Is there ever a situation ?

Question

where the martial artist should strike 1st ?or as a lot of hard core traditionalists claim you should never strike 1st.

Answer 1

You feel out your opponent first... then judge......then again... by that time.... you may already be knocked out!

Answer 2

It really depends on the situation. Ideally, one would never have to strike first, but to say that is kind of to ignore the world we live in. In a self defense situation, unfortunately, oftentimes the best defense is quick, unpredictable offense, especially when dealing with people with weapons, or multiple assailants. Honestly, if someone is making you feel threatened, the best thing to do is leave the area they are in before anything can happen, but if something does happen, you can't sacrifice your life over traditionalism, especially if you have a family to take care of.

Answer 3

Yes.  There are situations where the best defense is a good offense.  A quick strike can disable or stun an incoming attacker long enough to escape before the situation escalates.

Even Funikoshi taught this as part of the first four steps of Ten No Kata which are quick punches from the ready position.  You don't get much more "Old School" than him.

Answer 4

I would say yes definetly, especially if there are weapons of any type or more then one person involved. Most self defense laws say you cna use force if you are in reasonable fear for your safety, and I would say either of those situations qualify.

I also think that it is acceptible one on one in certian situations. If nothing I have said has made  a difference, and the guy still wants to get beligerent, I am going to strike at the first sign of him making any type of advancement towards me. This includes balling his fist up. If I see this I am going to strike first and end the situation as quick as possible.

To me not striking first means doing everything you can to talk your way out or de escilate the situation. I will strike at any sign of physical aggression. Quite honestly it is just something you develope, and a lot is dependent on what you read in your opponent.

Answer 5

"This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. — John Steinbeck"

I disagree with this viewpoint.  1st, there can be many purposes to fighting.  Even in sport, some may have the purpose simply to compete and test themselves.  Outside of sport, there still may be many reasons (purpose) to fighting where victory (winning) is not realistic.  

In addition, there is victory in defense, but not in defeat.

A victory in defense could be that you subdued an attacker using non-lethal force and in so doing protected others from that attack or future attack.

The LAW is not on your side if you have martial arts training, especially if your dojo uses the word "combat" or has military style logos, etc.  (See article in Black Belt Magazine about this).

If you strike first, even if he was verbally threatening you, and you do severe damage, he is going to sue and the opposing lawyer is going to try to convince the judge and jury that you wanted this to happen and that you were just waiting for a chance to test your skills.  

That being said, I still might strike first in certain situations, but as Frank and others have said, there would have to be clear danger, not just testosterone fueled blood lust.

James

Answer 6

Yes IMO but only in very rare situations.

The one I will give is the one I had to use once in my life. Had I not struck first they would have struck first hurting my Mother, sister and two friends.

I had no choice but to intercept and strike first before my mother ended up with a club over her head. So basically though I did strike first they made the first move. I intercepted it and countered hitting them with their own stick and taking his legs out from underneath with an umbrella and then placed it to his kneck while we called the cops.

When it comes to protecting your family and loved ones I can see striking first if it is to save their lives.

Most cases can be prevented by talk but not all. I usually prefer they strike first and commit so I can counter.  THis was an exception.

(I do not agree with some of the others, striking first can commit you and leave you open to counter and also open to law suits and such.  I agree more with the other user that says in special situations only.)

Answer 7

I go for the first strike in sparring.  The only other time I would even consider making the first strike is if someone has a knife with intent to kill or harm someone (guns are a different story). But most of the time my striking in self defense is reaction to their first moves.  If you became the attacker you could do the first strike as well.

Answer 8

I agree with your outlook in the latter paragraphs bunminjutsu. I feel that the sword and the shield are, as the Japanese considered... one in the same.  This is how I have trained.

I consider myself very much a traditionalist as far as values are concerned. So in that aspect I would believe that there are situations where strike first, and even without mercy, are most assuredly called for. This outlook has been further cemented into the ground by my years in antiterrorism, where if we didn't have the strength and conviction to strike first we wouldn't be here today.

