The Pre-Emptive Strike

[MJS]

I know there has been some talk on this on here recently, in addition to an article in BB magazine, a few months ago. I'd like to look at a few different areas of this. Of course, this is just to get the ball rolling. Hopefully we can expand into other areas, from there.

1) In that BB magazine article, the author was talking about doing a shot to the eyes. This was done obviously with the hands already up, in a non-offensive posture. The idea that I got from the article, was that if your opponent can't see, he can't fight, to disable him enough to get away. Someone wrote in to the editor, commenting on that article, concerned over the use of the hit to the eyes, vs. something less likely to cause possible permanent damage.

2) Some people are concerned over the use of any pre-emptive strike. They're most likely viewing it as, if someone sees you throw the first punch, you will most likely be seen as the aggressor, instead of the other guy.


My thoughts: Personally, I'm a big fan of the pre-emp. IMO, the other guy doesnt have to throw the first strike, to be considered the aggressor. His actions are enough of a sign. Problem is, to the lay person, its the physical action of actually throwing the strike, vs. his body language. I disagree. Frankly, if someone wants to yell, scream and swear at me, they can do that from a distance. They dont need to be in my face to get their point across. So, their action of moving in on me, despite my repeated verbal commands, ie: back off, I dont want any problems, my hands up in a non-threatening manner, is enough for me to take their actions as aggressive.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to wait until this guy is standing 1 in. away from my face, loading up his hand, and the punch 1in away from my face, before I do something.

As for what pre-emp to use...wow...the list is pretty big, IMO. While I do see the point the author in the BB article was trying to make, I dont feel that we have to take the guys eyes right off the bat. I view the pre-empt as an opening....something to buy me time to follow up with other things. Something to take his mind, momentarily off of hitting me, and change his thinking to, "Oh ****, what just happened??"

So, for example...from the hands up position, a palm to the face. Hopefully, this will buy you time to a) get the hell out of there or b) follow up with other strikes.

 

[Chris Parker]

First off, Pre-Emptive strikes make up a great deal of our street defence, so I'm a big fan as well. In fact, our laws here state that if you feel genuinely threatened, and the other person(s) has the ability to carry out those threats, you are justified in hitting first with the aim of creating an opportunity to escape, and avoid more serious injury.

In regards to your points:

1) I wouldn't bet my life or safety on a shot to the eyes, frankly. Yes, a detatched retina can be a permanent injury, but it is too low-return for me to rely on. A small movement (like a flinch) on the other guys part means you'll miss, and you will have given away your intentions, leaving you open to a more violent counter. I'd go for a bigger, broader target, with a knockout as the aim, not just "poling someone in the eyes". It just doesn't cut it with regard to low risk, high return, gross motor actions which are required.

2) The way we approach things takes this out of the equation. The first step is to try to get distance, and verbally defuse the situation (this is, of course, assuming that you haven't been able to avoid the situation in the first place, with awareness, intuition, or some other method). Part of the verbalisation includes getting the attention of potential witnesses, so that they can see that you are not the aggressor (the body language and postures we teach ensure that as well, while not looking like a "soft target"), so that when you do strike first, the witnesses will say that you were not the aggressor in the situation. The other thing we do is to point out that it is the safest, and quickest approach you can take.

Targets and strikes, well, palms are a favourite. Less chance of injuring your own hand by hitting the large bones of the head with the small bones of a fist, as well as other reasons ("..honestly, all he did was slap the other guy..."), with targets chosen for the result that can be achieved, ideally stopping any follow-up (by knocking the aggressor out, or damaging them in some way that stops them following, such as a kick to the knees). If close, then elbows come into it as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The word 'assault' does not mean the same thing everywhere legally, and that causes some confusion, I think.

Per Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

In some jurisdictions within the United States, assault may refer only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.[2][3]

In other words, in many locations in the USA, 'assault' is not the hitting part - that's battery. A person can be assaulted by the threat itself. Assault is a crime. In many jurisdictions, a person assaulted has the right to defend themselves. This is not pre-emptive self-defense; they've *already* been assaulted. This is just self-defense, regardless of who lands the first blow.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html

Assault

An assault invoves:

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.

This means that if a person approaches me yelling and making threats, raises his hands as if to strike me, and appears quite able to actually do me injury (he's not 9 years old, etc), then he has assaulted me. I can defend myself. This is not 'pre-emptive'.

