Pre emptive strike

[johnjones33]

let's assume a pre-emtive strike is warranted as you have an honestly held belief that another individual is going to assault you and that individual is bigger, stronger and fitter than you.

what would be your choice of strike?

i think a shin kick or a 4 finger jab to the neck or throat before legging it. anyone have any better ideas?

 

[Jenna]

Without wanting to sidetrack your question, I would want to state that if you make a pre-emptive strike then you have become the aggressor. I would think seriously about that before thinking about which strike to make. Personally I would be ready to run or use my skillset and fighting tools to defend in the first instance. Whether the 'bad guy' has bad intentions or not, you making a pre-emptive strike turns the 'bad guy' into an innocent victim of your "poorly controlled fighting art" (as his legal team will imply).

Even that aside, I would not know what pre-emptive strike to make if I could not anticipate what the attacker is going to do. When you have a statistical likelihood of him making a certain move (based upon your fight experience) and you see him twitch it up then you can react and but you are not being pre-emptive in that case, only reacting. I think this is dangerous territory. Sorry if this is not a fitting answer. I think there is a more serious side to the question is all.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

let's assume a pre-emtive strike is warranted as you have an honestly held belief that another individual is going to assault you and that individual is bigger, stronger and fitter than you.

what would be your choice of strike?

i think a shin kick or a 4 finger jab to the neck or throat before legging it. anyone have any better ideas?

Yes, don't.

 

[geezer]

Maybe (as Jenna implied) a better place to start this discussion would be to ask under what, if any, circumstances a pre-emptive attack is justified, and even then, is it really a good idea????

 

[Touch Of Death]

let's assume a pre-emtive strike is warranted as you have an honestly held belief that another individual is going to assault you and that individual is bigger, stronger and fitter than you.

what would be your choice of strike?

i think a shin kick or a 4 finger jab to the neck or throat before legging it. anyone have any better ideas?

How about a sweep with a one finger jab to the carotid artery?

 

[Cyriacus]

Personally, id just assume a Parallel Ready Stance, and wait for the other Bigger Stronger and Fitter (Pretty much the equivelant of all my regular training partners) person to attack. To this day i fail to see why someone being Big and Buff is a reason to be remotely more alarmed than by any other attacker.

For the sake of your question however;
Approach them, and if they dont Pre-Emptively attack me for that, perform as a simultaneous motion; Palm Heel Thrust to the Solar Plexus, Quick Hook Sweep to the back of his leg. (Id use my left leg, so thats my Left Hand, and my Left Foot, and his Right Leg)
Preferably, id make sure he was inhaling at the time.

Also, trying to fingerthrust people in the neck isnt as effective as you may like to think. Not because of the strike, but because of the ranging associated, and how easy it would be for him to shove off to the side. As for a Shin Kick, i thought you said he was Bigger Stronger and Fitter? Therefore hed have conditioned limbs, based on the Stronger part, since you simply said Stronger, without specifying. So hed likely take it, and barely faulter.

 

[MA-Caver]

Bruce Lee, before he died was studying that and practicing the "pre-emptive strike"... he felt that it was prudent to hit the guy first before they can hit you. To me it's presumptuous to think someone is going to hit you. In my life time I've had many a fist cocked and aimed at my face but they very rarely did. I'll rarely throw the first strike and if I do it's going to be followed by at least a half-dozen more as fast (and hard) as I can throw 'em. I'm not going to do the "Captian Insano shows no mercy" finger-jab to the eyes. It's going to be hard to throw the next succession of punches because a person's natural reaction is to back off and cover their eyes to further protect it. Body punches I think are wasted because you don't know just how ripped that person might be under their shirt. Kick to the groin :btg: yeah if done hard and fast enough and more importantly accurate enough and not just grazing the upper innermost thigh. Throwing a first punch is commitment to the extreme. I'm committed to fight sure when the situation calls for it. I'm not going to throw the first punch if I can help it. It's a judgement call and it has to be made right the first time, no matter what it may be. A lot of guys I've found are just rhetorically saying "they're going to kick my bloody ***". It's the ones that don't say nothing but look at you that you need to watch out for.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Given the right scenario, a pre-emptive strike can not only be completely justified, but wise. Although the wording may differ from State to State, self-defense usually revolves around an attacker having the ability to commit the attack or threat of attack. As an example, someone that is a football field distance from you that is shouting a threat to punch you in the nose does not (at that time) have the ability to carry out the threat. On the otherhand, someone 6 feet away and walking towards you with clenched fists and is hissing he's going to knock your head off does have the ability to carry out the threat. In such a circumstance, one has to act as any reasonable person would in the same circumstance. Is it reasonable to wait for the attacker to actually throw the punch? No, it isn't. He has already commited a crime i.e. assualt;

1. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

This is different from battery; The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact.


