# Geoff Thompson on the importance of pre-emption.



## Paul_D (May 12, 2017)

*From:-
An Interview with Geoff Thompson Part 2

(ER)     How important is the ability to be physically proactive and pre-emptive?*
_
 (GT)     Life-and-death important! Nothing less. People die in street attacks every day. It is not a game. During my door years four of my friends were murdered. There are no whistles and bells, no referees, no orange at half time, no bows, no touch of gloves, no honour and certainly no rules. You are either first or you are last, and last in this arena might mean the cold slab. If you have to be physical the pre-emptive strike is the only consistently effective technique. From my experience blocking, parrying, trapping etc do not work effectively or consistently when the pavement is your arena. They look as though they might work, they feel as though they should work and in the dojo they are all certainly very effective, but the dojo is not the street, it never has been and it never will be. You only have to look at human conflict (civil, national and global) over the centuries to see that war always demands artifice and it always demands pre-emption. The street might be a war in microcosm, but it is no less war-like. The pre-emptive strike really is just common sense, and the moment you face an angry man who wants to flatten the world with your head you will know, no-one will need to draw you diagrams, you will just instinctively know. What we are generally sold in Martial Arts as effective self defence is at best foolhardy and naïve and at worst a lie. And the reason I am being so blunt about it is because that lie will get you killed if you don’t question it._

_ 

_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2017)

That's nice.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2017)

Hyperbole much?


----------



## JP3 (May 12, 2017)

Pre-emption = initiation of attack.

Initating the attack = Criminal action.

Criminal action = punishment.

Punishment "might" be better than exercise of some restraint, but ... then again, it might not.


----------



## CB Jones (May 12, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Initating the attack = Criminal action.



Not necessarily.

If it is reasonable to believe that you are in danger you are justified to take appropriate measures.


Kinda like not waiting for the bad guy to shoot you before you take action....that is not required by law.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Pre-emption = initiation of attack.
> 
> Initating the attack = Criminal action.
> 
> ...



Yeah there are legal and ethical ways around that. If I have told a guy to back off created space tried to escape. And he has resisted all these attempts to deescalate and I snot him. Then tough titties.

Ryan hall famously pre-emptively attacks a guy in self defence on the street.

Well in a restaurant.





But this areticle had very little to do with preemptive attacks. which of course can be done by martial artists in a life or death fight without rules and refs and such nonsense that people try to say it can't be done.


----------



## Paul_D (May 13, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Pre-emption = initiation of attack.
> 
> Initating the attack = Criminal action.
> 
> Criminal action = punishment.


Not in the UK.

*Pre-emptive strikes *
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see _R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75_).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 13, 2017)

While, as others have said, there are definitely scenarios where a pre-emptive strike is both appropriate and legal, the author is going way overboard. It is not, at all, _always_ necessary (nor even a good idea) to be pre-emptive. Nor does going first guarantee victory. Writing like this has two major problems: 1) Its hyperbole (good choice of word, DB!) costs it (and more reasonable arguments like it) a measure of credibility. 2) Its all-or-nothing approach leads some to believe that aggressiveness is the same as self-defense.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Pre-emption = initiation of attack.
> 
> Initating the attack = Criminal action.
> 
> ...


Sorry friend that is not true in the US.  We have talked about this many times here on MT.

As for Thompson, I really like what the guy taught. I didn't look at the source of the interview but I can assume that this was from some time ago, back when he was promoting his VCR tapes. A lot of what he was teaching at that time was unheard of but now are pretty common place. 
My only criticism of Geoffrey and Lee Morrison is that it is very obvious that their view of the world is colored by their time as bouncers.   I do think as Geoff got older he figured out you can't go thru life with the mind set and outlook on life that he had. But then his pendulum went the other way.


----------



## drop bear (May 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> While, as others have said, there are definitely scenarios where a pre-emptive strike is both appropriate and legal, the author is going way overboard. It is not, at all, _always_ necessary (nor even a good idea) to be pre-emptive. Nor does going first guarantee victory. Writing like this has two major problems: 1) Its hyperbole (good choice of word, DB!) costs it (and more reasonable arguments like it) a measure of credibility. 2) Its all-or-nothing approach leads some to believe that aggressiveness is the same as self-defense.