From the same website:

Self-Defense

A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appears to be necessary, to protect himself or herself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must ordinarily be proportionate to the threat. That is, if you believe a person is going to spit on you, depending upon the context it may be reasonable to push the person away, but it would not be reasonable to hit the person with a baseball bat.
A plaintiff may be expected to withdraw from the threat, if possible, before engaging in forcible resistance. However, if the plaintiff is in his own home and the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff's household, a plaintiff will typically not be required to further withdraw from the threat once the plaintiff has retreated to his own home.

Depending upon jurisdiction, I may be required to withdraw if I can do so, before I am legally justified in engaging in self-defense. In any case, the act of inflicting grievous bodily harm might not be considered 'reasonable' to the police or to a prosecutor after the fact.


One might be well-advised to learn the particular laws in their jurisdiction regarding self-defense. As to attacking the eyes of a person who represented a physical threat to me, I don't know. It seems to me that Americans in general expect attacks to the head and will defend against a shot to the eyes as if it were a general punch to the head. A low kick to a joint might be more effective in immobilizing and/or ending the confrontation quickly; but I am no expert and this is just the initial thoughts of an MA newbie.

 

[Gemini]

Bill Mattocks' response was excellent, and I can't add anything more of value so I'll leave that part alone.

In regards to targeting the eyes, while you certainly shouldn't exclude any opportunity presented to you, I've never considered them a primary strike point because they are a small target, relatively easy to defend and even with contact, may not be debilitating. For a high strike, the neck offers more appeal IMO. It's harder to protect because it's larger, and offers multiple strike points. Nor would I use a palm strike, because it's has a wider/shallower impact area better suited for soft tissue than hard bone. A fist, knife hand or spear fingers which provide a more centered yet deeper impact, so would be my first option given my target selection.

Which of your follow up obtions (A or B) would be recommended would rest solely on how effective the initial strike was, what opportunities you had and what your mind set is. (I.e. an adrenalin rush will often make you react in a way you may not expect). I know many people teach that once you strike, to continue until you know your attacker is down and disabled. I don't teach that primarily because of the "Reasonable Force" as outlined in Bill's post. That can get real grey in a hurry, so getting out of there is always your best option. I wil agree though, that the threat has to be sufficiently deminished or it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Carol]

Much depends on the situation. Do they have a weapon? Do I have a weapon, and if I do, would I draw it in the situation?

Generally speaking, I don't think the eyes are the first thing I would target. If the attacker is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier, the eyes are not necessarily the easiest thing for me to reach, and/or they may bring me closer to the attacker than I want to be.

 

[MJS]

First off, Pre-Emptive strikes make up a great deal of our street defence, so I'm a big fan as well. In fact, our laws here state that if you feel genuinely threatened, and the other person(s) has the ability to carry out those threats, you are justified in hitting first with the aim of creating an opportunity to escape, and avoid more serious injury.

In regards to your points:

1) I wouldn't bet my life or safety on a shot to the eyes, frankly. Yes, a detatched retina can be a permanent injury, but it is too low-return for me to rely on. A small movement (like a flinch) on the other guys part means you'll miss, and you will have given away your intentions, leaving you open to a more violent counter. I'd go for a bigger, broader target, with a knockout as the aim, not just "poling someone in the eyes". It just doesn't cut it with regard to low risk, high return, gross motor actions which are required.

2) The way we approach things takes this out of the equation. The first step is to try to get distance, and verbally defuse the situation (this is, of course, assuming that you haven't been able to avoid the situation in the first place, with awareness, intuition, or some other method). Part of the verbalisation includes getting the attention of potential witnesses, so that they can see that you are not the aggressor (the body language and postures we teach ensure that as well, while not looking like a "soft target"), so that when you do strike first, the witnesses will say that you were not the aggressor in the situation. The other thing we do is to point out that it is the safest, and quickest approach you can take.

Targets and strikes, well, palms are a favourite. Less chance of injuring your own hand by hitting the large bones of the head with the small bones of a fist, as well as other reasons ("..honestly, all he did was slap the other guy..."), with targets chosen for the result that can be achieved, ideally stopping any follow-up (by knocking the aggressor out, or damaging them in some way that stops them following, such as a kick to the knees). If close, then elbows come into it as well.

Nice reply as always. Just for clarificaton on a few things. The eye shot was the focus of the BB mag. article. Would I pick that as my first target? No, probably not.

As for the flinch on the other guys part...yes, of course my goal is to hit the guy. Of course, in the event I miss and all I got was the flinch, I still got something. Again, my goal is to make contact, but if all I got is the flinch, we should be able to follow up with something else.

