"Always hit them when they're talking" - agree or disagree?

[Shaolin]

Only kidding.

I remember an older documentary on Shaolin and in it Shi Suxi had stated one should be so good at their martial arts they never have to use them. I agree. The only time I fight is for money, in a ring or cage and governed by a state athletic commission.

Now there are plenty of "what if's" we could debate about all week but the truth is, don't associate with shady people, don't hang out at places where trouble could start quickly (ie. bars/clubs/parties), keep at least 6-9 feet distance between you and a stranger, pay attention to your surroundings, if you feel threatened walk away and keep an eye on the potential threat. There are other factors but this is literally day 1 self preservation information.

[YouKnowWho]

This discussion should not be only for whether you should do to your opponent or not. It should include whether you should assume that your opponent will not do to you. You may not have intention to kill a tiger, but that tiger does have intention to eat you alive. It's always good to be alert.

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. One guy challenged me for a match. After I told him that I accepted his challenged, I jumped in, attacked, and took him down. He got back up and left. That was the last time I had even seen him.

If people know that you don't fight fair, they will be unlikely to challenge you. This work well in challenge matches. Not sure it should be applied in our daily life though.

"Are you ready? Are you ready? Let get on then ..." only happen in the cage fight.

[dirtyrat]

you would only fight if there's no other recourse. skill alone cannot ensure victory, especially when you're facing down someone much larger than yourself. and let's face it. most troublemakers won't start something with you unless they feel they have an advantage (ie. size, strength, numbers, weapons, etc)

this is where tactics & strategy comes in.

a lot a guys confuse self defense and fighting (mano y mano). in self defense, the attacker doesn't care about fairness and who's tougher.

[Lucas]

do you look for trouble, or does trouble find you?

i think its both personally. the last fight i got into i was simply walking down the street to the store in my own neighborhood. i just so happened to walk by a house with several people drinking outside and someone wanted to be a tough guy and hassle me and my buddy. not the best neighborhood...but then if everyone could just move out of the bad areas in a city...there wouldnt be any. but that is not reality.

you cannot always avoid everything. i understand the whole turn the other cheek deal, but thats not me. i am not what you could call a 'compassionate warrior' that is a very high standard that i do not try to hold myself to. respect to those that do. i thought about it for a minute in my 20s...

[Thibodo3]

Tell that to the police.

Verbal threats do NOT equal physical threats.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Tell that to the police.

You will be hard pressed to explain to the cops that the reason you broke that guys jaw was because he said bad things about your mommy or because he said he was gonna punch your face in.
If I was to 'pre-emptively" strike every guy that "verbally assaulted" me when I was working as a bouncer, there would be wall to wall bodies at the end of the night, LMAO !

Good luck with thinking that a verbal threat gives you the right to attack someone in the eyes of the law.

[dirtyrat]

the guy in video does advocate de-escalation of the situation, as most confrontation are ego-based. if you can swallow your pride (no need to prove your manhood) and back down, then do so.

pre-emptive attacks are only for when all options are exhausted.

[Syn7]

Hitting someone over words denotes a simple mindedness.

Agreed. But alot of the time you can see that words are just what some people use to psych themselves up and get the courage to fight. If I think I am going to be attacked, words or no words, I will do my best to get in first. Defensive kung fu is alot harder to use than offensive kung fu. Why take the chance of being "honourable" with a cat who doesn't deserve it?

Anytime I feel threatened physically I will do whatever I feel I need to do to make sure I'm the one who walks away intact. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually very good at avoiding conflict in general and I can usually diffuse soon-to-be violent situations. But there's a point of no return when I feel threatened enough. If I have to dive at your face and tear out your eyes, so be it.

So, yes and no. Guess it all depends on how good of a judge you are. I know when I'm gonna be hit, and I haven't been wrong yet. I'm sure this is a common theme on this site? At least I sure hope so.

[Syn7]

This may apply in open declared warfare but legally the law is on your side if you block/dodge incoming, then devastate.

But is it worth the risk? Unless you take hits to the face every day, one hit may be all it takes for some cat to finish you. Why give him that hit if you know it's comming. And you are wrong about the law. I have struck first and got off because I was just defending myself. U are allowed to hit people in certain threatening situations. Especially when intimidation and/or confinement is part of it. Like standing in a doorway, the only doorway, and promissing pain to the occupant, for example. It would not be out of line to run right through the guy.

I was charged for defending myself once aswell. We each had one punch. His didn't land flush and mine did. Dude fell back and ended up in the ER with staples. I was convicted for that one too. Doesn't seem fair does it. But then the law isn't about being fair, it's about order. Otherwise I would be able to do a ton of harmless activities that are at this time quite illegal for whatever reasons.

[wenshu]

pre-emptive attacks are only for when all options are exhausted.

Then it wouldn't be preemptive.

[Lucas]

it is always a good idea to read up on your state/province self defense laws.

[Lucas]

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.

The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards.

As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.

[dirtyrat]

Then it wouldn't be preemptive.

it would if i attack first....

allow me to be more specific, "... when all other options to de-escalate the situation fails."

this is where your ability to read people (ie. "listening skills )comes into play.

[Lee Chiang Po]

It must be hell being a victim. You know, the police can not protect you. Will not protect you, only do a who done it after you are assaulted. No amount of training is going to garantee you can defend yourself or your family. A martial art is just something that is designed to give you an edge. That is all it is, and even then if you are not quick and fierce you might not have an edge. If you are in a situation where violence might be the conclusion, you have to have the upper hand if you are to survive it. You can not worry about the law or the police because neither is there to defend you. If there is even a remote chance that you are going to have to fight, only a complete fool would let the guy know that you intend to do so. Once he realizes you are going to fight you will have lost the advantage of stealth. There is absolutely no way that you can know what is going down. You have to make it go down the way you want and not wait and let him set the pace.
The other option is to stay at home or only go where there are boy scouts and police to protect you. And quite wasting your time learning and training something you are scared to use.

[Robinhood]

If you have to try to hit first, you probably have a low skill level, keep practicing, until you feel you don't need to hurt them at all.