The Pre-emptive Strike

[Flatlander]

One form of attack that Bruce Lee taught was the pre-emptive attack, or attack on preparation. Though it is possible that Lee had intended this tactic to be used primarily while combat has already begun, it seems that many JKD people quote this tactic as a viable beginning to an engagement. My question is, is this a practical technique in a legal context? A pre-emptive strike will generally be noted by witnesses as an instigative move, thereby giving the appearance that the pre-emptive striker was attacking, rather than defending. Is attack on preparation a responsible thing to be teaching students?

 

[rutherford]

My vote: Reasonable to teach, but also responsible to talk about when it's appropriate.

 

[PragmaticMartialArtist]

No because criminally and in civil suits you are putting yourself in a bad situation. Walk away, but don't give your back. Watch some JKD self defense tapes out there. When you break it down, a lot of the defense relies on the first strike and continues thereon. This isn't self defense because the concept relies on you being the initial physical aggressor.

 

[Troy Ostapiw/Canada]

Your best defence is a good offence. This is a very good tactic. The reality is we have to consider the legality of each situation we encounter. Each country will have different laws reguarding self-defence.

In Canada a person has the right to defend them self if they feel a personal assault is imminent. A person has the right to deffer the violence if they feel the attack is imminent. This means I feel the person in front of me is about to cause me bodily harm, ( they show all the physical cues ie. threatining posture, clenched fists, agressive, verbally abusive) at this point the threat is imminent, and one is able to use a reasonable amount of force to prevent the assault. The strike you mentioned would be an effective way of deffer the violence. There are other factors involved as well.

One does not have to wait to be a victim before they take action. This is a responsability. If a martial arts instructor teaches, but does not share the legal aspect of self-defence with his students, he/she is setting them up for failure and possible incarceration (prison).

One should explain the legal aspects of self-defence to their students. If you instruct martial arts, but don't cover the legalities, you should learn and research what you are teaching to your students. After all, law-suits aren't much fun...........If You teach your students how to respond, it is your respond-sibility as an instructor to educate your students about the law.

This type of striking method can be seen as covert, and a very quick response to prevent violence. In the real world a person may have their hands at their sides. It is at this point that agressive person may attemt to take advantage. You just don't allow them the chance. Martial arts goes beyond just the physical response. There is the Mental, emotional, spiritual, and legal ...

Troy/Canada

 

[Bammx2]

Question...

The "press"(journalists,paparazzi,etc) can write false stories and publish illegal pictures that would ruin someones life and all they have to say in court is..."I believed it to true AT THE TIME"....too late,damage is done.


Here in the UK, if you use the "pre-emptive strike" to SAVE your life...."I believed it to be true at the time" does NOT work for crap!
Wouldn't that same phrase be applicable here?
They only care about who threw the first punch.They don't care why....just who threw it.

Now.....
Why is it, that one phrase, can save a propaganda-mongor who can ruin someones life with words and pictures,but it's not acceptable when you have to justify saving your own @$$ when faced with 3 guys on a dark street bent on hurting you?

My gran'daddy always said "Tain't no way to get out of a good @$$-whoopin,you can only hope to get in the first lick..just might make all the difference in the out come"

When there is no doubt left.....
Law-be-damned!

 

[MJS]

It definately is a fine line. Like it was said, you can be looked at by witnesses as you being the aggressor, but on the other hand, do you really want to wait for this guy to be executing his strike before you react? IMO, if you see the attacker starting to draw his hand back, make agressive moves towards you, etc. then I see nothing wrong with the pre-emptive.

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

As I posted on another thread. A pre-emptive strike can be as simple as just grasping both of your opponents wrists. This leads to nuetralizing a confrontation and if need be leaves me in-close where I want to be.

