Throw the first punch?

[bushido_man96]

Be a member of the 4H club.

Hit first,

Hit fast,

Hit hard

and Hit last.

Hehe, I kind of like that one...

[furry_Homeboy]

Perhaps the phrase "never strike first" is metaphoric. The first strike could be offending the other person, or doing something to anger the other person.

If the other person starts the confrontation through aggressive behavior/actions, then they have metaphorically already thrown the first strike, and you can react accordingly.

I think perhaps not throwing the first strike means not doing anything to unnecesarily begin a fight.

[joesteph]

Perhaps the phrase "never strike first" is metaphoric. . . .

If the other person starts the confrontation through aggressive behavior/actions, then they have metaphorically already thrown the first strike, and you can react accordingly.

I agree with your reasoning. If the one accosting you causes you to feel you are in danger, it is only human/natural to go by our feelings, which are our state of mind, telling us this individual is an assailant. If we have to explain ourselves to the police at the time, or in court, so long as we present ourselves as that we acted as any "reasonable person" would have under the circumstances, having taken in body size (is the assailant of larger size, or the same size but muscular), age (is there an age difference in favor of the assailant), sex (a woman, even if she is physically fit, is still at a disadvantage if faced by a male assailant), and the proximity of the accoster-as-assailant.

The behavior exhibited by the accoster determines that this is an assailant. If there's a choice between explaining my actions while on the witness stand, as opposed to explaining what happened while in the emergency room, I'll choose the former.

No first strike? Good advice. Don't start trouble; don't bully; don't antagonize, etc. It sounds negative with all those "don'ts," but it's positive for allowing us to have a society.

[bushido_man96]

That is the way that I would look at the quote, furry_Homeboy; metaphoric, at the very least.

Good explanation as well, Joe.

[TraditionalDan]

But, on the other hand, what's more important? The law or possibly your life?

(Not that the law is something we have to worry too much about in the UK, reasonable is determined by the judge, and each situation judged accordingly).

[tallgeese]

Lots of people worry about the two being mutually exclusive and get into a trick bag of thinking over it.

If you're justified, use the force you need. Be sure can articulate it. You'll be fine. If you can leave, do so. After that, juries really aren't out to convict victims.

[sperki]

Joe, well said, and I think that's right on. We all, hopefully, know when it's ok, or even appropriate, to throw a punch. The reality for most of us is that we will never encounter a situation when we're knocking the crap out of folks in an uncontrolled environment. But it is one of the reasons many of us took up a MA in the first place; hopefully we'll be better able to handle ourselves if a situation comes to blows. But I think one of the great things about martial arts is that you learn situational awareness and can ideally remove yourself from a potentially violent encounter before it comes to that. As fun as it is to spar in various controlled encounters, it's not often worth the risk of testing yourself in the "real" world.

I'd like to think that if I ever got backed into a corner and a fight was inevitable there wouldn't be much punching going on, at least from me. I'd start by throwing rocks to reduce the number of bad guys from a distance, while running away, and then I'd go for a bottle, club, stick, or anything else that would cause more damage than my hand! I guess if they had a firearm it would change the equation, and I don't know the answer to that. I suppose that's when you just hand over your wallet then cancel your credit cards.

[just2kicku]

I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents, and if I've said something that someone else has said, I'm sorry. I did not read all the post on this subject. (mostly due to laziness).

I tell our students to hold out their arms, spin and make a circle. That is your personal space. You have the right to defend your personal space, should someone invade it with the intent on harming you. You can usually tell by body language, tone of voice, etc.. In that situation, I tell them to strike hard, strike fast and strike first. End it now.

Now this only works if you can see it coming.

I also hit them, I hit them hard. They hit me, they hit me hard.

I do this so they know that getting hit will not kill them. One of the most important things in a fight is reacting to getting hit. They hit me so they know what it feels like to hit someone.

When we practice, if they go for the groin, I want to hear the crack of the cup.

So that if they don't get to hit first, at least they have a fighting chance of not ending up dead.

[whess]

i like the idea that you should be the first one not to be hit

[cymry]

The pre-emptive strike as a first line of defence against assault is totally justified and has known to be the optimum strategy since time immemorial.

As for the legality of it - SBGi's Luis Gutierrez said that if you avoid dodgy bars and clubs you will eliminate 99% of potential fights. What you're left with is real violent assaults, and they're most likely going to be near your home where the odds are against you - weapons, multiple attackers, size/strength disparity or a combination of the three. If you've done everything possible to avoid violence (like you should do as a civilised person with a life to live), then you're going to be in a much clearer legal position to use a pre-emptive shot.