 

[MJS]

Much depends on the situation. Do they have a weapon? Do I have a weapon, and if I do, would I draw it in the situation?

To make this thread interesting, we could look at it from either situation that you mention.

Generally speaking, I don't think the eyes are the first thing I would target. If the attacker is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier, the eyes are not necessarily the easiest thing for me to reach, and/or they may bring me closer to the attacker than I want to be.

Good point.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If you all mean the proto Three Stooges Kung Fu Eye spear attack, in stop motion fashion than I agree with much of the above.

If its thrown like a hard jab with a loose open palm with thumb and fingers curling on impact and you have another strike on the way, as per a combination then the eyes are a great first target.

You dont bank on a clean strike to the eye, but most people, even tough, hardend thugs will have to react to your assult towards their eyes, either by attempting to block, parry or sheild from the strike, slipping or avoiding it or taken the shot in full.

Either way they are dealing with you hand or they have a hand in their face as you are bringing the other to bear upon them.

I like combos like left hand eye dart and right hand face smash and left hooking palm or eye dart with a uppercut to the body, both have a good chance of delivering damage on their own and a possability of stopping the fight but more importantly they give you the operational tempo of the engagement and get you in close for sweeps, throws and other shenanigans.

 

[Hudson69]

My response is based off of my LEO training... When I first started we all learned the FBI system called "FBI Arrest Control." It was, and is a very basic system with the only problem I saw as being more emphasis on the handcuffing and control holds than the H2H stuff. But one thing that goes with that was the mentality that you dont hit anyone until someone takes a swing at you. That wasn't official that was just the vibe I got in 1999.

With the advent of the MMA world taking off and creeping into the main stream all that changed. Ft. Carson, Peterson AFB, the AF Academy and Cheyenne MTN AS were all nearby and the military loves MMA. Slowly for my old department it all changed.

Before I left this year, as an instructor in FBI and our own system, it changed to Officer discretion..... If you could explain how your logic as to why you struck first it was okay. This was good for the bar detail, domestics and when dealing with gangs. If/when you were talking to someone and they didn't listen, were making threats, wouldn't comply, were balling up their fists and using other body language you could do what needed to be done to take the wind out of their sails.

I haven't heard of anyone just trying to justify punching/kicking/striking someone either that way.

It seems to be working.... the option of the pre-emptive strike

 

[sgtmac_46]

My response is based off of my LEO training... When I first started we all learned the FBI system called "FBI Arrest Control." It was, and is a very basic system with the only problem I saw as being more emphasis on the handcuffing and control holds than the H2H stuff. But one thing that goes with that was the mentality that you dont hit anyone until someone takes a swing at you. That wasn't official that was just the vibe I got in 1999.

With the advent of the MMA world taking off and creeping into the main stream all that changed. Ft. Carson, Peterson AFB, the AF Academy and Cheyenne MTN AS were all nearby and the military loves MMA. Slowly for my old department it all changed.

Before I left this year, as an instructor in FBI and our own system, it changed to Officer discretion..... If you could explain how your logic as to why you struck first it was okay. This was good for the bar detail, domestics and when dealing with gangs. If/when you were talking to someone and they didn't listen, were making threats, wouldn't comply, were balling up their fists and using other body language you could do what needed to be done to take the wind out of their sails.

I haven't heard of anyone just trying to justify punching/kicking/striking someone either that way.

It seems to be working.... the option of the pre-emptive strike

As a side note........when developing a system of H2H using the FBI as experts in H2H is like using an army office clerks expertise in developing a CQB program.........the reality is that the FBI is mostly made up of guys who do white collar crime, and when they do make an arrest, it's planned with overwhelming force........the need for spontaneous defense against one on one aggression is probably so rare in the FBI world as to be ridiculous.........FBI agents just don't go to bar fights, domestics and disturbance situations.

 

[Talon]

You need to be able to articulate (to the police/judge) whatever you had to do. "Intent-ability-distance"... If the aggressor has the intent to do you harm, the ability to carry it out, is close enough to do it and you can articulate this, then a "pre emptive" strike should (SHOULD) be legal.

Also remember that your force should only be enough to stop the threat and equal to the force that is being (or threatened) used against you.

In other words, If someone slaps you and you chop him across the throat...You go to jail. If someone tries to chop you across the throat and you break his arm he (SHOULD) go to the hospital and then to jail.