There is a third issue. If this life or death idea is constantly drilled into your head it is going to destroy your confidence and ability to act.

There are plenty of dangerous activities. Good training to prepare for them is not about focusing on being hurt. I mean, I ride motorbikes which is legitimately life or death. But there is no way I could ride safely if I was constantly worried about it.

This is also why we dont let girlfriends in the change room before a ring fight.


----------



## JP3 (May 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> If it is reasonable to believe that you are in danger you are justified to take appropriate measures.
> 
> ...


You know, you're exactly right.

I had my mind's eye scrutinizing personal-only, non projectile weapon encounters, in which you'd better wait on the other person to take the first aggressive, initiating action.  But, come to think of it, if you're standing next to a dude, and he draws a knife, you Are entitled to deal with that before he tries to put it in your belly.

Assuming he's not standing there making a sandwich.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2017)

As I have said before, you don't have to wait to be hit before defending yourself. Anyone who thinks that is what karate teaches is wrong. Anyone who teaches that is wrong.

If a person reasonably (that word again) that they are about to be attacked, they are typically justified in defending themselves. They have already been assaulted and can defend themselves. Assault is not the same crime as battery.

There are also no absolutes. Engage your brain before you engage your weapons.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I have said before, you don't have to wait to be hit before defending yourself. Anyone who thinks that is what karate teaches is wrong. Anyone who teaches that is wrong.



i would be careful about the use of the word "wrong".   i will agree that it can be foolish.  but there has been a long standing belief in karate that you do not strike first.
"_karate ni sen te naishi"   there is no first attack in karate.   most older Okinawan karate-ka have uttered these words at one time or another.  it is the foundational belief of some like Shoshin Nagamine_


----------



## JP3 (May 13, 2017)

If I look at somebody and I don't like his face, I can punch him in it to improve him, right?

I'm being helpful to him, improving his face. Like plastic surgery, just faster and cheaper. Maybe less effective, but who is to say?

Bill, right again.  Assault is the intentional causing of the feer of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. Battery is that contact, regardless of whether or not the person knows it took place.

I know you knew this by your context, just dropping the definitions in thread.

What I find weird is that the above common-law tort definitions get mangled in the state-level penal codes, with assault sometimes being both things.


----------



## Paul_D (May 13, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would be careful about the use of the word "wrong".   i will agree that it can be foolish.  but there has been a long standing belief in karate that you do not strike first.
> "_karate ni sen te naishi"   there is no first attack in karate.   most older Okinawan karate-ka have uttered these words at one time or another.  it is the foundational belief of some like Shoshin Nagamine_


There has been a long standing misunderstanding in karate that you do not strike first.  But that is a literal translation, what it actually means is a karate-ka should never be the cause of any trouble.

_"When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help." Gichin Funakoshi_

Not, wait until you are attacked, but "_At that time attack him".

"There is an expression, “karate ni sente nashi.” Apparently some people interpret this literally and often profess that “one must not attack first,” but I think that they are seriously mistaken. To be sure, it is certainly not the budo spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that one’s primary purpose must be the training of mind and body. The meaning of this saying, then, is that one must not harm others for no good reason. But when a situation can’t be helped, in other words, when, even though one tries to avoid trouble, one can’t; when an enemy is serious about doing one harm, one must fiercely stand and fight. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is crucial, and one must take that control with one’s first move. Thus, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this".  Choki Motobu

_


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 13, 2017)

There is a time and place for pre-emption just like there is a time and place to de-escalate, avoid, engage after the altercation has started. There is however, no one fast rule that always will be right.  *That is why you have to have options...
*
There are no absolutes*!!!
*
Your training should give you flexibility to make the correct choice at the right time rather than trying some times to fit a square peg in a round hole.  Options.......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would be careful about the use of the word "wrong".   i will agree that it can be foolish.  but there has been a long standing belief in karate that you do not strike first.
> "_karate ni sen te naishi"   there is no first attack in karate.   most older Okinawan karate-ka have uttered these words at one time or another.  it is the foundational belief of some like Shoshin Nagamine_



Let's say mistaken then. What may appear to be a 'first strike' can be a reaction to a threat, and therefore not a first strike.

"He said he was going to hit me, and came towards me with his fists raised."