 

[Sifu Barry Cuda]

Hey Guys,a preemptive strike in JKD lingo is basically stophitting on the intention.If someone tells you they are going to break your face and you hit them as they pick up their hands legally you are being assaulted.Im a former corrections officer and I teach JKD and Kali to law enforcement all over the US.If like myself you are either a cop, ex cop,or have been in martial arts magazines, and have your own instructional videos out,the grand jury can say you were wrong and crucify you. It depends on what you do.Personaly I love to hit a guy on his intention,just with a shin kick or thigh kick.The heart of JKD is the stop hit so why wait for him to throw a shot to intercept when you can intercept the intention. Barry l

 

[Drac]

As I posted on another thread. A pre-emptive strike can be as simple as just grasping both of your opponents wrists. This leads to nuetralizing a confrontation and if need be leaves me in-close where I want to be.

Words of wisdom there..And here I though I was the only one you felt that way..

 

[Drac]

Words of wisdom there..And here I though I was the only one you felt that way..

It should read WHO felt that way..I really need to start wearing my glasses when I type..

 

[Hawkeye]

I think the smartest preemtive strike is to avoid that confrontation. As a retired police officer I haven't seen many instances where someone said "Well officer, he just came over and hit me". If you are continuing a situation that results in physical confrontation - and you had the opportunity at any time to walk away or stop the escalation - you're probably as much at fault as the other meat-head.


Hawk.

 

[James Kovacich]

The heart of JKD is the stop hit so why wait for him to throw a shot to intercept when you can intercept the intention. Barry l

One of the first things that I can remember Sifu saying was "as soon as he "starts" to raise his hands, you hit him."

And that is something that I definately pass on.

 

[James Kovacich]

It should read WHO felt that way..I really need to start wearing my glasses when I type..

If you can fight in-close then you've probably develpoped good fight attributes. I hear so many people talking about fighting outside. To me thats not fighting, thats defending.

 

[James Kovacich]

I think the smartest preemtive strike is to avoid that confrontation. As a retired police officer I haven't seen many instances where someone said "Well officer, he just came over and hit me". If you are continuing a situation that results in physical confrontation - and you had the opportunity at any time to walk away or stop the escalation - you're probably as much at fault as the other meat-head.


Hawk.

I always tell my students that if you fight. You better do the damage quick. Because if it looks like you could of walked away and didn't, you may be in for trouble.

 

[Flatlander]

I think the smartest preemtive strike is to avoid that confrontation. As a retired police officer I haven't seen many instances where someone said "Well officer, he just came over and hit me". If you are continuing a situation that results in physical confrontation - and you had the opportunity at any time to walk away or stop the escalation - you're probably as much at fault as the other meat-head.


Hawk.

Actually, it is more accurately referred to as "attack on preparation". It is the concept that when you recognise that your opponent is preparing to attack, you hit first. It is predicated on the fact that you knew a strike was coming, and your only other options were to strike first, block or parry, or take the strike.
Yes, we can easily quote Mr. Miyagi in "Karate Kid" and say, "best defense, not be there," but honestly, this isn't the point of training in the martial arts, is it? The fact is, we know that there are potentially going to be circumstances that arise where our options are limited to physical conflict. In those situations, perhaps the best defense can be a good offense. We don't always have the opportunity to walk away. If we did, there'd be no need for any of this at all.

 

[Simon Curran]

As far as I'm aware, the laws allow for a person to take action against a percieved threat, and I am of the opinion that I would rather not wait to get thumped and then have to play catch up...

 

[safeeagle]

I think it is very responsible to teach students a pre-emptive strike. I teach my students not to use a Kia for just the reason you pointed out. Witnesses. I definitly believe in a stun strike on all techniques.

 

[Sapper6]

a pre-emptive strike is no more a bad thing to teach than, let's say, a throat shot. our jobs are to give the student tools to work with, but also, making it clear there is a time, place, and situation for every strike or defense. for example, i would highly disagree using a spear-hand to the throat against an annoying drunkard bum asking for spare change just as i would pre-emptively striking an assailant in the food court at the mall. point being, there is a time and a place for everything. the student must know that. sure a pre-emptive strike looks bad in the legal aspect of things. does that mean it shouldn't be taught? certainly not. give your student the tools necessary for survival and instill in them the required responsibility that comes along with possessing those tools. hopefully they will never have to use what we teach them, but it's always good to have just in case we do. until that time finds us...train for everything :asian: