The First Strike

[Makalakumu]

When I was working as a security guard we had a protocal that we followed that dictated the use of force. If a certain number of situation characteristics were fulfilled, then we could legally initiate the use of force.

I wonder if something similar cannot be applied to self defense? Perhaps if you could show that you were non-aggressive, had attempted retreat and that you were faced with a potentially dangerous situation, a first strike could be warrented.

I bring this up because, whether in a group, or alone, every time I initiated the first move, the conflict was resolved quickly and with little injury. Everytime the other guy initiated attack, it either took a lot of time for me to turn the tide or my co-workers had to come and bail me out of trouble.

In a real fight, the first strike makes a big difference. There is an element of surprise and a tendancy to over-focus that is usually capitolized by the aggressor. If a martial artist could prepare for those situations, that would give him an advantage to use techniques to end the conflict quickly, and hopefully with little injury.

Lastly, I don't think this question can be answered by looking to the octagon. Those guys know they are going to fight when they step into the ring. In a real situation, there are different emotions and different mechanics at play. Namely the societal more against fighting.

So, what do you think? Is striking first something an honorable martial artist can train for?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
When I was working as a security guard we had a protocal that we followed that dictated the use of force. If a certain number of situation characteristics were fulfilled, then we could legally initiate the use of force.

I wonder if something similar cannot be applied to self defense? Perhaps if you could show that you were non-aggressive, had attempted retreat and that you were faced with a potentially dangerous situation, a first strike could be warrented.

I bring this up because, whether in a group, or alone, every time I initiated the first move, the conflict was resolved quickly and with little injury. Everytime the other guy initiated attack, it either took a lot of time for me to turn the tide or my co-workers had to come and bail me out of trouble.

In a real fight, the first strike makes a big difference. There is an element of surprise and a tendancy to over-focus that is usually capitolized by the aggressor. If a martial artist could prepare for those situations, that would give him an advantage to use techniques to end the conflict quickly, and hopefully with little injury.

Lastly, I don't think this question can be answered by looking to the octagon. Those guys know they are going to fight when they step into the ring. In a real situation, there are different emotions and different mechanics at play. Namely the societal more against fighting.

So, what do you think? Is striking first something an honorable martial artist can train for?

Abso-friggin-lutely! "He who hesitates meditates in horizontle positions" EP
Sean

 

[theletch1]

The only problem I see with the proposal is that it is logical.:shrug: and we all know how far logic will get you in the court system. I certainly see where there could be times when a pre-emptive strike would be not only in your best interest but helpful to you very survival but the legallity of it makes the entire situation a real nightmare.

 

[Makalakumu]

When I was a member of the US Soo Bahk Do federation, I was told that in a defensive art, first strikes are not allowed. A martial artist should have good enough skills to never have to throw the first punch. My first inclination is that this is an overly naive view of self defense, but, on the other hand, I respect the Grandmaster - Hwang Kee - and I want to honor his words. Perhaps the idealistic view of self defense is propagated in order to prevent martial artists from relying on first strikes. It could be a way of controlling the power a kyosa instills in students and preventing bullying.

 

[Touch Of Death]

"Action is faster than reaction..." Sure your skills should be better than your opponent but what if he knows a thing or two? Then your whole plan just went out the window. Remember everytime that guy fights, he becomes better and better, and you just might be number 1,723.

 

[KenpoDave]

In my state, you are legally able to defend yourself physically once you have been assaulted. The definition of assault here is when you feel you have been threatened, you have been assaulted. Battery, of course, is when you have been hit.

Obviously, proof is required to a degree, and there are other variables. But what it boils down to is if someone approaches you aggressively, and states intention to harm you, you may hit first.

 

[kenpo12]

I think the first strike has many advantages most of which have been already listed. The other thing is if you KO the guy one hit, which is not too tough if done correctly, it may even be easier to explain in court since you only hit the guy once as opposed to fighting back from a reaction which will drag the fight out causing you to have to hit more than once.

Geoff Thompson (an England based martial artist) has based almost everything he teaches off of the first strike KO method. If you get an opportunity you should check out Geoff Thompson.com

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
When I was a member of the US Soo Bahk Do federation, I was told that in a defensive art, first strikes are not allowed.

Bet that made sparing easy, but boring.
More of a staring match really.
:rofl:
Your Bro.
John

 

[Makalakumu]

The grandmaster always frowned upon sparring because it taught aggressiveness rather then the peaceful confidence that our art should be teaching. Sparring was allowed, though, because so many of the students wanted to do it. Consequently, our attack routines stink because aggressive offense isn't stressed. When it comes to sparring, I am much better at defense then offense. Perhaps not the best when it comes down to the street. Kill or be killed - sounds like offense to me.

 

[MA-Caver]

A police officer in Dallas had told me this when it came to self-defense justification. A guy was threatening me but I blew him off and kept going... he was someone I knew by association of work but anyway, speaking of the incident with the cop he told me that if the guy had so much as poked me with his finger then I had every justification to fight back. It was assault because I did not desire physical contact from that particular individual.
Yes, laws vary from state to state but it's pretty clear what is and isn't O.K.