Always research your local self-defense/use of force laws. But, common sense is usually the rule of the day.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Working over the holidays is a drag, there is almost nothing to do. The upside is, I'm getting to spend hours each day reading through the threads and realising I'm about a year too late to post in most of them

Going back to the OP though, based on "real life" experience, I find my primary pre-emptive is a pushing/stomping kick to knock the attacker back or down so I can get away. I've used it extensively when training drills with training partners outside of class and at least once when I was actually being threatened. Kick didn't do any damage per se, it just pushed the guy back, let me move on and the cop that happened to be driving past took care of the rest.

In class when we train pre emptives though, I find it a lot more natural to use a webstrike to the throat (pushing up under the jaw* as opposed to the trachea) or a palm to the chin with a clawing motion to the eyes rather than a direct strike to a specific target like the eyes or base of throat with a goshi(sp?) ken

 

[chinto]

The word 'assault' does not mean the same thing everywhere legally, and that causes some confusion, I think.

Per Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault



In other words, in many locations in the USA, 'assault' is not the hitting part - that's battery. A person can be assaulted by the threat itself. Assault is a crime. In many jurisdictions, a person assaulted has the right to defend themselves. This is not pre-emptive self-defense; they've *already* been assaulted. This is just self-defense, regardless of who lands the first blow.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html



This means that if a person approaches me yelling and making threats, raises his hands as if to strike me, and appears quite able to actually do me injury (he's not 9 years old, etc), then he has assaulted me. I can defend myself. This is not 'pre-emptive'.

From the same website:



Depending upon jurisdiction, I may be required to withdraw if I can do so, before I am legally justified in engaging in self-defense. In any case, the act of inflicting grievous bodily harm might not be considered 'reasonable' to the police or to a prosecutor after the fact.


One might be well-advised to learn the particular laws in their jurisdiction regarding self-defense. As to attacking the eyes of a person who represented a physical threat to me, I don't know. It seems to me that Americans in general expect attacks to the head and will defend against a shot to the eyes as if it were a general punch to the head. A low kick to a joint might be more effective in immobilizing and/or ending the confrontation quickly; but I am no expert and this is just the initial thoughts of an MA newbie.

where I live there is no "duty to retreat" that seems to be mostly an east coast stupidity.

but I do not know of any where in the US that you are not going to run into the resonable force and resonable man doctrins... resonable force is that which is suficent to stop the attack and not more.... and the resonable man doctrine is : what a resonable man on the street would consider a threat to his safety and of violence that he would feel if he did not react he would be harmed, maimed or killed. if it matches this you may use the force to prevent that proportunant to the threat. if you fear death, you may kill to stop him or her.. ect.

 

[VegasM4]

As a side note........when developing a system of H2H using the FBI as experts in H2H is like using an army office clerks expertise in developing a CQB program.........the reality is that the FBI is mostly made up of guys who do white collar crime, and when they do make an arrest, it's planned with overwhelming force........the need for spontaneous defense against one on one aggression is probably so rare in the FBI world as to be ridiculous.........FBI agents just don't go to bar fights, domestics and disturbance situations.

Very True

 

[elwin]

I know there has been some talk on this on here recently, in addition to an article in BB magazine, a few months ago. I'd like to look at a few different areas of this. Of course, this is just to get the ball rolling. Hopefully we can expand into other areas, from there.

1) In that BB magazine article, the author was talking about doing a shot to the eyes. This was done obviously with the hands already up, in a non-offensive posture. The idea that I got from the article, was that if your opponent can't see, he can't fight, to disable him enough to get away. Someone wrote in to the editor, commenting on that article, concerned over the use of the hit to the eyes, vs. something less likely to cause possible permanent damage.

2) Some people are concerned over the use of any pre-emptive strike. They're most likely viewing it as, if someone sees you throw the first punch, you will most likely be seen as the aggressor, instead of the other guy.


My thoughts: Personally, I'm a big fan of the pre-emp. IMO, the other guy doesnt have to throw the first strike, to be considered the aggressor. His actions are enough of a sign. Problem is, to the lay person, its the physical action of actually throwing the strike, vs. his body language. I disagree. Frankly, if someone wants to yell, scream and swear at me, they can do that from a distance. They dont need to be in my face to get their point across. So, their action of moving in on me, despite my repeated verbal commands, ie: back off, I dont want any problems, my hands up in a non-threatening manner, is enough for me to take their actions as aggressive.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to wait until this guy is standing 1 in. away from my face, loading up his hand, and the punch 1in away from my face, before I do something.

