Hi Drew,



I still don't understand how a person who has yet to make a move could be restrained though, I mean what would you be restraining them from? Drew mate, would you care to explain?



G'day MC

Police and security personnel do it all the time. You are restraining/preventing them from continuing their current course of action. In this sort of situation it would be preventing them from continuing their aggressive actions towards an individual. A course of action that you may reasonable believe would result in violence.

OK, thanks for the explanation, I kind of already understood that but thanks for your reply. (Same goes for Crabby as well). I think that my phraseology in my original question was poorly expressed. If its OK with you I'll try again (and hopefully get it right this time!!!).

I'll refer to the aggressor as person (A) for aggressor and the defender as person (D) for defender, (Is there no end to my inventiveness?!! ) in the hope that we all end up singing from the same hymn sheet.

So, persons (A) & (D)are having an argument, person (A) is becoming very heated in defence of their viewpoint, swearing a lot, insulting person (D's) family etc. I'm sure you know the situation. Person (D) becomes concerned for their safety, but person (A) has given few physical indications of violence other than waving their hands around a lot like a windmill. (Cut off some peoples arms and they can't talk, I'm sure you know what I mean). Now, how can you restrain person (A) if they haven't given you a physical opportunity to do so? IE, they haven't gone to punch you or to kick you. I'm not the worlds best grappler, if fact far from it, (unlike my niece who is exceptional) but in order to restrain someone, surely there is a requirement for them to have launched a 'physical' attack on you, or to put it another way offered you a limb with which to grapple? Oh one thing, please remember Drew, your original question on this was "how would i feel about a pre-emptive restraining move?" So for clarity sake lets not get into the 'you would have to make an initial strike in order to set up for the take-down', as that was not part of your question. If it is, then we're back to pre-emptive striking.

Grappling arts are in my opinion far less likely to 'get you into trouble' than striking ones as they are re-active and therefore much more likely to be seen by the public, magistrate or jury as being defensive as opposed to offensive.

Thanks for reading this ramble!!

God only knows; Really.