Pre emptive strike

[Kong Soo Do]

The case can also be made for a reactionary strike. By this I mean the bad guy has initiated an assualt against you and violated your personal space. This could be in the form of getting right up in your face, faking a punch, telling you he's going to kill you will reaching behind him (as in making it look like he's reaching for a weapon) and you initiate a strike to create distance and/or interrupt his intended action. For example, if I walk up to you while clenching my teeth and balling my hand into a fist and then flinch towards you as though I'm throwing a punch at you, you don't need to stand there and wait to see if I'm truly throwing a punch or just trying to intimidate you. Thus the reactionary strike; a strike that is a reaction to the received impulse of being attacked.

A reactionary strike could also take the form of a cover block that is also an offensive movement. For those familar with terms such as 'shield block', 'cow-catcher', 'chin jab', 'crazy monkey', 'elbow spear' etc they are movements designed to protect the 'command center' i.e. your head while doing something to the attacker in an attempt to eliminate or reduce further attack.

For example: http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250/1782774

Just some additional thoughts for consideration.

 

[Nomad]

That is not preemptive, that is self-defense.

What you're arguing here is, in many ways, a difference in semantics. I think that the concept of a "pre-emptive" strike in this instance refers to interrupting the assailant's intent to attack you by hitting him first. In such a case, it is, as you've clearly pointed out, an act of self-defense, not aggression.

I think you pointed out very nicely the necessity of being able to verbalize after the fact what prompted what may be a split-second decision. It's important as martial artists that we learn to both see the lead-up to violence and be able to verbally walk someone else through it, otherwise we're likely to be the ones charged in the fight.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The case can also be made for a reactionary strike. By this I mean the bad guy has initiated an assualt against you and violated your personal space. This could be in the form of getting right up in your face, faking a punch, telling you he's going to kill you will reaching behind him (as in making it look like he's reaching for a weapon) and you initiate a strike to create distance and/or interrupt his intended action. For example, if I walk up to you while clenching my teeth and balling my hand into a fist and then flinch towards you as though I'm throwing a punch at you, you don't need to stand there and wait to see if I'm truly throwing a punch or just trying to intimidate you. Thus the reactionary strike; a strike that is a reaction to the received impulse of being attacked.

A reactionary strike could also take the form of a cover block that is also an offensive movement. For those familar with terms such as 'shield block', 'cow-catcher', 'chin jab', 'crazy monkey', 'elbow spear' etc they are movements designed to protect the 'command center' i.e. your head while doing something to the attacker in an attempt to eliminate or reduce further attack.

For example: http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250/1782774

Just some additional thoughts for consideration.

All true - but again, if he does that, he has assaulted you already. You are (generally, depending on where you live) entitled to defend yourself with force at that point. You don't have to wait to get hit - but it *is* self-defense, not a 'preemptive' strike. The assault has already occurred when he got in your face, etc, as you described. It's all self-defense at that point.

 

[Cyriacus]

Let's be clear. By most laws on self-defense in the USA (and I am not a lawyer), if a 'reasonable and prudent man' (a mythical creation of the legal system) is in fear of bodily injury from another person, one has already been assaulted. For example, I am herded into the corner of a room by a menacing figure and I do not believe I am free to leave. He draws back his hand.... and at that point, I have indeed been assaulted, the crime has been committed, and as a reasonable and prudent man, I am entirely justified in defending myself with force. However, that is *not* a preemptive strike. That is self-defense.

A 'preemptive strike' would presumably be when I am certain I am about to assaulted, but I cannot articulate a reason other than I think so. That's not self-defense, that's assault and battery.

There is no legal requirement under most self-defense law in the US that I am aware of that a person wait to be hit first before defending themselves. However, they must still be able to articulate a reason why they believed they were in imminent danger of great bodily injury, and the police/DA/jury (pick one) has to buy it too. Otherwise, they are not defending themselves, they are committing a crime.

