Throw the first punch?

[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.

[sifunovac]

I would say if it's a two or more to one situation, and you know there's no way to escape. Don't even hesitate ... and don't stop at the first punch make sure you get the second, third ,and fourth in.

[Groinstrike]

A couple of other topics (e.g. one punch, one kill) also bring up this issue. Many MA premise "let the other guy throw the first punch" or MA is defensive only. This assumes that one believes he / she has the ability to 'take' the first punch and then still be able to mount a viable defense. This assumption is dubious, at best, because few real fights are 'fair' (e.g. same weight class, ability, one-on-one standup), especially if weapons will be involved.

Question: Is it time to revise this assumption and teach preemptive strike, as the RBSD folks contend?

In a seriously dangerous confrontation, absolutly, better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.

[joesteph]

A couple of other topics (e.g. one punch, one kill) also bring up this issue [to throw the first punch]. Many MA premise "let the other guy throw the first punch" or MA is defensive only. . . . [F]ew real fights are 'fair' (e.g. same weight class, ability, one-on-one standup), especially if weapons will be involved.

Question: Is it time to revise this assumption and teach preemptive strike, as the RBSD folks contend?

In the December issue of Black Belt magazine, there's the Editor's Note on p. 14, Robert W. Young's "Myth of the Fair Fight." This is from that article:

[F]air fighting is best confined to the dojo . . . In most other places, it's an anachronism. Any martial artist instructor will tell you that. He'll teach you that in a street fight, you should do whatever it takes to survive. If he's good, he'll also counsel you on possible legal consequences of your actions . . .

[bushido_man96]

I've heard it said that those that lose often complain the fight wasn't fair. Funny how that works out.

[ShoriKid]

I've always told the guys that any fight you're winning is a "fair fight". If it's a real fight, you dig into your tool box and get to work, you don't have time or opportunity to worry about "fair".

[bushido_man96]

Yep. I try not to ever associate the word "fair" with the word "fight." They just don't go together.

[MasterPain]

Fair fights only work when there is dramatic music and the writer is on your side.

[ShoriKid]

Fair fights only work when there is dramatic music and the writer is on your side.

Ahhh, you've apparently never had one of those days where you appear in the credits under "stunts" have you MasterPain?

[lparnes]

If you can take a punch, why does it matter if you get hit first?