First Strike: Can You Prevent the Inevitable?

By David W. Pearson

Many argue that the first strike, the preemptive strike, is the key to success in any conflict.  When faced with a potentially violent situation, there are always options available to you. You must make a choice. Should you strike first or should you let your opponent strike you? The moment when a conflict turns to physical violence becomes the defining moment in that conflict. The answer is not simple. The decision is one of common sense and strategy.

You should ask yourself some questions well before you are in a position to strike. Am I prepared to kill a man over this conflict? A human being can die from a blow to the head caused by a simple fall from a height of sixteen inches. Medically that is all it takes to cause death.

Are you prepared to go to jail over this conflict? Think it can't happen? Recently a man in my city was jailed on manslaughter charges for striking and killing a man with a single blow. We have all heard about single-kill blows in our studies of self defense, so it is indeed possible to take a life with a single punch. Are you prepared to take a life in a split-second decision?

A fight in a public place is very dangerous because of the inherent dangers around you. Are you prepared to take on every person present? How will you know who sides with whom when the fists start flying? A person who starts a fight may be taking on many more people than they expect. You should consider who might be present in that crowd. It may be your adversary's best friends or family, or it could be complete strangers. Understand that you may end up fighting many more people than you originally expected.

By Phil Elmore

Recently my local paper reported a disturbing incident.  At a local bar, a dispute over access to a pool table turned ugly.  Two men got into a "fight," if you can call it that:  One of them punched the other just once in the jaw.

The guy who got punched died.

Just like that, from a single blow:  he's dead.

Those who advocate the preemptive strike understand the incredibly high stakes of every physical encounter.  The human body is at once remarkably resilient and surprisingly fragile.  Human beings shot or stabbed, incurring what should have been mortal wounds, have at times ignored grievous injury to the horror of those fighting them.  At the other end of that spectrum are incidents like this one, in which a single, stupid, barroom fist thrown in anger left one man dead and another charged with manslaughter.

Because our society places so much emphasis on the question of "who threw the first punch," preemptive strikes represent a very legally sensitive aspect of self-defense.  Only the presence of a credible threat of harm can justify a preemptive strike, but this is no guarantee.  We will assume, in discussing such strikes, that you have done your homework, understand the consequences, and would only strike first if you were reasonably and credibly in fear for your life.

So:  with that said, in the presence of such a threat, what should you do?  Do you dare give your enemy the chance to hit you first?  It would certainly give you an advantage in defending your actions should you go on to fight and defeat him.

Each time you enter a fight, you should think very hard about defeat. You should always be prepared for the worst while working for the best. You may find that the person you are squaring off against is much more dangerous than you originally thought. Underestimation of your opponent can lead to serious injury. Each time I go into a fight or sparing session I let my opponent come to me. This tactic allows me to watch and anticipate what my opponent is doing and react appropriately.

Sun Tzu's The Art Of War is arguably the most studied text in history on the tactics and strategies of conflict. The quote above is indicative of my philosophy on conflict as well. Put yourself in a position beyond the possibility of defeat. Then, wait for an opportunity to crush your enemy. It is a simple strategy, but it is extremely effective. How many times have we heard the statement "Fools rush in?" This is the cornerstone of most martial arts. Avoid conflict at all cost, and when forced, destroy your enemy utterly.

I hear the argument all the time... "But what if...?" My response is the same in most every example. Do not ever let yourself get in a situation where you are the one to take the first strike to begin with! You have to be a fool to sit idle while someone gears up to hit you. Be prepared for that first strike, see it coming, and know your response before your opponent ever considers striking.

I have taken both roles in conflicts over my lifetime. As someone who has been both aggressor and target I have learned much by standing on both sides of the issue. Now I believe that there is an accurate solution to every conflict. Avoid the conflict at all cost. No one wins when violence occurs.

Does this sound like a martialist concept? Absolutely. You can turn the odds in your favor easily by preparing yourself as much as possible. Isn't that what martialism is all about?

Many people respond to these hypothetical questions with the notion that we should simply prepare ourselves and conduct our lives in such as way as to completely avoid such scenarios, effectively preempting the need for preemptive strikes.  This is the same logic that says, "If you're worried about getting into bar fights, stay out of bars."  Well, this is true, up to a point -- one should not court trouble.

One does not always get a choice, however.

Trouble, despite our best efforts, may find us anyway.  No matter how well prepared we believe ourselves to be, there will be some eventuality we do not anticipate.

More importantly, and what those dismissing preemptive self-defense often miss, is the problem of error.  Are you perfect?  Have all the precautions you've always taken been successful 100 percent of the time?  Have you never made a mistake, a miscalculation, or an honest-to-badness screw-up?

No matter how you try to avoid the need to strike first in certain situations, you may face those very scenarios.  When you do, you will be faced with a choice:  Should you strike first, or should you let your opponent strike you before taking physical action against him?

The tragedy I cited at the beginning of this column could be interpreted through the lens of either philosophy.  You could theorize that the man who struck first did so out of genuine fear for his well-being -- and you would conclude that his "preemptive strike" may well condemn him to live the rest of his life as a felon.

You could, however, theorize that the victim might well have seen the threat coming.  He might have chosen to let his opponent initiate force, justifying retaliatory action -- and that was the last choice he ever made on this Earth.

Can you afford the risk?  Can you successfully avoid every scenario in which that risk exists?

There are no easy answers to questions like these.  When facing someone who means you harm, however, understand the very grave possibility that the first strike in any physical altercation could be the only strike delivered.

Choose wisely.

Thanks for reading
this issue of
The Martialist!