Im aware of all that - What im saying is, how do you intend to prove that you didnt just attack him, if there was noone else around to see it, and you are absolutely fine?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Im aware of all that - What im saying is, how do you intend to prove that you didnt just attack him, if there was noone else around to see it, and you are absolutely fine?

Here's a couple of thoughts; First, the attacker is likely to have priors (rap sheet) involving these types of violent crimes (assault, battery etc). Not a gimmie, but if you're being attacked by a bad guy you are probably not the first. This goes a long way towards credability. Secondly, did YOU notify the police? This also goes a long way as muggers don't usually call the cops after they've beat someone up. If they arrive on the scene prior to being able to call them, always respond with something along the lines of, "Officer, my name is......, I'm glad you're here. This person attacked me". Again, bad guys just don't normally greet the police and give their names.

Again, nothing is a gimmie, but these little tidbits go a long way towards helping us get to the bottom of the incident. Doesn't mean you will avoid later litigation, but it might help avoid a trip to jail.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Im aware of all that - What im saying is, how do you intend to prove that you didnt just attack him, if there was noone else around to see it, and you are absolutely fine?

When there is nothing to prove what happened, then there is nothing to prove what happened. He says you attacked him. You say he was in the process of attacking you and you defended yourself.

End result is a wash. The police may choose to make an arrest. They may choose not to. They will probably file a report. They might even say something like "If you insist on signing a complaint against this guy, I'll arrest him, but you're going to be arrested too, because he says you started it." Then you have a decision to make.

Even if arrested, in a criminal case, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - as does he. So there is every reason to believe you may both be arrested, charged, go to court, and be found not guilty. But of course it will cost you lots of money to play this game. Or you can agree with the cop and not press charges, the other guy likewise doesn't press charges, and you walk away. Assuming no one is seriously injured or killed, that is.

Nothing prevents you from being arrested when you defend yourself. The cop might just not like your story. That's also something to keep in mind. And there is nothing to guarantee that if you legitimately defend yourself, you'll come out OK in court. You might not. And chances are it will cost you some bucks win or lose.

I've said this before - with very few exceptions, no one's life gets easier when they engage in public violence. Self-defense or not. Generally your life gets a lot more expensive and complicated quickly. Something to remember.

 

[Cyriacus]

When there is nothing to prove what happened, then there is nothing to prove what happened. He says you attacked him. You say he was in the process of attacking you and you defended yourself.

End result is a wash. The police may choose to make an arrest. They may choose not to. They will probably file a report. They might even say something like "If you insist on signing a complaint against this guy, I'll arrest him, but you're going to be arrested too, because he says you started it." Then you have a decision to make.

Even if arrested, in a criminal case, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - as does he. So there is every reason to believe you may both be arrested, charged, go to court, and be found not guilty. But of course it will cost you lots of money to play this game. Or you can agree with the cop and not press charges, the other guy likewise doesn't press charges, and you walk away. Assuming no one is seriously injured or killed, that is.

Nothing prevents you from being arrested when you defend yourself. The cop might just not like your story. That's also something to keep in mind. And there is nothing to guarantee that if you legitimately defend yourself, you'll come out OK in court. You might not. And chances are it will cost you some bucks win or lose.

I've said this before - with very few exceptions, no one's life gets easier when they engage in public violence. Self-defense or not. Generally your life gets a lot more expensive and complicated quickly. Something to remember.

Yes. Simply, Yes. Especially the end.

Here's a couple of thoughts; First, the attacker is likely to have priors (rap sheet) involving these types of violent crimes (assault, battery etc). Not a gimmie, but if you're being attacked by a bad guy you are probably not the first. This goes a long way towards credability. Secondly, did YOU notify the police? This also goes a long way as muggers don't usually call the cops after they've beat someone up. If they arrive on the scene prior to being able to call them, always respond with something along the lines of, "Officer, my name is......, I'm glad you're here. This person attacked me". Again, bad guys just don't normally greet the police and give their names.
Again, nothing is a gimmie, but these little tidbits go a long way towards helping us get to the bottom of the incident. Doesn't mean you will avoid later litigation, but it might help avoid a trip to jail.