I think that the rightness of this is most defninitely a situational necessity, so it is a greatly debatable subject. In the law, if one fears for their life they are able to strike first if they're not able to get away from the situation.

edit- having gone back to reading some of the other answers. I think I would mention that I am not talking about all of the time, striking first, just that there are times when it is called for. I don't consider the positiong of the pieces a strike, but more of a prelude to the strike.

Answer 9

I totally agree with katana on this !!!

Bruce Tegner  one of the first jiu-jitsu instructors in America.

Put it into perspective by saying that, if you have let your assailant and witnesses if there are any know genuinely that you do not wish to to fight and intend to walk away and your assailant insists in provoking things then you are morally the defending man even if you strike first,sadly the law doesn't agree on this but the law is an *** as the old saying goes,survival and self preservation is worth the legal consequences as far as I'm concerned,I have never in my life waited for my attacker to strike first and never will ,any inclination from him to attack whether rightly or wrongly I will always strike first ,I could go on as I done a blog in my previous account last year on this very subject,etiquette/respect and fair play should always be shown to like minded people,but for the ,Bully's,thrill seeker snipers and scum of this world then no quarter should be given,anyone who has truly been in dangerous life threatening situations will understand,those who haven't well your entitled to your opinions and i hope you never need to contradict them.

Best wishes :)***

Answer 10

I think self defense includes striking first in limited situations - a few examples:

If threatened with physical violence or when intimitated by a person that is not responsive to de-escalation tatcics. (e.g. drug-addled, drunk, or mentally unstable)

If threatened by a person with a weapon.

If threatened by multiple attackers.

The problem in my mind is not whether to strike first, it's the amount of force used.  An appropriate response to a hostile,sober person with a weapon is completely different from a drunk who has limited motor control.  

In any case, the minimum necessary force should be exerted to stop, distract, or incapacitate the assailant and allow the would-be victim to escape.  Then that person should get to a safe place and report the incident immediately.

Answer 11

Oops, I'm a hard core traditionalist who will strike first if the situation warrants it. Because someone is verbally threatening me would not warrant a preemptive strike the danger needs to be clear and present. It is entirely situational and hard to describe. If a person enters striking distance and is a threat this is an attack and countering with the first strike is in no way un chivalrous. If you are doing all you can to avoid the confrontation I don't see a problem with taking the first strike. Often though it is a better tactic to let the other person take the first attempt. Again this is purely situational.

Knowing when it is time to be preemptive takes a cool head and experience. This is why I tell my students to avoid bad situations and lead a lifestyle that minimizes exposure to thugs, etc..

Katana and Wulf have it really covered. and they seem fairly "traditionalist" to me. "Always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." says my Sifu who is doggedly a traditionalist..

Answer 12

Good question. I've been telling my students to get out of the mindset that they must wait until the attacker, attacks.

First they should try to leave. If that is not possible, and they know that the attacker is going to attack, then it is OK to make the first move.  That, when you can't leave, is self-defense. Therefore, it is not wrong.  In each situation the defender must evaluate the situation quickly. Determine if there is a way to avoid a fight.  

Of course if a punch is already coming, and you can beat them to the punch, ...etc.

In any situation you must do what is necessary to survive.

Answer 13

Are you talking in terms of morality of practicallity? For the latter, there are tons of situations, so I won't bother with it. In terms of morality, whenever you know that a physical confrontation is inevitable and/or unavoidable, you should definitely strike first.

Answer 14

"Being in danger of physical harm" is not the same thing as

"Being physically assaulted."

If you are IN DANGER, then the answer may very well be to strike first.

If you are wrong -- then you are liable to criminal charges

Answer 15

It doesn't matter as much because striking first creates an advantage because you may be waiting a while for the other person to strike 1st so just do it because if u get them down and helpless ur gonna win.