|
One method of preemption explored... |
But another opposing viewpoint that has emerged is that you can't go around preemptively hitting people in every altercation. They may say "do you know how many times a guy has approached me, posturing like he wanted to fight. Everyone of those instances dissolved without physical violence. Now imagine if I had just punched him preemptively. I would be the attacker and he would be defending." To me, that is simply a misunderstanding of what it means to preempt an attack. Like I said before, learning Karate doesn't mean you unlearn everything else you know. In this scenario, you are talking about someone that you weren't entirely sure was going to attack you. And ultimately, he did not. Do you know why? Because you preempted his attack verbally. That is still Karate. You don't have to strike someone to win a fight. You were not in a physical altercation at that stage. You were having a verbal altercation with the chance of becoming physical. By all means, talk your way out of it. That is still preemptive, in fact it is essentially the highest expression of preempting a fight there is. People ask me if I've ever used Karate, and I say "every time I've never gotten in a fight." Some critics also hold that it cannot be read to allow preemptive strikes because it is impossible. They would say that no violent attacker will let you know they want to harm you. That they will surprise and overwhelm you when you aren't expecting it,
|
A real-life example of a surprise attack. |
and they will cause you extreme violence with no intention of a fight. They just want to harm you. Well, yes that is true. There are certain attackers that make no overture of their intent. You can also have a bomb fall on your house, or die in an earthquake. No Kata can prepare you for that which is entirely unpredictable. Karate teaches you how to defend yourself in situations that are defensible. Does that mean the statement cannot be read to mean
one should preempt an attack? Of course not; for two reasons. First, In this surprise attack scenario, think of the statement as "since there is no first attack in Karate, I won't be attacking anyone, but at any moment I may be attacked by someone that doesn't practice Karate." Your adversary here is not a person, but the threat of a violent person. Funakoshi said, when you leave your house, imagine there are enemies awaiting you everywhere. Outside
is your opponent here. So, is it not best to preempt? Before someone surprise attacks you on a crowded bus by stabbing you in the kidney as they get off the bus, perhaps you should stand somewhere that you have a view of the entire bus. Or if it's too crowded to safely assume no one will stab you, then you are obligated to wait for the next bus. Don't walk around dangerous neighborhoods at night. Have you not preempted an unpredictable attack? Preempting can also mean removing yourself from situations of danger, as well as talking your way out. Another criticism of the idea of preemptive striking is that an attacker will never let you know of their intent.
|
The aggressor is clearly showing his intentions here... |
That is an absolute fallacy. In fact, the same people that say they have been in countless situations where someone seemed threatening, are the same that say no one will let you know their threatening intent. So beyond that clear problem of their own logic, let's address people not showing their intent to harm you. Certainly, as we discussed, there are cases where you cannot know there even is an attacker, in which case prevention (not being there) is tantamount to preemption. But, I think it is far more useful for most of us to imagine more common situations. An agitated drunk person on a subway looking for a fight. Confronting someone that tried to take your girlfriend's purse. Someone that thinks you bumped into them at a bar. Confronting someone that is hitting their girlfriend. Someone that thinks you were talking to their girlfriend and starts pushing you and talking tough. Aside from random violence, gang violence, muggings, or a prison attack, most altercations tend to have the verbal phase which helps the attacker work himself up to the attack. Or at the very least violent posturing, and chest shoves etc. Sometimes those scenarios dissolve, and sometimes they do not. Whether verbal, or physical, it is still best to preempt. And that doesn't mean you have to hit them before they hit you. You might miss. They may be faster than you thought. But even if they hit you, you will attack even stronger in response, thus preempting any real harm coming your way. You can preempt by talking, by hitting first, or by hitting sufficiently to end the altercation.