Pre-emptive attacking--is it legitimate?

[cross]

A fairly long thread on this topic can be found here:

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=16844

[steve57]

I think that you are right cathal, it does depend on your philosophy towards the martial arts. I suppose ultimately it will come down to your inherent instincts when facing a dangerous threat, whether you strike first or not.

[Venrix]

I'm sure that most would agree: the situation dictates the best form of defense.

There is an old military saying that can also apply to street level confrontation: "Attack is the best form of defense."

That said, one must be truly certain that one is in fact 'in a war'. To strike first could mean 'striking before the war has begun'. That is, one runs the risk of causing a physical confrontation that could have ended without physical conflict.

I must say however, when faced with multiple opponents (and getting the hell out of there just isn't an option), attack can certainly be the best form of defense.

As an example:

I currently live in a European city where many American Army Solidiers are based. They regularly visit the bars of the city and are - of course - large groups of 'seriously fit' young men. This story starts (rather unsuprisingly) with a woman. I was simply chatting to a young woman and an intoxicated GI decided that he really didn't like this. He had no intention of 'discussing' the matter (I would have simply said, "no problem" and left). Instead, he figured he would impress his female target and score some 'testo-points' with his squad.

Dropping him fast and dropping him hard was - I believe - my only option. I had nowhere to run and no one to support me. Dropping him quickly and without fuss sent a very clear message to the entire group: "I just want to leave. No fuss." I didn't hang around to discuss it. They didn't try to stop me. I simply left and never returned to that bar.

I consider myself a Martial Artist in that I am both a philosopher and a MARTIAL artist. Each individual must make a choice on how a situation is to be handled. For my part, I consider that far less violence occured as a result of my 'first strike' decision. Is this not one of the key purposes of the Martial Arts: "To Stop Violence".

Believe me, had I not reacted as I've described, a lot more violence would have occured as a result. When alcohol, alpha-male and group dynamics are involved (forming a rather nasty cocktail), 'reasoning' is not always an option.

I believe that Funakoshi was suggesting that Karate should never be used to attack an individual. A first strike is not always an attack. Sometimes, it is unavoidable and the best form of defense.

-V-

[steve57]

That is a very pertinent analogy Ventrix, 'stricking before the war has begun'. This demonstrates the fine line in deciding whether to strike first. If you get it wrong you could be faced with an assault charge, and depending on the ferocity that you administer you may even lose your liberty...well, you could here in the UK.

[MASIsshinryu]

In most jurisdictions I am familiar with, the law states something to the effect of: "A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself against such other's imminent use of unlawful force." Most then go into further descriptions of when deadly force can be used, as well as when force may be used in the defense of others.

The critical point in application is: How does one know, or believe, that the other persons unlawful use of foce is imminent? In many cases, if you can explain or answer questions of Intent, Ability and Proximity (How do you know they were going to do this, were they physically able to make good on that threat and were they in a position to make good on it?), then you can claim that you "feared for your safety."

The bottom line... as usual in any legel case ... talk to an attorney. Find out about your local laws, and how your local prosecutors have handled this in the past.

Of course, as another old saying goes: "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

[shotochem]

My philosophy is simple. It has nothing to do with my MA training.

If I have to strike first to make it home to my wife and kids.......

So Be It!

There is no over intellectualization or philosophical thought process.

It's just plain old survival.

Whatever Ginchen Funokoshi said is irrelevent to me and my family.

[Master Jules]

My motto......Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

[cathal]

Is that how you approach every situation? Is that something that is part of one of your style's teaching/philosophy?

[Venrix]

Guys,

Just found this article on the web. It's short enough and cover's the topic really nicely.

Iain Abernethy is a 'kata/bunkai' guru and offers loads of free articles on his site.

This article is called: "No First Attack in Karate?"

http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_2.htm

Would be great to hear your thoughts on the article.

-V-

[cathal]

I tend to agree with this belief, in certain situations, but definitely not all the time.