Geoff Thompson on the importance of pre-emption.

[Paul_D]

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]

That's nice.

 

[drop bear]

Hyperbole much?

 

[JP3]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?