Throw the first punch?

[pittbullJudoka]

This is great subject. I was just talking with an off duty officer about this yesterday. Around my parts it only takes someone pointing at you or coming within arms length after you ask them to stop. After being asked to stop one more step shows aggression on their part giving you the right to do what you find nessicary to take control of the situation.

But if you have no doubt that a punch is going to be coming you way. Strike first, strike fast, Strike hard. The last thing you want in a fight is to be one step behind trying to recover from a well placed punch if you don't go down or out.

[JohnC]

The gist seems to be pre-emptive strikes are a good idea on the street with a concern about legalities.

RBSD teaches the concept of "trigger points". That is, establishing certain actions (e.g. attack moves) / distances (e.g. touch my fence) / behaviors (e.g. threatening, aggressive posturing) before a confrontation which will trigger the pre-emptive strike. This idea is based in two facts: first, that most people find it very difficult to actually throw the first punch (i.e. pre-emptive strike). Second, that the longer one takes to initiate action within a confrontation, the harder it becomes to initiate action (a fact many times known to the bad guys (whether explicitly or implicitly), as well as fear responses and the effects of adrenal rush). By creating trigger points and training them, these hesitations cease.

Trigger points assume that all discussion of legalities, aftermath concerns, etc have been taken into account in the setting of the trigger point. LEO's, for example, mostly set their trigger points at "resistance" and / or "perceived threat" and then follow a quickly escalating continuum approach to the violence of the response (which is usually one to two steps higher than the perceived level of resistance / threat). This model doesn't really translate well for the average citizen, for a variety of reasons. Thus:

Question: Your thoughts on the above?

Question: If you agree with this approach, how do you go about establishing your trigger points (the focus here is not what the trigger points are but how you arrived at them)?

Question: Do you actually train trigger points or assume that you will react per plan if a situation arises?

[bushido_man96]

I think legalities play a big role in how much people think you have 'control' over the situation. If someone smaller tries to kill you with their bare hands and you knock out their teeth, even though you were just defending yourself you probably won't come off looking as well in court.

This is where the wonderful art of articulation comes into play. If you can articulate that this person was trying to kill you, either by hearing him say so, and your repeated attempts to avoid conflict, or a combination thereof, that will go a long way to help you out.

Sure, there are a lot of other things that will go into each situation, as each one will be unique, but being able to articulate your fear of bodily harm or death will help justify your actions more.

Another important thing to do is to be as loud and verbal as you can while in an escalating situation or an altercation. If witnesses can recount the fact that you were constantly yelling at this person to "stop" or "leave you alone" and said that you "didn't want any trouble" and the like, it will go a ways to helping your cause, as well. I had an incident the other night at work where being verbal would have helped me out a lot. Its something to keep in mind, and to work into practice, too.

[bushido_man96]

I think that recognizing those "trigger points" is a great way to look at the training, John. I had never thought of it that way before. I think that those are some good ideas for me to consider in my current training plans. I like them; thanks for sharing them.

[ryukasagi]

I think pre-emtive strikes are a good thing, assuming your not going to get out of a situation without a fight.

[joesteph]

I think legalities play a big role in how much people think you have 'control' over the situation.

NightOwl's posting makes me consider how we, the ones who are not starting altercations, are not criminals, are concerned if our actions regarding the adversary follow the law!

If I've used my words to avoid the altercation and my opponent's hands are up and he's ready to fight, I very well may throw the first strike . . .

. . . coming within arms length after you ask them to stop. After being asked to stop one more step shows aggression on their part giving you the right to do what you find nessicary . . .

I would say that both these observations are "right on the money."

RBSD teaches the concept of "trigger points". That is, establishing certain actions (e.g. attack moves) / distances (e.g. touch my fence) / behaviors (e.g. threatening, aggressive posturing) before a confrontation which will trigger the pre-emptive strike.

John is highlighting that there are reference points, parameters, intelligently identified boundaries, for when we act pre-emptively. This quote is followed by his observation that those who keep waiting to act will not act in time. "Trigger points" may be the best guide to go by, but instruction is needed about them.

If witnesses can recount the fact that you were constantly yelling at this person to "stop" or "leave you alone" and said that you "didn't want any trouble" and the like, it will go a ways to helping your cause, as well.

I agree with Brian. You're projecting your voice firmly, speaking loudly with a level head, and so "making your case" from the start. It may even be that you're drawing attention the adversary doesn't want, which just might cause him to find some other mark.

[JohnC]

Unfortunately many attacks are NOT preceded by a lot of talking. Thus, the idea that one will have time to say things like "leave me alone" or even "stop" may not be a viable assumption. This idea is based in the assumption that altercations begin small and then escalate in a relatively smooth continuum. This is simply not true in many cases (especially when dealing with criminals and / or people drunk or on drugs). Hence again the idea of trigger points.

My interest is in, if you believe trigger points are good, then how do you go about setting them, because, by definition, this is when you GO, regardless of what has happened before or expected to happen in the future. I'd also argue strongly the if one can't define this state then, regardless of training, one will very probably never GO, as one will be caught in "analysis paralysis" or fall back on the original belief (stated above) that one can weather the 'first strike' and still be able to effectively respond.

Your thoughts?

[tallgeese]

What ever you call them, I th ink they are a good idea.

My personal rule is any contact or breach of my safety zone will elicit a response. From what I've experianced and practiced, the more vilently andunexpceted the intrusion, the higher my response level is from the outset.

The lower the incursion, the more "in check" my response.

But no one breaches it. Even if I have a subject merely walk into it, it's a stiff arm back out at the least to control distance.

Those are generally my rules of thumb.

[joesteph]

My interest is in, if you believe trigger points are good, then how do you go about setting them, because . . . if one can't define this state then, regardless of training, one will very probably never GO, as one will be caught in "analysis paralysis" . . .

When I was doing sales as a second job, I found that the more someone thought about it, mulled over it, hesitated, stalled, whatever you want to call it, the less likely, the far less likely, s/he was to make the purchase. Even though the product (different cable TV packages w/o a contract) was desireable, the "pause=kill the sale" factor was in effect.

The person presented with the altercation hesitates, unconsciously hoping it'll "go away," and waits for a "green light" to defend him- or herself. By that time, "confidence is high" that your adversary is going to put out your lights--or worse.

I really like the idea of trigger points. They're points of reference that can be understood, trained for, and can very likely help you put up a viable self-defense.

[bushido_man96]

Unfortunately many attacks are NOT preceded by a lot of talking. Thus, the idea that one will have time to say things like "leave me alone" or even "stop" may not be a viable assumption. This idea is based in the assumption that altercations begin small and then escalate in a relatively smooth continuum. This is simply not true in many cases (especially when dealing with criminals and / or people drunk or on drugs). Hence again the idea of trigger points.

Even if no talking takes place prior to any actions, if one can talk/yell during the altercation, stating the things I mentioned above, it can help one's cause.

This is something that we covered in a weapon retention/control class that I took in early 08. If you gun gets grabbed, you yell out "gun grab!" as loud as you can, as often as you can, so as to alert others around you to the circumstances of the situation. This kind of thing can be trained for scenarios as well.