thought through and pre-planned if you prefer) certain targets on the human frame that you are going to punch, kick and so on. Therefore by an application of logic pre-meditation, or if you prefer, being prepared in advance.

In your example, you have not actually pre-meditated any target. You have only learned what to target in conflict. You are not actually attacking anyone with the intent to injure. You are learning what to target and where to strike. Like I said before, training is training. Pre-meditation exists when you actively pursue a target. You have no target in training. You are simply training.

You make choices based on the circumstances presented to you. You don't act because you have training, but because a circumstance exists where your training can be used. I don't punch a person unless I have a reason, which could be anything from self defense to I just dont like the person.




Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, if you have been influenced, or brainwashed, hypnotised (See fighting arts forum on Bushido (B.A.M.A. in the uk) an interesting read) or had your natural mindset altered in any way from the one you were born with. Any type of Pavlovian training, would in my opinion automaticaly mitigate against the second part of your, well thought through and writen argument.

Perhaps, but I assume, for the purposes of our discussion, we are talking about cognizant individuals.

[Pastyti]

Choosing the targets on the human body and training MA are two different acts. Your MA training may have provided you with the knowledge and the skill to deal with your assailant's body, but training in and of itself is not the pre-meditated act. The pre-meditated act would be one in which you used this knowledge on a specific target.

Which you will when faced with an attacked. (pre-meditation or thought through previously) Same thing.

Because that other human being does not exist at the moment of training. There is no target involved in the training. It simply is training. You are learning skills. Even in sparring, the purpose is not to injure a specific person, but to develop your skills. It is like learning to shoot a gun. Learning to shoot in and of itself is not a pre-meditated act of violence.

Oh, 'not to injure a 'specific' person, just everyone in general then? Like anyone who pisses you off maybe? That has to be pre-meditation surley?

You make choices based on the circumstances presented to you. You don't act because you have training, but because a circumstance exists where your training can be used. I don't punch a person unless I have a reason, which could be anything from self defense to I just dont like the person.

You just don't like the person, is not a valid reason to attack them. (It could be you or me)

Training MA is training MA. What you do with those skills is up to you.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but I assume, for the purposes of our discussion, we are talking about cognizant individuals.

The best hypnotism/brainwashing/mind control techniques are where the individual subjected to those processes is unaware of it's existance

[Matt_Bernius]

Surly by practicing MA, you have to be guilty of pre-meditated violence? Therefore be extension, if in the result of your 'self-defense' this results in maiming or death, you have pre-planned the murder by virtue of the training you have undergone?This is why it's a terrible idea to represent oneself in court. A lay understanding of the law is a dangerous thing. The idea that practicing martial arts in any way is linked to pre-mediation is a laughable legal concept that any good defender can tear apart.

Let's get into some definitions. First of all, premediation isn't enough. You need to have both the concept of premeditiation and malice aforethought in play for most assault and murder cases (at least here in the states):

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m053.htm)

MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, KILL WITH - To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm)

So, in even the most extreme of self defense cases a good defender can argue that the intention to kill was not formed and most likely occured in the heat of the moment. The prosecution would need to prove that not only did you train to kill, but you left with specific intent to kill.

However, the other thing to understand is the force continumm. If you push me and I pull out your throat, that crosses the line. If you threaten me and I break your nose, I'm in a much better situation.

It seems that there is a tendency to assume that we need to totally maim a person to defend ourselves. That isn't the case. And provided we stay within the acceptable continumm, as Hannibal suggests, one should be fine in a self defense scenario and legal fall out.

[Hannibal]

Hey Hanibal. Remember that the vast majority of the population do not practice any form of MA. Therefore when the prosecution barister (lawyer) says to the accused I understand you practice and have a working knowledge of Ma, what level have you achieved?". The jury, of which I doubt any member would be a MA'st, will hear 'killing machine'. Which way do you think the verdict will go?

Not necessarily - As a Police Officer and a holder of four black belts (3x 2nd Dan, 1 x 1st Dan) and as a qualified Self-Protection Instructor I would venture that my anaylsis of a conflict or a potential conflict would qualify as "expert evidence" - by that measure teh defence would have to produce an equally - or more qualified counter-witness.

[OBCT]

Fire urinated on.

[Hannibal]

Just a thought Pats, in all my fights and conflicts I have only ever inflicted injury once and that was when I broke a suspects arm during a lock. His fault as if he hadn't resisted it wouldn;t have snapped...so the pre-meditated violence theory does not hold up.

By the way, what would you do in my scenario posted earlier?

[Pastyti]

Hannibal,

I thought I had already answered that one on page two? Hadn't I?

Regards.
Pastyti.

[tommy]

How come, when 99.9% of training is in the physical art? If it were to be 50/50 or 60/40 biased towards the moral side of it, I would be inclined to agree with you, but not as it stands.

Happy Jan 2nd.

I think you can make a legal argumaent that that it is not always the case. We study history, we meditate etc, and practice more self DEFENSE not self OFFENSE

[Hannibal]

Hannibal,

I thought I had already answered that one on page two? Hadn't I?

Regards.
Pastyti.