Some states have the requirement to retreat, however there is usually some type of wording that eliminates this requirement if the act of retreating would put you further in harm i.e. turning your back on an advancing attacker. If you can simply get into your car or through a door you can lock without the attacker being able to attack you then that fulfills the requirement. If however you cannot, you are no longer required to retreat. Also, some states such as my own has eliminated the requirement to retreat entirely. It is called the 'stand-your-ground' law. This doesn't mean that discretion isn't still the better part of valor, but it does close a rather stupid legal trap. Also, I 'believe' every state has some sort of a Castle Doctrine which means you are not required to retreat while in your own home. Always check with your state statutes for clarification on use-of-force and use-of-deadly-force requirements.


As far as what type of pre-emptive strike (if avoiding is out of the question)...

Something that allows a stun-and-run. An edge-of-hand or forearm to the brachial plexus on the side of the neck. A chin jab. A punch to the nose (eyes water). A punch to the solar plexus. A kick or knee spike to the groin. A shin kick. A foot stomp. Always keep in mind that nothing works on everyone all the time. Also keep in mind that minimal force is not necessarily minimum force!

 

[MJS]

Well, theres 2 parts to this thread: 1) what type of strike would you use and 2) is it justified?

1) I'd say depends on the situation. If your hands are up, in a defensive, non threatening posture, you have a few things, ie: a palm strike, a slap, a jab, finger jab or whip. A lead leg kick is also another option.

2) I dont buy into the notion that if you attack first, that you're automatically the guy who starts the fight. If its possible, and I've done everything I could to defuse the situation, and some guy is red in the face, teeth and fists clenched, and moving towards me, no I'm not going to wait until he throws the first punch. The mere fact that his actions are showing violence, yes, I'd do a pre-emptive strike. I'll deal with the other stuff afterwards. At the moment, my safety and well being is #1 on the list.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Personally, id just assume a Parallel Ready Stance, and wait for the other Bigger Stronger and Fitter (Pretty much the equivelant of all my regular training partners) person to attack. To this day i fail to see why someone being Big and Buff is a reason to be remotely more alarmed than by any other attacker.

For the sake of your question however;
Approach them, and if they dont Pre-Emptively attack me for that, perform as a simultaneous motion; Palm Heel Thrust to the Solar Plexus, Quick Hook Sweep to the back of his leg. (Id use my left leg, so thats my Left Hand, and my Left Foot, and his Right Leg)
Preferably, id make sure he was inhaling at the time.

Also, trying to fingerthrust people in the neck isnt as effective as you may like to think. Not because of the strike, but because of the ranging associated, and how easy it would be for him to shove off to the side. As for a Shin Kick, i thought you said he was Bigger Stronger and Fitter? Therefore hed have conditioned limbs, based on the Stronger part, since you simply said Stronger, without specifying. So hed likely take it, and barely faulter.

Personally if I decided to pre emptive strike it would be a kick to the top of the knee, whether I would pre emptive strike is another question. I like your point about failing to see why someone big and buff is reason to be more alarmed. It always makes me laugh when I hear my non MA mates talk about how "Id never mess with that guy look how big he is" and friends who think that because they go to the gym all the time and are "big and buffed" that they somehow look more threatening. From what Ive seen of the big buffed guys who have started traing over the years, their size makes them slower and therefore more predictable. I certainly dont see them as more of a threat. Personally its the tall, lean, wirey looking guys that I worry about the most.

 

[mook jong man]

I think what strikes you will use is irrelevant really , it's how your going to control the range in the first few moments.
If you can't control that then the only striking going on will be him striking your head and your head striking the concrete.

If you can keep up a barrier (fence) then your probably safe in letting him initiate the attack and you counter attack , it depends on your training , in Wing Chun we spend half our life at this range so it's quite comfortable for us.

