preemptive strikes, what's your own rule on them?

If the idea of first strike worries you, you shall lose a thousand battles.

Sun Tzu (honest!)

 

Easy scenarios

Guy One: "What are you staring at?"

Guy Two: "Looking at yo...."

Guy One hits Guy Two before statement is finished

Definitely not a cause for a preemptive strike
_______________________


Guy One: "I'm gonna stick you with this kn...." (Brandishes a knife)

Guy Two: Hits Guy One before statement is finished

Definitely a cause for a preemptive strike


Its about common sense, which proper education and training in Self Defense is a must

Check and leave the ego at the door

Again, it is having studied and understand the levels of threat

 

No rules. But I generally strike first. Preemptively of course.

 

To be honest, nowadays I'd do everything I can to avoid confrontation. Last confrontation I had was my fault for talking back, but I remained in control of myself (used to be opposite) and didn't hit the other guy. Which to be honest, may not even have been the best choice since he was cussing me out at point blank range. From simple gut feeling I decided he wasn't going to do anything, but if he was I would've been screwed.

Which is why I think next time I'll probably strike first, simply because it's safer...for me.

I hope I won't ever have to though. I don't want to be that guy anymore.

 

Though technically an assault just the same, taking a guy down and leaving no injury looks a lot better to bystanders/police/whoever than cracking him.

That said, my old Judo coach was prosecuted because a guy he double legged somehow managed to get a broken leg. Untrained idiots are liable to fall funny.

 

I don't strike. I like to wrap my opponent's arms into a "clinch". If he wants to

- quit, I'll let him go.
- fight, I'll continue from there.

 

any time i've found myself in a situation where i would consider a preemptive strike i've been able to intimidate the other person into backing down.

i think that being gay is actually an advantage here. it's been my observation that anybody thick enough to try and pick a fight with me doesn't want to get beat up by the guy they just called (you get the idea).

but if that didn't work, i would only throw a preemtive strike if i was sure i was in very real danger. such as multiple attackers or a weapon.

 

I actually accidentally posted this in another thread, but left it there since it has relevance to that discussion too

This is from Vu from one of his "Street Safe" tapes

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m61oWTnBvE0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m61oWTnBvE0[/ame]

Again note the first STRIKE is not the first ATTACK

 

If I, or my family, feel threatened to the point of no escape I will strike first.

 

"I'll hit him as soon as I recognise his intention to hit me."

That pretty much sums it up for me. I haven't had to make that choice yet but I think that's where I'm at. There comes a moment when you become 100% sure that nothing you can say or do will stop someone from trying to hit you. At that point I only hope I am ready to hit first. If I didn't start it or aggrivate it, why should I be the one to get hit first .
I do worry about being tagged as the party that started it if there are witnesses.

 

That pretty much sums it up for me. I haven't had to make that choice yet but I think that's where I'm at. There comes a moment when you become 100% sure that nothing you can say or do will stop someone from trying to hit you. At that point I only hope I am ready to hit first. If I didn't start it or aggrivate it, why should I be the one to get hit first .
I do worry about being tagged as the party that started it if there are witnesses.[/QUOTE]

 

If I can't defuse a situation via posture and verbal de-escalation I will set up a pre-emptive strike, which is a rare occurance that I can't. I will make sure that any potential witnesses know if possible that I am backed into a corner so to speak, my preference would be to set up with a verbal lead ie. question and launch while they are thinking.

Very conscious after a incident (see thread "is there an overkill mentality in martial arts" in SD section) last year where I got in hot water legally after being forced to defend myself and my partner to only use the minimium force to defuse the situation and get myself and anyone else I am with to safety.

Lesson learned from this was you will respond as per your training, Fine finishing an drunk idiot attacking you in bar with multiple strikes or strangling them unconcious but you better have a damn fine laywer.

Almost lost everything from a 10-15 second altercation and this has changed my whole SD paradigm.

Good topic!

Dan

 

The main thing I fear in a confrontation is having to say "Your honor I plead not guilty". Not only would the expense of a lawyer be a serious burden but I work for a company that deals in contracts for high level security work for the government and any "arrest" will end my association with the company I have been with for 21 years. They even have to let people go because of simple DUI (driving while messed up). Dan brings up that ever present conundrum.

 

The last time I was preemptive striking was when we wanted better wages and benefits

 

This is a good thread. I never took the time to think about it, really. I guess i have thrown first a couple of times. Usually after getting shoved forward by his friends behind me (or some people that just want to see a fight). But that was just kids stuff. Playground brawling by two trained kids.

Nowadays, I have no compunction about hitting first. I also have no problem with running away. I especially favor hitting first and running away.

 

Personally I would ignore the law. I would need to deal with the situation I was in at that moment. Trying to think about the potential future consequences off my actions would be a distraction I could not handle in the moment.

This does not mean I would strike first all the time. What I would do is try to weigh the risk to myself and significant others of a pre-emptive strike against the risks of another action.

Take for example in a social situation as in the bar in the video bellow


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m61oWTnBvE0"]Anatomy of street fight-part 6 - YouTube[/ame]


An immediate physical attack on someone who has not laid a hand on you (as in the video above) is plain stupid. No attempt was made to talk the opponent down. This means that you throw away a chance to avoid the fight.

This is important not because of the law but because fights are unpredictable. Yes you will get the first good strike in. Yes, this will shift the balance of the fight significantly in your favour. But in a crowded bar with the opportunity for others to join in and plenty of impromptu weapons to hand things can turn against you very quickly.

I would judge that on balance a pre-emptive strike would place myself and significant others in more danger than the alternatives.

If I was on the street and someone mugged me. I would pay them off and do my best to run. If I pay them they have got what they want and are much less likely to assault me.

If I was on the street and someone acted aggressively towards me but didn’t demand money I would believe that they were wanting to physically or sexually assault me. If they get so close that I can no longer effectively react in time to stop them from hitting me. I would hit them first because at that point I would judge there was a significant immediate threat to my physical well being and that the risks of taking an alternative action far outweigh the risks of a pre-emptive strike.

Interestingly - although I am specifically ignoring the law in deciding how to act, my actions would be consistent with the law as interpreted by others on this thread.

 

Where you watching a different video? That attack was absolutely initiated by the helmet wearer - that fight was on from the get go; no talking down someone who walks through an ENTIRE bar , gets up to you, physically initiates contact whilst you are in a position of weakness and hows no sign of retreat, recognition or contrition

If you think this situation requires a talk down you are deluded

 

I don't think a DUI is anything to make light of...

 

My opinions are as valid as yours and the reader can make their own mind up as to who is correct. To tell someone to shut up just because they disagree with you is both arrogant and ignorant.

 

Telling someone who is wrong they are wrong is neither - and you are wrong

I actually edited my answer slightly, well as much as can be done easily on an iphone, but your initial premise and postulate is faulty so the advocations you make subsequent to this are equally faulty

Your opinions is valid in the sense that you are entitled to have one; it is not valid in the sense that it lacks veracity in comparison

Interesting that you call me arrogant when I am not the one passing off incorrect advice