The legality and ethics of pre-emptive striking

I'm sure I did !!

 

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.

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 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.

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...

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!

 

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

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.

 

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?

 

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