If you are stupid enough to let him get close to you without having a barrier up then your only option will be to pre-emptive strike because he is so close.

BY the time your optic nerve registers his attacking movement and sends the message to the brain which in turn relays the message to your muscles to mount a defence you've already been sat on your ****.

 

[Jenna]

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?

 

[oftheherd1]

Interesting question. Kong Soo Do has brought up a good point of law, as far as it goes. First, know the law where you are. What he said applies in most States in the USA. However, remember, if you find yourself doing that, and come here for backup for you actions, you will probably get it. The six to 12 men on a jury, or a panel of judges, are the ones you will really need to convince, and that may be a lot more difficult. In many US States, if you cannot retreat (back to a wall, belief turning your back or running will allow an attack) you may well, if feeling threatened, be justified in striking first. But again, remember, those of us here won't be the ones you really need to convince you were justified. You will be talking to people, many of which have never been in a fight in their life, sitting comfortably in a jury box or behind a jusdge's bench. It can be a tough sell. And you will pay for your lawyer, your attacker will probably be able to get one to act for him on a contingincy basis.

Now, let's assume you are justified in striking first. Lots of good advice already. Go back and re-read it. Especially those parts you blew off to begin with. Then understand what I say is from the point of view of a person who has studied a defense oriented MA (Hapkido). Like mook Jong man, we don't mind being in close, in fact we tend to move towards an attack. That applies a little less, since you are postulating your opponent has yet to make his move other than to show agressive intent. But many defensive moves can be modified for offense.

But you want a quick, effective move that hopefully at least allows you to retreat, or put your opponent out of action for a while. Next, who are you fighting? A street thug (lots of experience in fighting and accepting pain), another MA (likely to have defenses against your moves, and be able to recognize them)? I am not a big fan of groin strikes. A slight move of the thigh and a man is protected. Women are less vulnerable anyway. Everyone will go down if their kneecap is moved forcefully an inch or more out of place. Head strikes are good. Somebody already mentioned palm strikes to the nose. But when/if you do, rake both eyes. Scratching the cornea or sclera will put most people out of the fight. Your goal is to see how much of their eye matter you can accumulate under your fingernails.

Remember if you choose to be preemptive, your agressor is likely thinking ahead to his move as well. Be sure you don't leave yourself vulnerable (that was covered above also, remember?). It is important! Even if you do some damage to your agressor, what have you gained if you are down and out?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With a couple of exceptions, seems like a lot of people here a) have never actually applied any of these techniques against an actual aggressor and b) they want to get arrested.

There is no such thing as preemptive self-defense. If you are legally justified in defending yourself with force, that is self-defense. If you are using force before you are legally justified in using it, that is not preemptive self-defense, that is assault and battery in most jurisdictions.

If you feel an attack is imminent, leave. If you are prevented from leaving, you have the right to defend yourself in must jurisdictions. If your strike comes before your aggressor's, it is not preemptive, it is self-defense at that point.

 

[oftheherd1]

With a couple of exceptions, seems like a lot of people here a) have never actually applied any of these techniques against an actual aggressor and b) they want to get arrested.

There is no such thing as preemptive self-defense. If you are legally justified in defending yourself with force, that is self-defense. If you are using force before you are legally justified in using it, that is not preemptive self-defense, that is assault and battery in most jurisdictions.

If you feel an attack is imminent, leave. If you are prevented from leaving, you have the right to defend yourself in must jurisdictions. If your strike comes before your aggressor's, it is not preemptive, it is self-defense at that point.

Well said Bill. Self defense is self defense. Agression is agression. And someone will be tagged as being first. Don't let it be you, the MA, who will likely be held to a higher standard.

 

[Cyriacus]

Well said Bill. Self defense is self defense. Agression is agression. And someone will be tagged as being first. Don't let it be you, the MA, who will likely be held to a higher standard.

Yes.
The way i see it, if someone tries to swing a punch at you, then you block it, and perform some devestating blow, from the perspective of the Police, theyll see you standing there uninjured, and this other guy crippled on the ground. And unless there are witnesses or surveilance, you may have trouble proving it. If your the one with a bruise or two, however, then it becomes much more plausible that an engagement took place, and not just a bashing.

Tis a tricky logic, due to the number of perspectives and variables.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well said Bill. Self defense is self defense. Agression is agression. And someone will be tagged as being first. Don't let it be you, the MA, who will likely be held to a higher standard.