There we go. Thats closer to what im saying - Since my point was that SD Laws only come into play after youve proven it was SD. Failing that, if nothing is proven either way, noone is charged, and you can go on, but having to be wary of possible repercussions if the other person does have priors, and has some less than desirable friends.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

There we go. Thats closer to what im saying - Since my point was that SD Laws only come into play after youve proven it was SD. Failing that, if nothing is proven either way, noone is charged, and you can go on, but having to be wary of possible repercussions if the other person does have priors, and has some less than desirable friends.

One point to be brought up is hesitation. I've seen recruits and rookies get so bunged up when a use-of-force is about to kick off because their worried about the results, acting properly/professionally, complaints etc. Translate this to Joe Private Citizen that fail to act because their worried about possible legal ramifications that may come up afterwards. This causes hesitation the can get you hurt...or worse. Knowing WHAT to do as well as WHEN you can do it goes a long way towards taking care of the situation. If you a student and your instructor hasn't properly educated you on use-of-force and use-of-deadly-force then take it upon yourself to get educated. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

 

[poollshark]

They might even say something like "If you insist on signing a complaint against this guy, I'll arrest him, but you're going to be arrested too, because he says you started it." Then you have a decision to make.

I've been in that EXACT situation before.............we both decided to let it go.

Another thing that should be involved in the thought process is this. If you feel an attack is imminent then why not leave? Diffuse the situation before it escalates to violence?

That being said there are too many factors involved to say what I'd do in the event I decided to strike first. Depending if the aggressor was squared up to me or off to one side or if he's up in my face screaming, each scenario would require a different approach. It would definitely be quick, decisive and hopefully just enough force so that I can escape.

 

[Cyriacus]

One point to be brought up is hesitation. I've seen recruits and rookies get so bunged up when a use-of-force is about to kick off because their worried about the results, acting properly/professionally, complaints etc. Translate this to Joe Private Citizen that fail to act because their worried about possible legal ramifications that may come up afterwards. This causes hesitation the can get you hurt...or worse. Knowing WHAT to do as well as WHEN you can do it goes a long way towards taking care of the situation. If you a student and your instructor hasn't properly educated you on use-of-force and use-of-deadly-force then take it upon yourself to get educated. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Hey, i endorse the use of a Pre-Emptive attack if need be - Im mainly trying to say that if you maim or kill the other person, itll be a bit harder to get away with. Disabling, or otherwise Incapacitating the other person in a way that wont leave them crippled or dead is perhaps a better option, is all im trying to say. Of course, if the use of Lethal Force is the best available option, then of course you do it. But it shouldnt be your first course of action.

 

[johnjones33]

this is my understanding of the pre-emptive strike from a UK legal perspective;
"Although a person who acts in private self-defence is normally actually being attacked, the defence is not limited to this situation, since it has been recognised that there may be situations in which it will be justified to use reasonable force by way of pre-emptive action against an apprehended attack" (A-G’s Reference (No.2 of 1983) [1984} 1 All ER 988, CA; Beckford v R [1987] 3 All ER 425, PC).

" The liberty to make a pre-emptive strike is not inconsistent with a duty to avoid conflict (if it were recognised), but it should be read as being subject to that duty." The 6 Issues of Necessity - Andrew Ashworth - Principles of Criminal Law

to summarise in laymans
Use of force may include the use of a PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE provided it is used consistent with the ‘DUTY TO AVOID CONFLICT’ by DISENGAGING OR LEAVING
Force should only be used if ‘absolutely necessary’ and as a last resort when all non-violent options have been exhausted. However, this still means that force could be a first resort where a failure to use force could result in great harm being done that this in itself justifies the use of force in preventing the harm being done.

 

[MJS]

Pre-emptive implies that your opponent has not made his initial play though has shown some tendency to aggression perhaps.

I'll agree somewhat with this. Yes, we dont know what his intent is. Will he just act like a tough guy, yelling, swearing, in an attempt to intimidate? Will he reach for a weapon? Will he advance on you? But, one thing that is clear, is that he is doing something, that being acting violent, threatening, etc, and that, for me, is enough.