As for what pre-emp to use...wow...the list is pretty big, IMO. While I do see the point the author in the BB article was trying to make, I dont feel that we have to take the guys eyes right off the bat. I view the pre-empt as an opening....something to buy me time to follow up with other things. Something to take his mind, momentarily off of hitting me, and change his thinking to, "Oh ****, what just happened??"

So, for example...from the hands up position, a palm to the face. Hopefully, this will buy you time to a) get the hell out of there or b) follow up with other strikes.

I feel the same way. I don't need to be the aggressor to throw the first punch, in fact, I most definitely will throw the first punch when there's no way out but to fight. Waiting for him to attack first is more often than not a very big mistake as it puts him in control of the situation, while you end up being the one who "tries" to block his blows all the way. It's not a dual, I don't want to waste my time fighting. He is the one who violates my right to be left at peace, or worse, threatening my life. So, after trying to get away of talk him out of it and it did'nt work, I am surely going to hurt him first.

When it's not life threatening, a palm to the face with the focus on hitting the nose is brilliant, as is slapping the guy on the ears as hard as you can. A quick strike to his plexus also works wonders as an initial strike, then the follow up attacks will follow until he's out for the count. Now I can walk away.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I feel the same way. I don't need to be the aggressor to throw the first punch, in fact, I most definitely will throw the first punch when there's no way out but to fight. Waiting for him to attack first is more often than not a very big mistake as it puts him in control of the situation, while you end up being the one who "tries" to block his blows all the way. It's not a dual, I don't want to waste my time fighting. He is the one who violates my right to be left at peace, or worse, threatening my life. So, after trying to get away of talk him out of it and it did'nt work, I am surely going to hurt him first.

When it's not life threatening, a palm to the face with the focus on hitting the nose is brilliant, as is slapping the guy on the ears as hard as you can. A quick strike to his plexus also works wonders as an initial strike, then the follow up attacks will follow until he's out for the count. Now I can walk away.

I'm more of a leg man. Attack their base and they absolutely have to re-establish it before they can counter.
Sean

 

[K831]

Great topic.

1) In that BB magazine article, the author was talking about doing a shot to the eyes. This was done obviously with the hands already up, in a non-offensive posture. The idea that I got from the article, was that if your opponent can't see, he can't fight, to disable him enough to get away. Someone wrote in to the editor, commenting on that article, concerned over the use of the hit to the eyes, vs. something less likely to cause possible permanent damage.

If I have to hit someone, its well past the point of being concerned about permanent damage (in terms of my concern for their well being- legality aside).

Having said that, most guys I've punched in the nose, or the throat, couldn't see or respond very well.

The fact of the matter is, it's not very hard to knock a guy out if you have the drop on him. Hands up and open, palms out looks defensive and non aggressive, and yet, from a Kenpo point of view, that's the position I'm going to move fastest from and hit hardest. I hit far harder with an open hand (palm heal) than a closed fist. This is the point of the preemtive strike; action is always faster than reaction, and you should be able to end it right there if you get off first.

2) Some people are concerned over the use of any pre-emptive strike. They're most likely viewing it as, if someone sees you throw the first punch, you will most likely be seen as the aggressor, instead of the other guy.

Wait, so I'm sticking around?

Additionally, this comes down to priorities. I hedge my bets. If I haven't been able to defuse this guy then he has some serious intent, and, as such I assume he will curb stomp me or whatever. That being the case, I'll take him out, and roll the dice on the witnesses and the jury. Better than rolling the dice on some violent dude who wont back off.

I'm not afraid to press charges first either, I can always drop them. Preemptive strike, followed by a preemptive legal strike.

My thoughts: Personally, I'm a big fan of the pre-emp. IMO, the other guy doesnt have to throw the first strike, to be considered the aggressor. His actions are enough of a sign. Problem is, to the lay person, its the physical action of actually throwing the strike, vs. his body language. I disagree. Frankly, if someone wants to yell, scream and swear at me, they can do that from a distance. They dont need to be in my face to get their point across. So, their action of moving in on me, despite my repeated verbal commands, ie: back off, I dont want any problems, my hands up in a non-threatening manner, is enough for me to take their actions as aggressive.

Agreed. However, I'm not just a fan of Preempting, it's my intention from the beginning. Defuse or hit first - period. In fact I use attempts to defuse to close distance and position.