To be clear, a 'first strike' can be justified as self-defense under some circumstances; one can be 'assaulted' under the legal definition without a punch having been thrown. But then it is 'self-defense' and not a 'preemptive strike'. I'm not so much concerned with the order in which blows are thrown - who threw the first punch is asked in schools by principles, not so much by courts of law. But to strike preemptively makes it sound as if one was capable of avoiding being assaulted and chose not to do so by committing battery oneself.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes.
The way i see it, if someone tries to swing a punch at you, then you block it, and perform some devestating blow, from the perspective of the Police, theyll see you standing there uninjured, and this other guy crippled on the ground. And unless there are witnesses or surveilance, you may have trouble proving it. If your the one with a bruise or two, however, then it becomes much more plausible that an engagement took place, and not just a bashing.

Tis a tricky logic, due to the number of perspectives and variables.

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.

 

[Thesemindz]

There are times when I would throw the "pre-emptive strike" without hesitation. If I truly believe that this person is about to try to kill me, if they have a weapon drawn and ready, if I am in a rapidly deteriorating multiple opponent situation, etc. etc. If the situation is moving more and more towards my opponent's advantage and away from mine, I am not going to wait for him to act. Legally, that can get me in trouble. But I'd rather live to fight another day than die because I was waiting for a chance to counter attack.

Under those circumstances, if the situation has deteriorated to the point that if I feel the need to strike first, I'm going to strike hard and repeatedly. I'm going to put that bastard down. This isn't a fight. It's a beating. I'm not going to punch him once and then step back and go into sparring mode. This isn't a boxing match. It's an execution. One way or another, I'm attacking first because it's time to hurt somebody before somebody gets hurt.

There's a big difference between "social violence" and "self defense." What I advocate wouldn't be appropriate for two testosterone drunk teenage boys fighting over the pretty cheerleader. What I'm talking about here is the violent sociopath who is going to knife me and then rape my wife. I'm not screwing around. I'm saving lives. And I'm not waiting for him to attack on his terms. I'm attacking on mine.

Legally? That can get you in trouble. But I'm not talking about legalities. I'm talking about survival.


-Rob

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are times when I would throw the "pre-emptive strike" without hesitation. If I truly believe that this person is about to try to kill me, if they have a weapon drawn and ready, if I am in a rapidly deteriorating multiple opponent situation, etc. etc.

That is not preemptive, that is self-defense.

If you 'truly believe' that you are in imminent danger of being seriously injured or killed, in most jurisdictions, you have the right to defend yourself with force; but the test is that of a 'reasonable and prudent man'. If the police / DA / judge / jury do not think you are a reasonable and prudent man, then you could find yourself convicted of battery at the minimum.

While I'm not going to suggest that the legal system is always correct in assessing what the actual danger was at the moment you decided to act, I will say that our system works pretty well historically. I've dealt with more than a few people who hauled off and slugged someone because they felt they were about to be attacked but could not explain what it was that made them think so, other than "he just looked like he was fixing to take a swing at me." If that is your criteria, then yes, you are on your own. I would suggest that people acquaint themselves with the laws of self-defense where they live, so at least they will know when they cross the line that they risk prosecution.

And in case you were about to ask - let me answer first. I have explained the same thing to a fair number of drunken numbskulls (I am not accusing of being either one, this is just me talking to the numbskulls of my past) who said "Oh yeah? Well what was I supposed to do, wait until he punched me first? Screw that!" No, you do not have to wait until you get punched first. You do have to be able to explain rather convincingly why you thought he was about to do so. Like he took a step towards you with his hand raised, or he said "I'm going to kick your butt," or you had past contact with him and he did assault you, etc. Then I arrest him instead of your sorry butt. If they do something that makes a reasonable and prudent man think an asswhooping was incoming, then by all means, defend yourself. But that is *not* preemptive. You've already been assaulted at that point, even if he hasn't laid a hand on you.

By the way, that also surprises people who get arrested for assault and they say "What for? I never touched the guy!" Well, if you raise your fist at him and say "Pucker up, sweetpea!" You just broke the law, so happy trails, brainstem.

Assault is saying "Ima hit you." Battery is doing it. Both are illegal, and in most jurisdictions, if you fear the assault is about to become a battery, you have the right to defend yourself at that time.