Errr..not really mate no! You gave a slightly glib answer, but did not address it!

So what would you do?

[CobraMaximus]

I think its a matter of judging which is inaccurate. Some tom walks up to you and shoves you maybe once cos hes a bit drunk and trying to be friendly/pally but then you htink hes at you so you knock the hell out of him. Hardly just. I think It should be limited to if you have very very reliable reason to attack first.

[MarioBro]

I think its a matter of judging which is inaccurate. Some tom walks up to you and shoves you maybe once cos hes a bit drunk and trying to be friendly/pally but then you htink hes at you so you knock the hell out of him. Hardly just. I think It should be limited to if you have very very reliable reason to attack first.
I don't know what it is like where you come from, but if someone comes up and shoves me they are not trying to be friendly. One shove for me is enough to suggest that they will escalate the interaction. In fact just getting in my face suggests that they are not opposed to interacting aggressively and in either case I would opt for the 'ask questions later' approach and drop them.

What? I want to wait to see if they jab a pocket knife into me, let him get the first shot or have some friends who will come to give their friend a hand? Not a chance.

[CobraMaximus]

Well where i am sometimes when people get merry they will shove you angrily or push you in a friendly 'everyone join in the jolliment' way. You can tell by their face. Personally if someone threw the first one id be far more capable. Most of my attacks and so on are counters

[MarioBro]

Most of my attacks and so on are counters
Ya, famous last words...

[Hannibal]

To be honest, they wouldn't even get to push me once before they were on the floor!

[MarioBro]

To be honest, they wouldn't even get to push me once before they were on the floor!
Words to live by...literally.

[OBCT]

Well where i am sometimes when people get merry they will shove you angrily or push you in a friendly 'everyone join in the jolliment' way. You can tell by their face. Personally if someone threw the first one id be far more capable. Most of my attacks and so on are counters
A lot of my friends do that kind of thing aswell, pushing, dead arms, sweeping, throwing tennis balls (i have a dog, so they're usually about the place) etc, it's just playful banter.

In it's context though it can get out of hand at times and it hits a grey area when someone misses and catches the head, or goes that little bit too far and you never know if it's still playful banter or has become a fight, usually thats the time for a lock or a gentle takedown, or you finish your drink and use getting another as an excuse to avoid the situation worsening, kind of like countering really.

Besides, you're hardly going to KO your best friend because he gave you a dead arm, or pushed you too hard, you'd like like a right miserable fool, and probably have no friends, and having lacking a sense of humour that badly really is not an attractive attribute to the opposite sex.

It's about reading the situation and the context which it's in, a drunken mate pushing you a bit too hard is not the same as some drunken lager lout throwing a haymaker at you for wearing your favourite Liverpool top whilst wondering around Mosside (Manchester)

[Pastyti]

Errr..not really mate no! You gave a slightly glib answer, but did not address it!

So what would you do?
I'm sure I did !!

[Linguo]

Which you will when faced with an attacked. (pre-meditation or thought through previously) Same thing.

Not the same thing. The only thing premeditated upon in training is the decision to do training. Even if you are training to attack Bill, you are still training. A pre-meditated act of violence is an act of violence thought through in advance. This means the ACT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. An act of violence can not be pre-meditated if it has not happened. Even if you are preparing to attack someone through your training, it would not be premeditated, becuase you have not attacked that person. You can consider that a form conspiracy, planning to attack, but, up until the moment you commit to an attack, it can't even be remotely considered pre-meditated. Pre-meditated is past tense.


Oh, 'not to injure a 'specific' person, just everyone in general then? Like anyone who pisses you off maybe? That has to be pre-meditation surley?

Surely not. You could possibly say pre-meditation, but as an act in and of itself. You are in the process of pre-meditation, prepartion. Pre-meditated is the moment you commit and decide to attack.

You just don't like the person, is not a valid reason to attack them. (It could be you or me)

You missed the point. I didn't say it was a good reason. I said it was A reason. I'm not validating the reason. Whether it is a good reason or not, we attack with a reason.


The best hypnotism/brainwashing/mind control techniques are where the individual subjected to those processes is unaware of it's existance

Honestly, I have no idea what you are getting at with this.

Despite the legal definitions, I believe any attack, in self-defense or otherwise, is pre-meditated (the consequences of that action are another story). You made a decision to attack, even if it is only a second before in self-defense. You can walk away, or not protect yourself. That may not be the wisest decision, but it is still an option. The difference is in the ethics of the application of this decision. I believe you have the right to protect your life and your loved ones. Self-defense is a legitimate use of this decision.

or something like that...

[OBCT]

If i grab a kitchen knife and practice stabbing at air, visualising a person, it does not constitute pre-meditated murder. It just means i'm strange.

[Nakthai]

This discussion is carried over from this previous thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=385138). I will ask that for the sake of discussion we keep this restricted to interpersonal conflict rather than including international conflict.

So... here's the big question. In most countries, if you have the right to defend yourself against an agressor. And that can include pre-emtively hitting a person who is threatening you with physical harm.

But what are the ethical concerns? Is it ok to sucker punch someone who you think is going to punch you or worse?

