Preemptive strikes and the curriculum

[exile]

I have been thinking (worrying) a good deal lately about how a rational, effective curriculum might be structured for the karate-based arts that would best serve the orginal purpose of this family (among others) of MAs: civilian self-defense against unprovoked violence initiated by untrained but dangerous assailants. Kidswarrior's terrific poll/thread on the instructional role of forms in this respect raises the issue of what a kata-centric syllabus for the MAs would look like, and I hope that that issue continues to gain traction over there. But there's another issue which in some ways is prior to that discussion, namely, do you let yourself be attacked first and then respond, or do you preempt the attack?

In the face of the reflexive reaction you seem to encounter from a lot of people studying the MAs that `Well, Funakoshi told us that there's no "first strike" in karate', Iain Anderson has posted two very well-reasoned articles on his website suggesting, among other things, that Funakoshi didn't have the slightest objection to justified preemptive strikes:

http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_2.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Mark_Tankosich_1.asp

The latter article cites a number of distinguished MAists on the issue, including the following from Kenwa Mabuni, founder of Shito-ryu:

When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior gone to battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should get the jump on the enemy and preempt his use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of sente nashi.
​

What I'm curious about is, first, what is your take on the idea of preemptive striking, taking into account critical analyses such as those in these two articles, and second, if you believe the concept has a place in the martial arts, how should it be presented and trained in a karate(-based art) curriculum? Where does it come in? At what stage in the trainee's progression? How can instructors best balance the ethical need to ensure that students learn the responsible application of MA techs with the need to give their students the best possible chance of surviving a potentially horrific violent attack on them unscathed?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Exile in the right moment with the right circumstances you may simply have no other choice if you are going to survive. Imagine a woman cornered by two thugs who are verbalizing what they are going to do to her. Certainly she would be in fear for her life and a pre-emptive strike may be the only option to get out of there and get home safely. The same could apply for any male confronted with multiple adversaries or just one physically more powerful adversary. (insert NFL lineman or WWE wrestler here) Pre-emptive strikes also particularly apply to warriors in general as on the battlefield it is always good to have the jump or initial surprise on your side. So they are needed and necessary to teach but categorizing when you would use one for the common civilian? :idunno: Well that is a little harder to do.

 

[Kacey]

As Brian said, preemptive strikes are for the time when no other avenue presents itself for survival. I try to address this in my class through the discussion of potential scenarios and the appropriate application of force in various scenarios - how to avoid situations, how to get out of them if they can't be avoided, how to recognize when "hit first, hardest" is the appropriate response. As with many self-defense scenarios, it is not possible to know how a person will respond in a high-stress situation unless and until one happens.

 

[jks9199]

Exile in the right moment with the right circumstances you may simply have no other choice if you are going to survive. Imagine a woman cornered by two thugs who are verbalizing what they are going to do to her. Certainly she would be in fear for her life and a pre-emptive strike may be the only option to get out of there and get home safely. The same could apply for any male confronted with multiple adversaries or just one physically more powerful adversary. (insert NFL lineman or WWE wrestler here) Pre-emptive strikes also particularly apply to warriors in general as on the battlefield it is always good to have the jump or initial surprise on your side. So they are needed and necessary to teach but categorizing when you would use one for the common civilian? :idunno: Well that is a little harder to do.

There's definitely a time and place to act before you get hurt, and, with all the usual caveats that I'm NOT a lawyer nor am I providing legal advice, self defense doesn't automatically require that you be struck before you can act. You have to be able to explain (articulate) why you were reasonably in fear of imminent attack in order to justify your actions. This is easy if you've already blocked, evaded, or been hit by a punch. It's only slightly harder in many cases if you act pre-emptively. If you can articulate what the other person was doing, why it made you believe that he was about to assault you, and how your reaction was appropriate to the threat presented -- you'll probably be fine. Guy stands there saying "I'm gonna kick your ***!", clenching his fists and advancing towards you... I think it's pretty clear that you reasonably believed he was about to attack you. It's harder if you're talking about a few people standing "menacingly" on a street corner and you decide that the only way to get past them is to launch into a flying side kick from 10 feet away. At that point, your best preemptive option is to go another direction.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I have used pre-emptive strikes before.

Usually when the person is just going through the warm up motions before a fight. They begin to yell and or dance around. They even begin to hit themselves. At this point, I realize no manner of talking or consideration will allow this to not be a violent situation.

I have had reactions from everyone stopping and being surprised, including the bad guy. I have also seen the person then cry self defense and look for the crowd to change. I have seen someone state that they were under 18 and that I had assaulted a minor. (* Those in the crowd, stated they say me slap a young man about to hit me. Open hand attacks are nice. *)

There are times and places for it. Usually experience is the best way to know when to use it.

There are other times as mentioned where the situation would be well for the person to react. When one is out numbered or size is an issue.

