Pre-emptive attacking--is it legitimate?

[steve57]

In a potentially high risk gratuitous assault, would you seize the initiative by executing a pre--emptive strike? Or, would you favour the famous quote by Gichin Funakoshi, 'karate ne sente nashi'? (There is no first attack in karate) and respond first with a defence strategy?

[traz]

I suppose it would vary on the situation..if I was quite quite sure that violence was inevitable, I would strike first. Such as if I"m being cornered etc...but if its just a minor altercation, where the danger is less, I would probably wait until the other guy struck first.

[DKizzle]

In school, I would generally wait until they struck first to gain the self-defense argument. But if I was certain I was in danger, I'd strike first, in or outside of school.

[karsh44]

In general, I would wait. However, in certain obviously dangerous situations (two guys following you into the dark parking lot, one has a folding knife unopened in his hand, and you see both coming right for you or something) you may need to strike first to have a reasonable chance of escaping the encounter. If the threat is serious and obvious, you shouldn't give up the advantage of striking first. Better to explain to the cop why you hit the guy first than wake up in the hospital or worse.

[tufrthanu]

In most states pre-emption as a reason for using force in an SD situation is legal. For instance you and someone else stand at 10 ft apart get in an argument...and he starts stalking towards you. It's apparent he's going to threaten or attack and a case could be made for striking first. Also I would tend to err on the side of striking first in any shady area. For instance...someone charges and pushes you. A push isn't that harmful but you never know what he's gonna do next time. If he charges once and I manage to defend fine...if he gets away fine...if he starts to charge again I would strike first.

[vertigo]

I suppose it would vary on the situation..if I was quite quite sure that violence was inevitable, I would strike first. Such as if I"m being cornered etc...but if its just a minor altercation, where the danger is less, I would probably wait until the other guy struck first.

Agreed, traz. If danger is unavoidable, better be the person who strikes first. However, I would want to be very sure that it was going to come down to some pretty hardcore violence to attack first. Otherwise, I'd just try to difuse the situation (depending on the situation, of course), or at the least, be ready for any kind of attack.

[cathal]

I think it truly depends upon your philosphy. If you follow Gichin Funakoshi's teachings then you do not attack first.

[taiji fajin]

I'm with most people here, do not strike first unless you know it is going to be a confontation, and there is no way out of it. There comes a point when you can sense if someone is going to attack you. Subtle body language, or the not so subtle pulling their hand back into a fist. I still like the quote, "You move, I move first."

[ravenzoom]

I guess it also depends on the style you practice. Boxers may tend to strike first compared to a Judo guy for example. When I did Wing Chun my sifu once said to me that with two untrained fighters the one who strikes first has a good chance of winning, but an untrained fighter who strikes first a proficient martial artist has a good chance of losing. So I guess it depends on what style you practice, and how trained you are.

[cathal]

Then again, there is something to be said for attacking first if the situation warrants it. But you'd have to exercise better judgement on that depending on what's going in.