I would still maintain that you cannot say which pre-emptive strike you would go for unless it is in your head clear what he *will* do. And that is quite a feat unless you know the person.

True, thus why I suggested that it'll depend on the situation. Just like if he punches you. I'm not going to sift thru hundreds of right punch techs, to find the right one. Instead, I'll just react to the initial attack and go from there. I can say what options might be best suited, depending on hand and body position. Ex: Hands up, in a non-threatening manner, vs. down at your side, will dictate what you can do. A palm to the face, a slap, etc, are good choices. Stance...slightly bladed. This gives you a better chance of moving, vs. standing how one normally stands, with feet about shoulder length apart. If a kick is the choice for the pre-empt, something off the front leg would be good.

Something else to keep in mind....when I think of a pre-empt, I'm not thinking of taking the guy out with that shot. For me, it serves 2 purposes: 1) a momentary disraction so I can get away or 2) a momentary distraction, so that I can follow up with other things.

If you are saying you would more than probably go for this kick or that strike then you could either miss your defence or miss a far better opportunity to put him down with a single strike in a sector he is not covering. If he thrusts out a blade and you are busy going ahead with a predetermined plan ie. "I will attack his throat with a knifehand" etc. then that is poor strategy I think.

Agreed, thats why I said situation depending.

Yes, you should be able to react almost at the instant he makes his fist or begins his draw back or begins to pivot for a kick or whatever and but if you move to strike first then you could be backfooted. I say wait and do not attempt pre-emptive strikes.

That is when I'd act. Apologies in advance if I hinted otherwise. He's already showing aggression from a distance. At that range, unless he pulls a gun, he's really no huge threat. Not saying he's not a threat, but he can't hit me from a distance. Once he starts moving towards me, well, thats enough for me anyways, to take that as a huge threat. Why? Well, if he wanted to talk, he'd be capable of that from a longer distance. Why is he moving in on me? To attempt to intimidate more? To strike me? I dont know, and I'm not waiting to find out. That is when I'll do something.

I do not like the idea of a pre-emptive strike except in the one rare case where you are know the person who is your aggressor and you can be sure the person has no concealed weapon and you have foreknowledge that he is not trained (in which case his initial move is by experience a shove or a straight jab, occasionally a hook etc.) and those cases are rare surely?

How often does that happen? Not saying a relative isn't capable of attacking me, but I'd stand a better chance to get attack by someone I dont know vs someone I do know.

 

[MJS]

Im aware of all that - What im saying is, how do you intend to prove that you didnt just attack him, if there was noone else around to see it, and you are absolutely fine?

Good point. A witness...well, given that this person, the potential witness, could be just as clueless as a juror, well, you have a 50-50 chance, that they'll be on your side, and say, "Yes, person 1 was clearly attacking person 2, and person 2 defended himself. If there're no witnesses...well, its still your word against his. Then again, you may have a few things on your side. Not a sure shot guarentee, but its something. If the defender can show that he's a fine, upstanding citizen, has no criminal record, cooperates with the police, etc, vs this punk who's been arrested 40 times, is a known gang member, etc. Of course, if you're sure that nobody is around, you can always just get the hell out of there. But you'd have to be sure that 'big brother' isn't watching. LOL.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Keep in mind that no one is required to just stand around after the altercation and call the authorities on a cell phone. If we've been in a situation where we've been attacked, and have successfully defended ourselves, and the bad guy(s) are still present (but unable to continue the attack for whatever reason i.e. incapacitated) we are justified to remove ourselves to a more secure environment and then notify the authorities. For example, your walking out of the mall and get jumped in the parking lot. You use some type of defense that puts the attacker down, at least long enough to get away (we don't stand there and try to kick him in the head 'just because'). We get back into the mall, around people and then call mall security and the police to tell them what happened. Again, muggers don't make a habit of calling the police after they've jumped someone, and your call is recorded so this goes a long way to showing who-is-who in this scenario.