- Matt
In a club in england, i can't remember where, they taught that there was a "fence" between you and your "attacker"

and basically ,being pushed , or the old "Tyson gets mad before the fight and goes up nose to nose" is crossing the fence, and if they cross the fence twice, due to human nature, the third cross'll be a right cross.

so that instructor taught that if they've crossed your fence twice, then do something about it

[Hannibal]

I'm sure I did !!

In which case I may have missed it.

Your exact reply was:

**"Killing or maiming someone, is unquestionably retribution. You could just Ko em, after all your a MA you should know the techniques. Just playing devils advocate.You already know my thoughts on the subject.

Oh, by the way. My kids are no longer at home; son left after getting his masters and is living about 40 miles away, and daughter away at uni 220 miles distance so I could not defend them. As for my Mrs, she's 5ft 4in and weighs 18 stone (X 14 for our American cousins) and would only have to fall on a potenial assailant to take them down. As an aside, she's a tax inspector, and deserves everything she gets. After all you can't annoy that many customers and hope to get away with it for ever !!!"**

Now aside from the "Ko em" aspect of your reply, there is nothing in there that addresses the question I posed. Disregard the reality of your current domestic situation, or insert a relative/friend of your choice. I ask again, what do you do?

The point is/was that many people have a personal morality that does not extend to their relatives. It is one thing to "take it on the chin" - it is quite something else to watch a loved one do it whilst you watch.

There is no such thing as a person who will not fight - you only have to find out what it is that person will fight for.

[Pastyti]

The point is/was that many people have a personal morality that does not extend to their relatives. It is one thing to "take it on the chin" - it is quite something else to watch a loved one do it whilst you watch.

There is no such thing as a person who will not fight - you only have to find out what it is that person will fight for.

Hannibal,

The simple answer is, 'I do not know what I'd do'. Having never been put into the position you described, any descriptive answer I gave would be pure speculation. I guess that would apply to very many contributors to this thread, they may take a particular stance in theory, however, when faced with a specific situation, the reality could well be something entirley different.

Obviously, in your occupation, you are faced with situations which the majority of us will never encounter, and therefore, you are qualified to comment in the light of personal experience. However, when various contributors who are not involved in your occupation or one exhibiting similar characteristics, make comments like "I would do this, that, or the other", I believe that they are also just speculating.

Nice to hear from you again. Have you been on leave?

[Hannibal]

Nice answer, I'll have that!

Admittedly you may have to prepare yourself for the eventuality, but I suspect that you would do "the right thing"...and I'll leave that up to you to decide what it is!

Leave? I wish! I have been working, working and working a bit more! You would be amazed at some of the idiocy that takes place over christmas.

Then again, maybe not!

[Sgt_Major]

Sorry guys, Im going to jump in without reading the whole thread! :eek:

Pastyti> I used to be a firm believer in non-pre emptive striking. Until I had the misfortune of getting into a spot of bother in high school. I was, in this instance, completely innocent, someone slandered my name to a bully, for some reason, and I was confronted by him and his mates. He was right in my face with a circle around us, and yet I stuck to my theory of non-pre emptive, and stood unprovoking. Next thing I know, Im on the ground with a size 8 boot in my face....one of his mates had clubbed me from behind, and I got a severe beating..... my head was repeatedly kicked off a wall, as a child would practice football. My body was stamped on, kicked, and punched by up to 10 people at a time. Thankfully, unconciousness came quick so I was unaware of most of the pain. 3 hours later I woke up in hospital, in AGONY. I had severe concussion, bone breaks, my face and head was in pieces, I couldnt walk or grasp anything with my hands. I had 'the shakes' for about 2 years after, still do sometimes. I have a severe dislike for crowds, cannot sit in a room with people behind me, cannot sit with an open door behind me, and on occassion I have panic attacks when surrounded by people.

Now.......anyone steps into my personal space with the intent of confrontation....they are going down, and they are going down hard!

Even to this day it scares me to think what might have happened if even 1 of those guys had been carrying a knife.

[VoidedAngel]

Sorry I don't feel like reading this entire thread and don't know if this subject has been approached. Now let's say 2 people really hate each other, and if they both agree to fight. Does it matter who strikes first?

[danthemanuk]

In context of part of the taekwondo oath....." I shall be a champion for freedom & Justice" , " I shall build a more peaceful world"

If someone starts trouble & is threatening you with violence or is subjecting you to a violent attack, and it is totally unprovoked......then I beleive they get whats coming to them, it is tough luck for them if they make the mistake of picking on someone who can handle themselves. In this situation I doubt it will be the first time the attacker has made trouble with innocent people, & most of the time they have probably really hurt people who cannot look after themselves, this piece of scum person would happily hurt your gran & take her bag, so I think if you maim or kill them you deserve a medal. You ensure that person does not bother anyone else for some time or even permanently, this is building a more peaceful world, this is being a champion for freedom & justice. I can not believe there is any question about this.

If I was in this situation & could handle the attacker I would like to think I would act with community spirit & ensure that person attacks no one else. If I could not handle the attacker I would like to think the attacker gets whats coming to them from someone who could handle them.



dan