Any woman who is 5 foot something and one hundred and so pounds would be able to say that I scared them easily and have any reasonable person believe them. As long as I was acting in a threatening manner of course.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You need to neutralize the threat to your personal safty or that of your family. You may leave, but that is not always an option. The longer you wait to neutralize the threat, however, the harder it becomes to deal with. This is all timing and environment stuff.
Sean

 

[14 Kempo]

I agree with those that state it is the situation that dictates the action. Given the situation, I will need to judge whether or not I will be able to diffuse the situation verbally or if the threat is great enough to be pre-emptive. Also need to judge the company that I am within, are they threatened? If I am pre-emptive, will I be able to protect them as well as myself? Are there numerous thugs? If I'm dealing with one, two or three, is there another possibly harming those I'm with?

It's nice to say, be pre-emptive to protect yourself and others with you, to better control the situation, but there are many instances where it can cause harm to those you love. It's always better to talk it down verbally. There is nothing within your pockets or wallet that can not be replaced. The idea is to walk away, however that is achieved, that is what you need to do.

 

[Kosho Gakkusei]

What I'm curious about is, first, what is your take on the idea of preemptive striking, taking into account critical analyses such as those in these two articles, and second, if you believe the concept has a place in the martial arts, how should it be presented and trained in a karate(-based art) curriculum?

Pre-emptive striking is an obvious and necessarry facet to self-defense. As discussed on the thread regarding Forms as a Complete System, one attempting to use a true TMA approach could use Kata to approach the subject. Particularly the use of deception or cloaking moves, I feel this would be a key component to a successful pre-emptive strike. There are a few Okinawan Kata that utlilize manuevers that at face value make little sense. For example, Naihanchi or Tekki is supposedly a Kata of someone fighting with their back against a wall and on the surface this statement apears to be true. But then if this is true then why would it be Choki Motubu's favorite Kata?? Remember this man was one of the most famous Karate fighters in history- known for his martial prowess, famed for decisively defeating 7' tall Russian Boxer in a challenge match. It is said that Motubu practiced Naihanchi 500 times a day and said the form contained all of his fighting secrets. How could a Wall Kata contain such secrets? What do we have? A Kata where one looks in one direction yet moves and attacks in another. My interpretation - deception and cloaking.

Where does it come in? At what stage in the trainee's progression?

Obviously, the concepts I'm talking about are a little more Okuden and wouldn't into begining categories.

How can instructors best balance the ethical need to ensure that students learn the responsible application of MA techs with the need to give their students the best possible chance of surviving a potentially horrific violent attack on them unscathed?

The instructor must know his students and the student must win his trust. And only those who are willing to look deeper can get these kind of things.

Just my thoughts. Great subject.

_Don Flatt

 

[CuongNhuka]

OK, I'm an A.D.D. kid. And Exile, I'm sorry, but you tend to drag on a little. I'm sure I do also, but thats not the point. Cuong Nhu could be called a Kata based system (only part of the circulum that is a major testing requirement no matter what rank you going for). And be do really well at sparring tournaments. And a few members of the style have been in, and done fine in, real fights.
Nextly, Taekyoku Nidan begins with a technique that, on the surface, would be considered an attack. Atleast in the Cuong Nhu way of doing it. One could also make the argument that all blocks are attacks, and all attacks are blocks. I'm sure someone already said that, but I'm still an add kid.

 

[MJS]

I have been thinking (worrying) a good deal lately about how a rational, effective curriculum might be structured for the karate-based arts that would best serve the orginal purpose of this family (among others) of MAs: civilian self-defense against unprovoked violence initiated by untrained but dangerous assailants. Kidswarrior's terrific poll/thread on the instructional role of forms in this respect raises the issue of what a kata-centric syllabus for the MAs would look like, and I hope that that issue continues to gain traction over there. But there's another issue which in some ways is prior to that discussion, namely, do you let yourself be attacked first and then respond, or do you preempt the attack?

Interesting articles, and yes, it does seem like mixed views, if I'm reading them right. As for the question: Considering we live in a sue happy world and the bad guy can turn around and sue you even though he was trying to cause you bodily harm, what we do, should be done with care. I'm a believer in trying to defuse first. We may/may not have time to do that. If someone follows me to a parking lot, jumps out of his car, accusing me of cutting him off, and starts racing towards me, fists clenched, with that "I'm going to kill you!" look, sorry, but IMO, there is no time for talking. That being said, I'm not waiting for the punch to be half way to my face before I act. If someone is making an aggessive action towards me, I'm talking that as he is planning on more than just talking. He's violating my personal space, and I'm going to react.

