search
top

Real Heroism

The President of the Sikh temple died a hero, in my eyes. He tried to knife the attacker with his ceremonial dagger:

…The temple’s president, 65-year-old Satwant Kaleka, was shot dead by the attacker after trying to fight back.

His son Amardeep said that the community leader had attempted to ‘knife and tackle the shooter’, but was unsuccessful and died of his wounds while trying to hide in the temple.

He died trying to save everyone else. It’s a tragedy he was not successful. The Sikh community is also raising money to help the victims.

17 Responses to “Real Heroism”

  1. Andy B. says:

    Agreed about the priest! But, Malkin’s “I’ll leave the vulgar politicization of this evil massacre to others. The usual suspects are in full-blown Blame Righty Syndrome mode,” has to be one of the most ironic sentences I’ve read this week; condemning vulgar politicization in the same sentence in which she utilizes it.

    Can’t anything happen that both left and right don’t go running for their Perennial Victimhood suits?

  2. The son is telling the news that the FBI said he wasn’t “unsuccessful.” Apparently the Temple President died with the shooter’s blood on his knife.

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/165118966.html

    “The FBI told me…they shook my hand a number of times: Your father was a hero. He attacked the shooter in the lobby after gunshots were fired, got to him. There was a blood struggle”

    He says the FBI told him that they could see both blood trails, his father’s and the shooter’s.

    That may be why the shooter went back outside only to get into a losing gun battle with the police.

  3. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    This will sound snarky: It’s not intended to. One should not to bring a knife to a gun fight….

    • One should certainly not HAVE to. But (and again, not to sound snarky) you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

      He did bring his warrior spirit, and by all accounts it was enough. I have no idea what the Sikh version of Valhalla is, but he’s certainly achieved it.

      I agree with you that we’d have all been better off had he not only won, but survived as well. His death is a loss to us all.

  4. Andy B. says:

    “One should not bring a knife to a gun fight…”

    True, but can’t you just hear the cries from some of our brethren, “Why was a gun concealed in a mosque? Just goes to show you. . .” Far too many people I know think the Sikh gas station owners they see around these parts are some kind of Mooslim; and aren’t all ragheads alike, anyway?

    My serious point being, I don’t know enough about Sikhs to know the story behind their ceremonial daggers in their temples, but I would not be surprised if they often choose not to have guns in their temples for the political reason stated.

    But indeed, I may be supposing far too much.

    • Jake says:

      The knife is called a kirpan. From Wikipedia (I know, I know…)

      The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of “ahimsa” or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence; the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind. [emphasis mine – Jake]

      Satwant Kaleka used his kirpan exactly as it was intended to be used – for the protection of those who were unable to protect themselves.

      Does WI ban CCW in religious gatherings? I know some states do.

      • Alpheus says:

        In (Formerly) Great Britain, Sikhs are “permitted” to carry their knives, even when the carrying of knives is banned. I have often wondered what would happen if the Sikh religion decided to adopt a pistol for the same purposes. Would Formerly Great Britain capitulate to the religious beliefs, and allow the person to carry a ceremonial pistol?

        As a Latter-day Saint, I’m not one to lightly start a new religion; indeed, this type of thing properly ought to be done by a subsect of Sikhs, because it’s already a part of their religion.

        The funny thing is, any person with an ounce of “sheepdog” mentality ought to resonate with the Sikh purpose of carrying a kirpan; indeed, to someone who has chosen to be prepared to defend innocent life, their pistols are kirpans, for all intents and purposes!

      • ParatrooperJJ says:

        Would have been better if he had had a real kirpan…

  5. SPQR says:

    Great respect to the good gentleman. Its worth points in any sane man’s belief system to go to one’s reward with the blood of one’s attacker on one’s blade.

  6. Mike says:

    I should die half as well.

  7. Daniel Franke says:

    What the media is saying: “Sikh men, who wear head coverings and let their beards grow, have been subject to Islamophobic hate crimes by perpetrators mistaking them for Muslims.”

    What the media should be saying: “If anybody fucks around with a Sikh, it’s probably by accident.”

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.

      • Here’s what I don’t get. Let’s imagine that the shooting wasn’t at a Sikh temple, but at a mosque. Is there any sane person who would have said, “Oh, well that’s ok”?

        The media has a template.
        1. Muslims are abused every day by evil racist Americans.
        2. No one knows squat about the Sikhs, so clearly they can’t have been the real target.
        3. Racist douchebag shoots up Sikhs
        Therefore: He was actually targeting Muslims and shot the Sikhs because he’s too ignorant to know the difference.

        How exactly does this follow? Let’s imagine that we know for a fact that this guy was a racist douchebag Neo-National-Socialist. Why would he “like” Sikhs and hate Muslims? If he was a racist douchebag Neo-National-Socialist, he’d pretty much hate everyone who wasn’t white and Christian. Last I checked, as wonderful as the Sikhs might be, they are not white, nor Christian. Wouldn’t this make them targets in the twisted minds of racist douchebag Neo-National-Socialists?

        Let’s just accept that the Sikhs were attacked for what they aren’t, not for what they are. They aren’t white and they aren’t Christian.

        Let’s stop pretending that the Muslims are some sort of associate victims in this disgusting murder.

  8. Sage Thrasher says:

    You have to respect someone who tries to fight back. I wish the Sikhs, Jews, and other religious minorities who are frequent objects of attacks by ignorant psychos would take steps to protect their facilities with modern firearms. Reading about a lone gun man who got turned into Swiss cheese as he rushed the front door intent on a massacre is a headline I think most of us would like to read more often, instead of the headlines we too frequently end up with.

top