If I feel threatened by anyone then I'll allow my experience and judgement to assess whether or not the situation calls for a first strike. If it does then I will not hesitate to do so. I've been in enough altercations in my life and a few had allowed the other guy hit me first... found out that it was a - bad - idea!

In a security guard/paid protector position then policy will take over unless you don't care about keeping your job or going to jail.

Your experience and judgement should help you make that assessment when you or others are in danger and you are threatened with physical harm or death. Just be sure that you can make the assessment as quickly as possible.

 

[MJS]

IMO, if you have exhausted all your options and you feel that talking or walking away is no longer an option, then yes, by all means, hit first. Why would anyone want to wait for the other guy to start his punch, while you're standing there thinking, "Gee, should I do something before he hits me???" Of course, the debate about what will happen in court can go on and on and on, but again, and I know it may sound stupid, but the saying, judged by 12 rather than being carried by 6 comes to my mind.

Mike

 

[KennethKu]

1. Do you reasonably believe that your life/body or another person's life/body is in immediate danger?

2. If YES, then, IS there any way to escape/retreat?

3. If there is NO retreat/escape, then you are JUSTIFIED to use NECESSARY force to self defence.

IF you are INSIDE your house/apartment or any place of dwelling, then you are NOT obligated to retreat/escape first.

Also, you must use only NECESSARY force to stop the attack. Once the threat/danger ceases, you must NOT continue to beat the barstaard into a bloody pulp, whatever the urge may be.

 

[RanaHarmamelda]

KennethKu:

The old escape rule...heh. Fortuantely, not every state in the US has that rule -- I think Kentucky does not, I'd have to check the code real fast.

Fortunately, this isn't that hard for people to find -- just go look up your States penal code, under self-defense. As long as you are not using deadly force, many states give you a wide degree of latitude. Although, as KennethKu pointed out, a lot of states require you to try to escape first, or have no reasonable means of doing so.

 

[progressivetactics]

remember, explaining it is just as important as doing it..
I didn't gouge his eyes, i did what we call a eye flick..

I have won an arguement at a police station, where it was said that I hit someone first...i agreed, i did hit him first....it is just he had intended on hitting me, i just beat him to it. He wound up, and while he was taking his time, i came straight down the middle. It was self defense. I won. You do have to control yourself and not go over board...which is actually one of the hardest parts of the fight, once someone has provoked you into a fight...it is a true test of the martial artist.

Bet that made sparing easy, but boring.

That was funny!

I think that hitting first is not the first choice, but a choice that must sometimes be made.

bb

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Perhaps if you could show that you were non-aggressive, had attempted retreat and that you were faced with a potentially dangerous situation, a first strike could be warrented.

In general I think a first strike move can make you the guilty party in the eyes of the law. He can just say he was going to ask for the time, directions, or whatever and you just jumped him. You would have to show the jury that you feared for your life, had no other recourse (e.g., escape) and only used a reasonable amount of force in order to disengage. In that instance, a first strike would be warrented, IMO.

So, in the scenario you present above, he is actually holding you against your will and you're just trying to escape. In that case, I would think it would be warrented. If someone just approached you on the street and you *thought* it was a mugger and attacked him, he could sue you for assault.

WhiteBirch

 

[TheEdge883]

One thing you have to take into account is the level of violence that was going to or that he was attempting to throw at you. Think of it this way: A thug comes at you, you can see that he's ready to duke it out. You pull out a gun and shoot him. Who will be arrested? You, most of the laws I have read (course I'm in little ole utah) allow you to use an equal or lesser amount of force used to subdue an opponent. A guy comes at you with a knife, you pull out your swiss army knife (love that knife), reasonable amount of force. A guy pulls out a can of pepper spray, and you pull out a gun. Unreasonable amount of force. Of course, I don't know a lot about this stuff, so I might be reading it wrong.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by TheEdge883
One thing you have to take into account is the level of violence that was going to or that he was attempting to throw at you. Think of it this way: A thug comes at you, you can see that he's ready to duke it out. You pull out a gun and shoot him. Who will be arrested? You, most of the laws I have read (course I'm in little ole utah) allow you to use an equal or lesser amount of force used to subdue an opponent. A guy comes at you with a knife, you pull out your swiss army knife (love that knife), reasonable amount of force. A guy pulls out a can of pepper spray, and you pull out a gun. Unreasonable amount of force. Of course, I don't know a lot about this stuff, so I might be reading it wrong.

Yes Equal and Opposite force with out epressing emotion is what is expected in some states.

Yet, in a first strike situation when you just know it is going to go down. It depends.

The Mouth talking is not ready but his quiet friend is, Slap is Friend across the face. This lets everyone involved know you saw he was the one ready to do the sucker punch.

If lots of bad guys, and you are surrounded. I might choose to incapacitate the first and easiest to reach person, no matter their size. I would use necessary force to neutralize them. Choking, knee trap to the ground so they are out of the way. By Neutralize I mean one person is out of the fray immediately, and is unable to respond by the time you expect it to be over in a couple of minutes. Is this justifiable? Not sure, it all depneds upon if you can convince the responsing Police Officer that you were afraid for your life, from so many of the bad guys.

:asian: