First of all, a pure question of definition. We propose a preventive approach? Please what?
According to our dictionary preventive means
"preventative, contraceptive; preventing a particular, undesirable development."
A term that we consciously avoid in training, because this word is too imprecise and even with a poor understanding of education can cause people to act as soon as they lose control over themselves or the situation.
We use the term "first strike" in this context, because a concrete escalation of a situation meant that we had to act first. A situation whose escalation and also the behaviour of the other can be named concretely.
Something that needs to be scrutinized and followed up in scenario training.
Every day we analyze videos in which others are "knocked down". A non-existent or improvable behaviour is determined and finally the aggressor lands the first blow and someone falls to the ground.
Of course one can discuss what the people have done wrong... but with the thousandth video then also the nutritional value is missing.
Finally briefly summarized: BANG! And the person collapses and falls to the ground.
Often directly on the back of the head. And here there are unfortunately enough examples that the victim was seriously or even fatally injured.
For us... of course, we try everything possible not to become a victim of such a racket.
But what does this mean for the first strike? Something that is rarely considered when you strike the first blow yourself and the other person, the aggressor, falls to the ground if necessary.
How high the danger of a fall on the back of the head and the associated injuries is, you can imagine now.
Of course, it is not the intention of this blow to seriously, life-threateningly or even fatally injure another person. But the possibility exists.
To grab the possibly collapsing body with one hand and lead it to the ground in a controlled way? Please what?
Have you ever picked up, held or carried an unconscious or deceased person?
The more you consider these possibilities, the harder you should train to avoid conflict.
In my opinion, many people think very one-sidedly here and only talk about the violence that can happen to them.
Depending on the outcome of a violent situation, this can also have serious consequences for yourself.
But what if I have injured another person seriously or fatally through wrong training? Will this case be integrated into my own training?
The legal component is only one of these consequences, which is mostly mentioned in this context.
What about yourself and your social environment?
How can you process what you have experienced? What about possible post-traumatic secondary diseases? Do you recognize such a disease yourself and your personal environment?
How does one's own family and the closest circle of friends react when a person has been seriously or even fatally injured? Do people distance themselves from you in the aftermath?
What about the employer? How do colleagues react after such an event? Is it even possible to lose one's job as a result of such an event? Can you still meet your obligations? What about one's own family and possible financing of the property? Is it still possible to meet one's obligations?
...just when the first strike is not considered necessary and you yourself become the accused.
Questions over questions...
I do not want to denounce this kind of conflict resolution completely or reject it as a whole. But a well thought-out training is definitely necessary here and scenarios must be planned, managed and followed up in the best possible way. It is still a matter of dealing with conflict situations in the best possible non-violent way and other attributes must also be trained for this.
The social media are full of training examples. Two or three words and an aggressive body movement and off you go.
...some training scars can no longer be corrected depending on the situation and can cause great and unwanted damage afterwards.
First strike, if necessary - yes!
Just think about it.