Justification: Striking Before Struck

[Faramir2]

Link is to a video of a short altercation between a man and a police officer, where the cop punches the dude in the jaw. Several officers are securing an area after responding to shots fired call. A woman attempts to cross the street with a couple kids hanging on her and enter the house being secured, an officer stops her, and the woman's alleged husband half-runs across and gets in the officer's face, yelling belligerently as the officer yells at him to get back. Officer who punches belligerent dude comes over and induces him to move with a hand on his chest (doesn't appear to really push him all that hard). Dude turns toward him, yells something at him, and officer punches him in the face.

So the question: What justification angle does one take on that? I can't say I blame the officer for punching the guy, as he was clearly wound up and at least on the edge of hitting someone, even though (in the video at least) he hadn't done so yet. What small tells would one need to look for in this scenario to articulate an effective justification for walloping someone who hasn't initiated physical contact yet? Part of that for this officer may have been the broader tense scenario, but that's not altogether plain in this video, since it's short and limited.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/body-c...al_taboolafeed

[coastalcop]

Short form, " The subject was in the reactionary gap of the other officer and refusing his order to step away from a home that was part of an active scene. I attempted to move him to a safer location. He was obviously agitated and pushed my hand away. By observing his body posture begin to assume a combative stance, the clenching of his fist, and the shrugging of his shoulders I determined that a physical attack was imminent and took preemptive action to stop the attack."

in other news, I guess he found out "or what?"

On pre assault clues the example we normally give to juries is " Two cowboys are having an argument in the bar, one takes his hat off and sets it on the bar. Whats about to happen?" "pre assault cues are like this, they are smaller and harder to see if not trained in deducing them, but they are every bit the same as that hat"

I should note that this is a LEO approach on why we cleaned someones clock

[Gabriel Suarez]

Anybody that tells you that you must wait for the other man's punch to be en route to you first is an idiot of the first order. And for those karateka reading this who think "There is no first attack in karate" means that are also fools. Many of my fights on the street were begun and ended by me. At the first sign the transition was beginning to happen between words and actions...not the transition had been made, nor it was in progress...but was beginning to happen, I hit first with everything I had. And usually it was enough.

This is when the articulate man can express what was happening and why he was in grave danger. This is not the place for tactical fact, but for the antelope to do the talking and take the victim's role.

[Gabriel Suarez]

Video didn't work for me...took me to a colonoscopy site.

But here is a micro/macro statement regardless to justify hitting first.

"Lt., I was directing the suspect to step back. I was concerned for everyone's safety at this point and the fact that he was very belligerent I was concerned that if I attended to my other duties without moving him back, I would be in danger myself. In any case, failing to heed my requests for him to move, I gently put a hand on his chest and began to move him back, telling him it was unsafe for him to remain and that we needed to conduct an investigation.

At this point, he yelled something unintelligible to me and took an aggressive step toward me and his right hand went back. I was not sure if he was reaching for an undiscovered weapon, or readying a punch. But based on my prior training in self-defense and personal experience on the street working with criminal elements for fifteen years, I formed the opinion that I was about to be attacked. As his hand began moving back toward me in what appeared to be a punch, I struck him first with my fist, stopping his attack, and took the suspect into custody."

There you go kids.

[Faramir2]

Thanks, coastal, for the short form and example there. You pinged on the cues I noticed (shoulders, fist, more obviously the slapping away the officer's hand), but I wanted to make sure I was on the right track.

And Gabe, totally agree on the idiocy of waiting for the first punch; that's a good way to end up on the ground with something broken.

[Faramir2]

Video didn't work for me...took me to a colonoscopy site.

Huh, that's most peculiar. Re-copied here: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/body-c...al_taboolafeed

[barnetmill]

Anybody that tells you that you must wait for the other man's punch to be en route to you first is an idiot of the first order. And for those karateka reading this who think "There is no first attack in karate" means that are also fools. Many of my fights on the street were begun and ended by me. At the first sign the transition was beginning to happen between words and actions...not the transition had been made, nor it was in progress...but was beginning to happen, I hit first with everything I had. And usually it was enough.

This is when the articulate man can express what was happening and why he was in grave danger. This is not the place for tactical fact, but for the antelope to do the talking and take the victim's role.

I was taught there are three ways to deal with an attack.
The obvious is 1-block than attack
A little less obvious is 2- block and attack at the same time that usually involves moving a little off the X.

What is best requires more skill: 3-You block/stop your opponent by hitting your opponent before he can strike you. You see it coming and do not wait for the strike to occur, and so strike your opponent first.

[Greg Nichols]

For non-leo, my general rules are about the same. If I see PCI (pre-combat indicators) you'll get a warning then it's on. If you are aggressive and touch me it's absolutely on.

[Ragsbo]

What I use to tell my guys is they could use what ever force they wanted IF they could their actions to an non "tactical" person in such a way that they would agree that they were justified. It all hinges on how you explain it.