In the face of the reflexive reaction you seem to encounter from a lot of people studying the MAs that `Well, Funakoshi told us that there's no "first strike" in karate', Iain Anderson has posted two very well-reasoned articles on his website suggesting, among other things, that Funakoshi didn't have the slightest objection to justified preemptive strikes:

http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_2.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Mark_Tankosich_1.asp

The latter article cites a number of distinguished MAists on the issue, including the following from Kenwa Mabuni, founder of Shito-ryu:

When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior gone to battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should get the jump on the enemy and preempt his use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of sente nashi.​

What I'm curious about is, first, what is your take on the idea of preemptive striking, taking into account critical analyses such as those in these two articles,

See my comment above.

and second, if you believe the concept has a place in the martial arts, how should it be presented and trained in a karate(-based art) curriculum?

Scenario training. Of course, some will say that its impossible to exactly replicate, etc., etc. but IMO, those folks are only looking to dismiss the drill. We can't replicate everything 100% no matter what art we train in. So..back to the drill. Simulate a road rage situation. This is going to require the 'attacker' to swear, yell, and scream at the defender. If you're going to train it, it needs to be as real as possible. In some cases, work it so verbally defusing the threat works and in others, where you actually have to train the pre-emp. Of course, this needs to be done randomly.

Where does it come in? At what stage in the trainee's progression? How can instructors best balance the ethical need to ensure that students learn the responsible application of MA techs with the need to give their students the best possible chance of surviving a potentially horrific violent attack on them unscathed?

Where does it come in: Similar to a thread I started about contact. Its something that you gradually work your way up to. It shouldn't be done right away, but it shouldnt be held off for 10 yrs either. As for the techniques: K.I.S.S= Keep It Short & Simple. Hands up, palms out, in a non-threatening manner allow for palm strikes to the face, strikes to the eyes, as well as the defender moving forward, slamming their arms into the person. More along the lines of The Spear System that Tony Blauer uses.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

There's definitely a time and place to act before you get hurt, and, with all the usual caveats that I'm NOT a lawyer nor am I providing legal advice, self defense doesn't automatically require that you be struck before you can act. You have to be able to explain (articulate) why you were reasonably in fear of imminent attack in order to justify your actions. This is easy if you've already blocked, evaded, or been hit by a punch. It's only slightly harder in many cases if you act pre-emptively. If you can articulate what the other person was doing, why it made you believe that he was about to assault you, and how your reaction was appropriate to the threat presented -- you'll probably be fine. Guy stands there saying "I'm gonna kick your ***!", clenching his fists and advancing towards you... I think it's pretty clear that you reasonably believed he was about to attack you. It's harder if you're talking about a few people standing "menacingly" on a street corner and you decide that the only way to get past them is to launch into a flying side kick from 10 feet away. At that point, your best preemptive option is to go another direction.

jks9199 This is a very good post and articulated really well!

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Be first, be last. If you don't get the jump on him, use a stop hit. I think preemptive strikes are the other guy's bread and butter. You take it away from him and it's a bit of a different ball game. I take the initiative to take it away from the other guy. I also feel like it's taking less of a chance. Now if you're the type who can trade a hit, it might be more worth it, though he might have an unseen knife. When it comes to fighting I become very prejudiced. I assume the worst. They have a knife (or some other weapon) and they are goingto kill me. Same reason I hand over my jewels without a fight. I am very fortunate in that I can run pretty fast...

 

[jks9199]

I've been thinking... And now that the fire department is gone, I want to expand on something.

Preemptive action can often avoid having to take more forceful action. Despite struggling with my share (or more; had a partner who had a genuine talent for saying the wrong thing to someone for a while...) of arrestees... I've only had to really "fight" one or two. By that, I mean that I've only had one or two that went beyond a struggle into a hold or cuffing position.

Why is that? Is it my silver tongue? Maybe. But I doubt it.

I think it's simple. It's because I've got the awareness and alertness that I'm moving in on them, and taking control of them BEFORE they have a chance to do anything more. I'm not standing there waiting; before they escalate, I've already laid hands on them, and I'm cuffing them. I've even had a couple of folks that I just looked at, and told them "don't try it..." either verbally or by body language.

In other words, this is just a really long way to go to say that preemptive action doesn't necessarily mean hitting someone, or knocking them out. It might include moving away, or changing your posture to communicate that you are not a victim, or something else beyond simply hauling off and decking some guy who might be about to hit you.

 

[Langenschwert]

IMO, training to do the first strike is important in a real life and death situation. In so doing, you force the opponent to respond on your timetable, not the other way around. Legal issues aside, it's tactically a good idea in general.

Another thing to consider is the relative size of the opponents. The wrestling master Ott advised that against an inferior/smaller opponent, you take the initiative and take the "Vor" (Before), against an equal opponent, you act "Indes" (Simultaneously), and against a stronger opponent you act in the "Nach" (After) or after to counter his actions after he has launched them, rather than pre-emptively. May be something to consider, but I don't know anything about Karate, and how that would apply to Kata I have no idea.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

If someone is hostile and /or threatening me and they are closing with in arms reach, I will hit them first, because once you are that close, he who hits first usually hits last as well.