In the situation above, I've already been assaulted. Anything I do to defend myself at that point is not striking first.


----------



## Buka (May 13, 2017)

What has worked well for me over the years is, when threatened, when I'm pretty sure he's going to hit - was rather than hitting first, which I'm more apt to do in print than in actuality - is to move, slip, sidestep, jump back, whatever (sometimes even jam)...then anything else.

Now I'm wondering legally....if he swung and missed. Is the threat over because he's off balance, half turned and I have my grip on the back of his shoulder and have him in control, and he has no chance of hitting me for the next few seconds? 
And if I then cold-cock him....have I just committed assault?


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> There has been a long standing misunderstanding in karate that you do not strike first. But that is a literal translation, what it actually means is a karate-ka should never be the cause of any trouble.


i am not sure i deserve the dislike designation,  but while it my be a misunderstanding, that is not for me to say.  there are teachers who teach it and those who believe it.  it is not my own belief, but there is no question that the "no first strike"  is wide spread. you can google it and get many articles on it.  no doubt your own retort was from one such article.  most note worthy is Iain Abernathy
No First Attack in Karate? | Iain Abernethy
 would this article even exist if the belief was not common?    
so it is a belief.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Buka said:


> What has worked well for me over the years is, when threatened, when I'm pretty sure he's going to hit - was rather than hitting first, which I'm more apt to do in print than in actuality - is to move, slip, sidestep, jump back, whatever (sometimes even jam)...then anything else.
> 
> Now I'm wondering legally....if he swung and missed. Is the threat over because he's off balance, half turned and I have my grip on the back of his shoulder and have him in control, and he has no chance of hitting me for the next few seconds?
> And if I then cold-cock him....have I just committed assault?


well if you took hold of his shoulder and YOU lost your balance holding him and happened to accidentally  elbowed him and just happened to "step" on the back of his knee and fell on top of him hitting his head on the ground.....well what can you do?


----------



## drop bear (May 13, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's say mistaken then. What may appear to be a 'first strike' can be a reaction to a threat, and therefore not a first strike.
> 
> "He said he was going to hit me, and came towards me with his fists raised."
> 
> In the situation above, I've already been assaulted. Anything I do to defend myself at that point is not striking first.



I have never understood why people have to lawyerize their own morality.

I would have accept "I just really wanted to hit the guy"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 13, 2017)

Buka said:


> What has worked well for me over the years is, when threatened, when I'm pretty sure he's going to hit - ...


Sometime I would let my opponent to throw his first punch. When he did that, I would throw a 45 degree downward hay-maker to knock down his straight punch. After that, whether he still want to attack me or not depends on how much power I could deliver on his punching arm.



drop bear said:


> I have never understood why people have to lawyerize their own morality.



You try to punch my head. I try to punch your arm. Even in court, you are still the bad guy, and I'm still the good guy.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

the preemtive strike is not always a legal issue for people. its a moral one and one of fear.  often there is a factor of fear. of not wanting to escalate the situation.  the person has hope that there is a posibility of de escalation and walking away and if they strike first they are definitely in a fight and people have a fear of fighting and losing.
i think most often that fear of starting something they may not be able to finish is a big hurdle to a first strike.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime I would let my opponent to throw his first punch. When he did that, I would throw a 45 degree downward hay-maker to knock down his straight punch. After that, whether he still want to attack me or not depends on how much power I could deliver on his punching arm.
> 
> You try to punch my head. I try to punch your arm. Even in court, you are still the bad guy, and I'm still the good guy.


so... your saying you have done this in real life a few times and it worked for you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 13, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> so... your saying you have done this in real life a few times and it worked for you?


It worked for me in many challenge fights. In 3 different fights, I had used my hay-maker to knock down my opponent. My opponent moved in so fast. My hay-maker didn't hit on his punching arm, instead, my hay-maker hit on the back of his head. I still remember that my opponent's body was knocked from straight to horizontal, and then dropped onto the ground. I didn't know my hay-maker could knock my opponent's both feet off the ground.

IMO, the "45 degree downward body rotation hay-maker" is a very powerful tool to have in SD situation. It can be used to "interrupt" all aggressive forward attack. Of course to let your opponent to run into your belly kick can be another good one.