Now I would add another consideration; you've been attacked and you've successfully defended yourself. The bad guy is down for the count but is in a situation where he could now be further hurt or killed i.e. he's fallen into the road. Do you leave him in the road? Do you try to at least move him out of the road if it doesn't put you into a dangerous situation? Again, this is situational dependent. In some circumstances you leave him there and beat feet because to stick around only puts you in greater jeopardy. But keep in mind that a situation may prevent itself to 'assist' the fallen bad guy out of further harms way. Now some might be thinking, 'F the bad guy'. However, look at it big picture for a moment. Dragging the scum bag out of the road so he doesn't get run over may prevent an accident to some innocent guy driving by. Also, you never know if your on camera somehow, somewhere. It looks pretty good for you that you've dropped the bad guy but then are such a good citizen that you've made sure he isn't harmed further. Understand what I'm saying here folks. It would look pretty good for you as far as police, witnesses, judge or jury. And again, ONLY if doing so doesn't put you into harms way. Situational dependent and just a thought to consider.

 

[Wo Fat]

As most have said, beware of the pre-emptive strike. In too many instances, the guy who wants to "pre-empt" somebody, is really just fed up with the bad behavior of the average punk/hoodlum/degenerate of today. And he's looking for a reason. Well, the thing is, the average punk/hoodlum/degenerate IS going to give you a reason. And since Mr. Preemption already knows this, what would be portrayed a self-defense situation, is really a pretext for setting up an opportunity to take down a much-deserving bad guy. Now, should you happen to get your awss kicked (or worse) then the bad buy wins. But if you should happen to maim the bad guy (or worse) then the bad guy still wins because you set up this perfect little self-defense scenario in the first place.

 

[oftheherd1]

As usual, Kong Soo Do brings up a good point about moving the perp out of harm's way. However, be sure you don't take a chance on injuring him further, or later being accused of it even if you didn't.

I know, it's not a perfect world we live in.

 

[johnjones33]

some great comments here and thank you all for your valuable input. I think it is very important to know what the law says in your particular region as the old roman law maxim says "if you do not know your rights then you have no rights".

i was on a course with a policeman once and he explained to me that the best thing to do if questioned by the police is do not speak to them until you have spoken to your lawyer/ solicitor as in the heat of the moment when adreneline is running high and the blood is still pumping you will not be in control of what you are saying and they are trained to get you talking so you incriminate yourself at this time. to protect yourself wait until you get a solictor and give him/her a "prepared statement" and then say that you have nothing further to add.

what goes around comes around and if you have not acted correctly then the chances are you will still be found out and if you make a habit of abusing your skills and training one day you will do it to the wrong person.

if you live by a moral code and believe you acted in the right way then know the law to protect yourself and keep you out of trouble. at the end of it all the big chap upstairs is who you will have to answer to if you have done wrong

 

[Tez3]

some great comments here and thank you all for your valuable input. I think it is very important to know what the law says in your particular region as the old roman law maxim says "if you do not know your rights then you have no rights".

i was on a course with a policeman once and he explained to me that the best thing to do if questioned by the police is do not speak to them until you have spoken to your lawyer/ solicitor as in the heat of the moment when adreneline is running high and the blood is still pumping you will not be in control of what you are saying and they are trained to get you talking so you incriminate yourself at this time. to protect yourself wait until you get a solictor and give him/her a "prepared statement" and then say that you have nothing further to add.

what goes around comes around and if you have not acted correctly then the chances are you will still be found out and if you make a habit of abusing your skills and training one day you will do it to the wrong person.

if you live by a moral code and believe you acted in the right way then know the law to protect yourself and keep you out of trouble. at the end of it all the big chap upstairs is who you will have to answer to if you have done wrong