 

[qi-tah]

IMO, training to do the first strike is important in a real life and death situation. In so doing, you force the opponent to respond on your timetable, not the other way around. Legal issues aside, it's tactically a good idea in general.

Another thing to consider is the relative size of the opponents. The wrestling master Ott advised that against an inferior/smaller opponent, you take the initiative and take the "Vor" (Before), against an equal opponent, you act "Indes" (Simultaneously), and against a stronger opponent you act in the "Nach" (After) or after to counter his actions after he has launched them, rather than pre-emptively. May be something to consider, but I don't know anything about Karate, and how that would apply to Kata I have no idea.

Best regards,

-Mark

Well, i guess i've been training the right stuff then, cause i am just about smaller than anyone i'm likely to fight with!

I have done a bit of "pre-emptive running" though.
I actually asked my teacher about why we didn't do any first strike apps in our Xing yi... he basically said that as a class we were still too uncontrolled for such aggressive tactics. I got him to show me some stuff though and it got me interested in "early entering" strikes... perhaps coupled with footwork to take yr opponent off balance ('cause you can't hit and regain your balance at the same time), that's close to pre-emption?

 

[kidswarrior]

Preemptive action can often avoid having to take more forceful action.

I've even had a couple of folks that I just looked at, and told them "don't try it..." either verbally or by body language.

In other words, this is just a really long way to go to say that preemptive action doesn't necessarily mean hitting someone, or knocking them out. It might include moving away, or changing your posture to communicate that you are not a victim, or something else beyond simply hauling off and decking some guy who might be about to hit you.

This is where it's at for me. Rich had some good points, too, about a guy who's jumping around, yelling, maybe hitting himself. That guy I might pop first. But other than such an out and out display, I'd tend to use and teach what jks has outlined here.

By the way, does it work? Well, one of my senior students (blue/green), 16-yr-old former gang banger living in a group home because it's too dangerous for him to live in his home town, this week was braced by four guys in the lunch line at school. The 'leader' even put his hands up in a boxing stance. Now, the old George (name changed) would have waded in and taken at least two of them out. The new George just stood there with hands on hips (our 'ready' stance), refusing to be the victim, refusing to be sucked into this little group's chaos. When they saw he wasn't going to be provoked, they just left. Can't tell you how proud I was when I heard about it. I think that's an illustration of what jks is saying? Anyway, it's my stance on exile's excellent question.

 

[Kacey]

Whether that's what jks meant or not - congratulations on your student! Sounds like your teaching is going quite well.

 

[kidswarrior]

Whether that's what jks meant or not - congratulations on your student! Sounds like your teaching is going quite well.

Thank you. :asian:

 

[jks9199]

This is where it's at for me. Rich had some good points, too, about a guy who's jumping around, yelling, maybe hitting himself. That guy I might pop first. But other than such an out and out display, I'd tend to use and teach what jks has outlined here.

By the way, does it work? Well, one of my senior students (blue/green), 16-yr-old former gang banger living in a group home because it's too dangerous for him to live in his home town, this week was braced by four guys in the lunch line at school. The 'leader' even put his hands up in a boxing stance. Now, the old George (name changed) would have waded in and taken at least two of them out. The new George just stood there with hands on hips (our 'ready' stance), refusing to be the victim, refusing to be sucked into this little group's chaos. When they saw he wasn't going to be provoked, they just left. Can't tell you how proud I was when I heard about it. I think that's an illustration of what jks is saying? Anyway, it's my stance on exile's excellent question.

It's along the lines... I was simply trying to point out that many of the earlier posts, mine included, seemed to imply that preemptive action equals direct force against a potential aggressor. But that's not the case; sometimes, preemptive action means denying the aggressor the opportunity to be aggressive. For example, tonight I assisted another officer in arresting someone. I don't know if he'd have been a problem or not; when it came time, I already had one arm while he was cuffing the first. He never had the chance to become a problem... Or, my very first night out of the academy, I was about to arrest a guy. As I'm talking to him, I note his change of tone, changes in his body language, and realize he's considering hitting me. I shifted my position slightly, to buy more time if he did, and changed my grip on the flashlight I was holding so that if he tried to hit me, I'd be striking him first. I don't know what deterred him -- but he didn't try to hit me and he calmed down, so that I was able to arrest him without any real use of force. Or... to move off the street for a moment... I was working with a student in a sparring exercise. He was supposed to attack me, but I could see him decide it's time, and would just lay my hand against his, or step in on him... Very, very frustrating for him, but I never hit him.

Once again, I'm just trying to stress that there are many ways to preempt an attack, and that we're not limited to "do unto him before he does unto you" direct attacks.