Here is an example. The body rotation can move you to be outside of your opponent's striking path. From that angle changing, you are standing on the side of your opponent, and no longer stand in front of him. This way, your hay-maker can reach to the back of his head.






Example - use hay-maker to interrupt straight punch.


----------



## Paul_D (May 13, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am not sure i deserve the dislike designation


You don't, but then I didn't dislike your post, I disagreed with it.



hoshin1600 said:


> but there is no question that the "no first strike"  is wide spread. you can google it and get many articles on it.........
> so it is a belief.


I didn't dispute any of that, I just don't agree with their interpretation.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It worked for me in many challenge fights. In 3 different fights, I had used my hay-maker to knock down my opponent. My opponent moved in so fast. My hay-maker didn't hit on his punching arm, instead, my hay-maker hit on the back of his head. I still remember that my opponent's body was knocked from straight to horizontal, and then dropped onto the ground. I didn't know my hay-maker could knock my opponent's both feet off the ground.
> 
> IMO, the "45 degree downward body rotation hay-maker" is a very powerful tool to have in SD situation. It can be used to "interrupt" all aggressive forward attack. Of course to let your opponent to run into your belly kick can be another good one.
> 
> ...



the clips are really short and difficult for me to figure out.. the second one looks like a hook punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 13, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> the clips are really short and difficult for me to figure out.. the second one looks like a hook punch.


It's not hook punch. It's hay-maker that you hit with your fore-arm. Here is another clip.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 13, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not hook punch. It's hay-maker that you hit with your fore-arm. Here is another clip.


oh ok i totally misunderstood then,,, you are striking with the forearm.  i do the same or similar strike.


----------



## Tez3 (May 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> am not sure i deserve the dislike designation,



It's the disagree one he clicked on rather than dislike.


----------



## lklawson (May 18, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> There is a time and place for pre-emption just like there is a time and place to de-escalate, avoid, engage after the altercation has started. There is however, no one fast rule that always will be right.  *That is why you have to have options...
> *
> There are no absolutes*!!!
> *
> Your training should give you flexibility to make the correct choice at the right time rather than trying some times to fit a square peg in a round hole.  Options.......


Let me just throw in this book right here.  It's specific to the U.S. and written by an Attorney specializing in the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/0988867702

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 18, 2017)

Buka said:


> What has worked well for me over the years is, when threatened, when I'm pretty sure he's going to hit - was rather than hitting first, which I'm more apt to do in print than in actuality - is to move, slip, sidestep, jump back, whatever (sometimes even jam)...then anything else.
> 
> Now I'm wondering legally....if he swung and missed. Is the threat over because he's off balance, half turned and I have my grip on the back of his shoulder and have him in control, and he has no chance of hitting me for the next few seconds?
> And if I then cold-cock him....have I just committed assault?


Depends on a thousand different things such as what your state/local laws define as appropriate force vs disproportionate, if the prosecutor things he can make a case and improve his personal "brand," and whether or not you have a lawyer of your own (such as is provided by "self defense insurance" like that available from The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have never understood why people have to lawyerize their own morality.


They probably want to stay out of prison.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (May 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> They probably want to stay out of prison.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Then you pay for good legal council and let him come up with the reason you were in the right.


----------



## JP3 (May 18, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's say mistaken then. What may appear to be a 'first strike' can be a reaction to a threat, and therefore not a first strike.
> 
> "He said he was going to hit me, and came towards me with his fists raised."
> 
> In the situation above, I've already been assaulted. Anything I do to defend myself at that point is not striking first.


Technically, if he swings and misses, and you level him.... it depends on the definition of "strike."

Sorry, had to.

If "strike" means there is contact, then you did strike first. But if strike is merely a synonym to "swing," then you were second.

There's really some good philosophy points of view in this thread.  I've been in enough fights/encounters/situations... whatever you need to describe such events to know that I really don't want to be in any more except in the dojo/training hall. But, that being said, there have been times and places where to initiate was required. In some of them, to protect myself, to protect someone else (more often) or to protect something (least often, and generally the least defensible to authorities  except for the trespass and very likely possibility of their escalation to assault on persons).  Still though... if you can avoid a fight, you avoid all the nasty things that can go wrong, for everyone.