It's doubtful that it's good advice to talk to a solicitor first, it certainly will be expensive, but I have to tell you that here you'd be regarded as having something to hide if you do and will cast suspicion on you where it wasn't before. We aren't trained to to talk to people in such a way as to make you incriminate yourself, I think that's a bit off to say that actually, I think that's a bit of showing off by someone. We talk with open minds to people to ascertain who did what, where and why. We don't automatically assume guilt or innocence and most coppers having experience know what it's like in assault situations and especially understand that sometimes you need to strike first as long as it's with reasonable force.
The best thing to do is give your details to the police, tell them you are shaken up over the assault and can you make a statement when you're less shaky, this makes you sound like the victim lol. Here you are allowed to strike first if you feel your life is at risk, if you can strike and shout don't hurt me at the same time, that's good if there's witnesses, they remember that.

 

[MJS]

As most have said, beware of the pre-emptive strike. In too many instances, the guy who wants to "pre-empt" somebody, is really just fed up with the bad behavior of the average punk/hoodlum/degenerate of today. And he's looking for a reason. Well, the thing is, the average punk/hoodlum/degenerate IS going to give you a reason. And since Mr. Preemption already knows this, what would be portrayed a self-defense situation, is really a pretext for setting up an opportunity to take down a much-deserving bad guy. Now, should you happen to get your awss kicked (or worse) then the bad buy wins. But if you should happen to maim the bad guy (or worse) then the bad guy still wins because you set up this perfect little self-defense scenario in the first place.

Well, speaking for myself only here, even if I was fed up with the behavior of the punks of today, I'm smart enough to understand that no matter what happens, nothing will change that. I say that because if they actually feared getting into trouble with the police, possibly going to prison, there would be no crime.

No, I dont walk around hoping, praying, that someone gives me a reason. IMO, thats foolish and that makes you no better than the thugs that we train to defend against. Of course, having the ability to control what you do and when you do it, is also very important. I've had more than my fair share of people trying to 'give me a reason' but I didn't take the bait. Taking the bait, would make me the one who is the aggressor. As I said in other posts, someone standing 6ft away from me, calling me an *******, isn't a huge threat. Once he starts moving towards me, well, thats different.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Pre-emptive implies that your opponent has not made his initial play though has shown some tendency to aggression perhaps. I would still maintain that you cannot say which pre-emptive strike you would go for unless it is in your head clear what he *will* do. And that is quite a feat unless you know the person.

If you are saying you would more than probably go for this kick or that strike then you could either miss your defence or miss a far better opportunity to put him down with a single strike in a sector he is not covering. If he thrusts out a blade and you are busy going ahead with a predetermined plan ie. "I will attack his throat with a knifehand" etc. then that is poor strategy I think.

Yes, you should be able to react almost at the instant he makes his fist or begins his draw back or begins to pivot for a kick or whatever and but if you move to strike first then you could be backfooted. I say wait and do not attempt pre-emptive strikes.

I do not like the idea of a pre-emptive strike except in the one rare case where you are know the person who is your aggressor and you can be sure the person has no concealed weapon and you have foreknowledge that he is not trained (in which case his initial move is by experience a shove or a straight jab, occasionally a hook etc.) and those cases are rare surely?

In the fights I've gotten into in self defense, it didn't seem to matter (much) that the guy hadn't trained. But also, in many experiences, and not just my own, the concept of taking out someone with one hit is wishful thinking at best. I'm all for continuous motion until the threat is neutralized. And in understanding how the brain works, an aggressor does not generally expect to be attacked first. Striking first interrupts the aggressor's OODA loop, and buys time. You've shifted the agressor from an active to a reactive mode of thought.

And if he thrusts out a blade, being ahead psychologically might save your life. If he already had the blade in his hand, he was already planning on using it. Ask someone who has been attacked with a knife before, and you'll find it doesn't quite go down like knife practice in a dojo. (Better yet, buy a Shock Knife and tell someone to go Bat S--- crazy on you.)

But as for the OP, I aim for eyes, throat, knees, and groin, in whatever order is available. I like what Robert Heinlein says: "Unarmed hand-to-hand fighting does not change through the ages; only the name changes, and it has only one rule: do it first, do it fast, do it dirtiest."