I've quoted this here before, but my instructor always said "the first punch was when he stood up from his bar stool / took step towards me...." etc - just like what you said.



--------------------------------------------------------

1) I wouldn't bet my life or safety on a shot to the eyes, frankly. Yes, a detatched retina can be a permanent injury, but it is too low-return for me to rely on. A small movement (like a flinch) on the other guys part means you'll miss, and you will have given away your intentions, leaving you open to a more violent counter. I'd go for a bigger, broader target, with a knockout as the aim, not just "poling someone in the eyes". It just doesn't cut it with regard to low risk, high return, gross motor actions which are required.

I agree, small target and thus not as high a percentage move... However, most all people tend to react the same way when something rapidly approaches their eyes. they close them, and turn their head. That can be pretty beneficial when mounting an attack.

2) The way we approach things takes this out of the equation. The first step is to try to get distance, and verbally defuse the situation (this is, of course, assuming that you haven't been able to avoid the situation in the first place, with awareness, intuition, or some other method). Part of the verbalisation includes getting the attention of potential witnesses, so that they can see that you are not the aggressor (the body language and postures we teach ensure that as well, while not looking like a "soft target"), so that when you do strike first, the witnesses will say that you were not the aggressor in the situation. The other thing we do is to point out that it is the safest, and quickest approach you can take.

Interesting, because we work the preemptive strike just as you described, but we also use it to accomplish the opposite; I have found it surprising how would be aggressors will let me walk right up to them, take out there wheels and clip them on the chin.

Attempts at diffusion can allow you move away etc but it also provides an easy means to walk right up put them away - they are totally unsuspecting as they think you are pandering for mercy, so-to-speak.

 

[jks9199]

The one thing about a "defensive" pre-emptive strike is that you MUST be able to justify the action. Articulating this is a skill, and takes practice. Why were you afraid? What led you to believe that your best (not necessarily only) choice was to strike the guy?

For a great discussion on this, see Rory Miller's blog entries Articulation Wars and Articulation Wars Part II

 

[MJS]

Great topic.

Thanks.

If I have to hit someone, its well past the point of being concerned about permanent damage (in terms of my concern for their well being- legality aside).

Having said that, most guys I've punched in the nose, or the throat, couldn't see or respond very well.

The fact of the matter is, it's not very hard to knock a guy out if you have the drop on him. Hands up and open, palms out looks defensive and non aggressive, and yet, from a Kenpo point of view, that's the position I'm going to move fastest from and hit hardest. I hit far harder with an open hand (palm heal) than a closed fist. This is the point of the preemtive strike; action is always faster than reaction, and you should be able to end it right there if you get off first.

Agreed. Like I said, the guy in the BB magazine article was talking about eye shots. The other guy who wrote in commenting on the article, felt that the eye shots should take a backseat to a less lethal strike. Ex: a punch to the nose vs. taking the guys sight.

Wait, so I'm sticking around?

Additionally, this comes down to priorities. I hedge my bets. If I haven't been able to defuse this guy then he has some serious intent, and, as such I assume he will curb stomp me or whatever. That being the case, I'll take him out, and roll the dice on the witnesses and the jury. Better than rolling the dice on some violent dude who wont back off.

I'm not afraid to press charges first either, I can always drop them. Preemptive strike, followed by a preemptive legal strike.

Well, personally, I'm a fan of getting the hell out of there and leaving the guy in a heap (hopefully) instead of hanging around, but due to so many 'big brothers' watching, its probably best to get somewhere safe and call the cops. As for the rest of your post...again, agreed.

Agreed. However, I'm not just a fan of Preempting, it's my intention from the beginning. Defuse or hit first - period. In fact I use attempts to defuse to close distance and position.

I've quoted this here before, but my instructor always said "the first punch was when he stood up from his bar stool / took step towards me...." etc - just like what you said.

 

[Chris Parker]

Interesting, because we work the preemptive strike just as you described, but we also use it to accomplish the opposite; I have found it surprising how would be aggressors will let me walk right up to them, take out there wheels and clip them on the chin.

Attempts at diffusion can allow you move away etc but it also provides an easy means to walk right up put them away - they are totally unsuspecting as they think you are pandering for mercy, so-to-speak.

With our laws, that would be construed as assault. Essentially, an aggressor has to have 'present ability', if you need to walk up to them in order to hit them first, it's assumed that they'd have to do the same to get you.... and as such, it's not a real threat. A big part of our teaching self defence approaches takes into account the legal aspects as well, as I feel it really has to.