----------



## DanT (May 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It worked for me in many challenge fights. In 3 different fights, I had used my hay-maker to knock down my opponent. My opponent moved in so fast. My hay-maker didn't hit on his punching arm, instead, my hay-maker hit on the back of his head. I still remember that my opponent's body was knocked from straight to horizontal, and then dropped onto the ground. I didn't know my hay-maker could knock my opponent's both feet off the ground.
> 
> IMO, the "45 degree downward body rotation hay-maker" is a very powerful tool to have in SD situation. It can be used to "interrupt" all aggressive forward attack. Of course to let your opponent to run into your belly kick can be another good one.
> 
> ...


Very common in northern shaolin. The good thing about it is the contact point could be anywhere along the arm, not just the fist.


----------



## drop bear (May 18, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Technically, if he swings and misses, and you level him.... it depends on the definition of "strike."
> 
> Sorry, had to.
> 
> ...



And bullying to a certain degree.

As the system generally works in favor of the bully. Or the bully works the system. (your choice) And you are trapped in a social setting. School. prision even bouncing this happens and you need to create a positive dont mess with me statement.

You may need to engage unorthodox methods of self defence to ensure your future quality of life.

No in a big city with freedom of movement you can avoid a threat by walking away. But that is because you have a whole bunch of social tools available to you. Live in a small town. (And interestingly I think Geof Thompsons england to a certain degree is a whole buch of small comunities jammed together)

And it is not some random stranger you will never see again. You will reencounter this threat constantly.


----------



## lklawson (May 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Then you pay for good legal council and let him come up with the reason you were in the right.


Sure.  I've got $30,000 right here in the couch cushions.  Doesn't everyone?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (May 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think most often that fear of starting something they may not be able to finish is a big hurdle to a first strike.



That's a great point.


----------



## drop bear (May 19, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Sure.  I've got $30,000 right here in the couch cushions.  Doesn't everyone?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Then you are probably going to jail.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 20, 2017)

Great Subject! Martial Arts etiquette aside, this is about self defense, down and dirty protection of oneself, fighting! 
I am all about pre-emptive striking. Letting someone get off the first punch can have disastrous consequences. 
My mantra has always been "I'd rather be called "The Accused" than "The Victim" any day of the week.
That being said, you should be aware of how to defend your actions and articulate why you felt the need to strike first. 

Here is a video I made a few weeks ago talking about this subject.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 20, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Great Subject! Martial Arts etiquette aside, this is about self defense, down and dirty protection of oneself, fighting!
> I am all about pre-emptive striking. Letting someone get off the first punch can have disastrous consequences.
> My mantra has always been "I'd rather be called "The Accused" than "The Victim" any day of the week.
> That being said, you should be aware of how to defend your actions and articulate why you felt the need to strike first.
> ...



Welcome to the board


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 20, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Welcome to the board


Thank you!


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 20, 2017)

If you have the time start a thread in Beginners Corner and introduce yourself.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 21, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Great Subject! Martial Arts etiquette aside, this is about self defense, down and dirty protection of oneself, fighting!
> I am all about pre-emptive striking. Letting someone get off the first punch can have disastrous consequences.
> My mantra has always been "I'd rather be called "The Accused" than "The Victim" any day of the week.
> That being said, you should be aware of how to defend your actions and articulate why you felt the need to strike first.
> ...


this is the same thing i have been saying on this sight for awhile now.
i dont use the word jeopardy because its not really a term most people understand. they think of the game show. so i use the word opportunity .  its more to the point.
ability, opportunity and intent.  that's my list.


----------



## Buka (Jun 21, 2017)

Welcome to MartialTalk, FightHACKS.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Great Subject! Martial Arts etiquette aside, this is about self defense, down and dirty protection of oneself, fighting!
> I am all about pre-emptive striking. Letting someone get off the first punch can have disastrous consequences.
> My mantra has always been "I'd rather be called "The Accused" than "The Victim" any day of the week.
> That being said, you should be aware of how to defend your actions and articulate why you felt the need to strike first.
> ...



We do delivery system rather than imminent jeopardy. But otherwise the same.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 22, 2017)

Buka said:


> Welcome to MartialTalk, FightHACKS.


Thank you!


----------

