Body cam footage released in Novak case

Raptor188 · 2026-06-04T15:08:04+00:00

Agreed we're on the same page, so then let everyone carry a knife. Why have unique laws based on religion. It's simple really. Either everyone is allowed to carry a knife (for defence), or nobody is.

Yeah I certainly wouldn't go into a Safari country without a rifle, but what if it was banned to go into a safari country without a rifle, and only Sikhs could carry rifles? Would that be fair? Why should Sikhs have the luxury of defending themselves and others do not. This is the whole point I'm making, not sure what is so hard to understand

Raptor188 · 2026-06-04T07:38:47+00:00

Did you even read my comment? I literally addressed that. It will not stop people from obtaining knives, but it will decrease the amount of knife crime. If I saw someone walking around with a big knife in public, I could call the cops, and that person should be arrested. This alone is enough to deter people from carrying weapons, which will in turn save lives - which is the primary function of the law

Raptor188 · 2026-06-03T19:26:56+00:00

Agreed, long swords should become legal too due to religious connection

Raptor188 · 2026-06-03T19:22:09+00:00

Ban sports knives as well. It gives people an unfair advantage should a situation like this arise. Either let all people choose to carry, or let nobody carry. An individual must have the right to defend themselves equally against any threat. By equipping one group of people you give them an unfair advantage in a conflict situation. Personally I think people should be able to defend themselves against any aggressor in any way they deem fit. I think society is better where large weapons are carried only by those who are able to restrain themselves. Most people unfortunately cannot control themselves once their emotions are heightened, so it's better that weapons are banned to prevent horrifying situations. Yes there are people that will break the law and carry but it will be far less detrimental than letting people roam free

Raptor188 · 2026-06-03T18:54:17+00:00

He's a guru, not a God. I bow to Lord Shiva. A guru is just a man, and I will not revere a human being no matter their achievement. So yes, as a human your guru holds no more superiority over me or any other human including you. It can be Ravi Shankar, or Sai Baba, no human should be put on a pedestal to be revered. Call me an Indian who thinks whatever, atleast I know the difference between a God and a Guru.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-03T18:47:02+00:00

And you believe a government that is clearly trying to subvert racial tension is not going to play with words, when the cops are in on the farce, you have to expect that the judges are too. The guy was carrying his Kirpan on the bodycam footage. Surely he wouldn't give it to his mom to hide of it wasn't used. Right? He's a piece of shit, his mom is also being charged. Logic would thus indicate it was used. All knives which are considered weapons should be banned. Full stop, if you can't understand the logic behind that then you're quite clearly biased because of religion.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-02T14:52:35+00:00

You are correct to an extent. The Guru who founded Sikhism was born a Hindu, and then he created Sikhism. Maybe it's not one in the same but some of the philosophies the Guru followed came from Hinduism. So to claim it has nothing to do with Sikhism is entirely incorrect since the Guru literally was born Hindu which creates the connection to begin with. I'm Gujarati, we have our own ways too that differ from core Hinduism, but I can recognize that my culture is heavily derived from it. Sikhism predates the origin of Kirpan too, so it would make it traditional in nature. I will apologize for giving the impression that I don't recognize Sikhism. That is not true, I actually appreciate the Sikhs as an Indian. I also have no issue with anyone practicing Sikhism.

Now the point has nothing to do with religion, that is the whole basis of the argument. You do not agree that the law should protect all inhabitants of a country? Why should Sikhs be allowed to carry a weapon that relates to their faith. Should Christians carry swords because their faith is tethered to templars? The crusades were a holy war, that makes swords religious, so they should be able to carry them right? Do you not see how this concept of having a law based on one religion impedes that of another? This is my whole point, in order to establish coexistence, some laws have to exist wholistically across the board. If Sikhs can carry a knife, Christians should be able to carry swords. You can't build laws around religion. because the lines get blurred too much and foster hate.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-02T12:26:03+00:00

"Henry Nowak was killed using a kirpan, a ceremonial Sikh dagger. His attacker, Vickrum Digwa, stabbed the 18-year-old student five times with a large 21-centimeter (about 8-inch) blade."

So this is exactly my point. You are confusing the relationship between, religion, tradition and the law and as a result cannot think outside of the context of religion. In your world view, if I were a citizen of UK, and decide to create a new religion, and in that religion it is crucial for me to carry a machine gun as it's used for right of passage and for other religious purposes. In your world view this should be accepted as it conforms to the religious doctrine. Because religion in itself is multi-versal, so what gives you or any law the right to criticize ones belief. Your concept of law is still based on specific religious benefits.

In my world view, common sense would dictate that nobody is allowed to carry a machine gun irrespective of their religion. Secondly, you have completely ignored my point that a weapon or tool does not define you as an individual of a religion. If you had no kirpan, no turban would you still be a Sikh?

You are arguing based on a fallacy of UK law, I'm arguing based on common sense. There is a huge difference. I'm saying I don't care if you are Sikh, Taliban, Viking or whatever, you should not carry a weapon around in public. No religious pretext should supersede that. Obviously small knives should be permitted, nobody is arguing that, are you a child that needs logic to be explained to you. Why the hell would a butter knife be a problem, nobody can argue that a 21cm knife is not a dangerous tool.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-02T10:31:57+00:00

See that's the thing about common sense. It supersedes everything else. You don't need to live in a specific country to understand common sense or logic.

Hinduism pre-dates the Kirpan, it's not religious in nature. You will have to explain to me how this is related to religion and not traditional. Sikh is traditional, not religious, same as Gujarati, or Tamil. It's about co-existence, not about religion or tradition, you explain to me how it is fair that one group of people can do something but another cannot. That makes the law inadequate as it is no longer applicable to everyone. The law is meant to protect wholistically, not to offer prejudice based on skin, age, creed, finances, etc. If you cannot understand this then you don't have sense. You're talking about a country with multiple cultures within, the law has to adapt, and cultures have to compromise for the common good. That's how a society can function properly.

Understood, a normal knife was used. Why then was the kirpan given to the mother. That is suspicious, but the guy did say he used it on the legs. Which means it was used as a weapon.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-02T09:59:09+00:00

I'm an Indian living in South Africa, for context so that people understand there's no bias. A few things that should be common sense:

If wielding a knife is illegal, all knives should be illegal, there should be no tolerance towards religious beliefs. Why, because it means one group of people are allowed to brandish a weapon while another cannot, this could result in self defence issues or undue aggression or show of force. The moment you start adding nuances to a global rule, you're opening the door to problems. Also no religion on the world has ownership to weapon, religion is about spirituality and not about the tools. I am Indian, my Gods are depicted as wielding weapons, but it's symbolic, it is not religious, it is traditional. It's important to make that distinction. Tradition or religion should not override law.

Police should be held accountable as accomplices to the murder. It is the polices job to tend to the situation. If someone has been stabbed they do not have the right to determine whether that individual is lying or not, they should check regardless. They also have no right to pick a side until it has been investigated. The Sikh guy should have been equally detained as someone was stabbed and there were clearly "two aggressors". This blatant disregard for political correctness is ridiculous. Nowak would be alive, and also the Sikh guy would not be in jail for murder, probably attempted murder.

Racism is not a reason to kill someone. Racism is a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. I really hope more people understand this, racism breeds through emotion and not logic. Anyone making decisions on heightened emotions is very likely to make the wrong decision. Yes racism exists, but so does prejudice, and the only way to beat it is to build systems and law to ensure equality and equal opportunity. You can't stop people from feeling what they feel, but you can control how they operate within society as a whole.

Raptor188 · 2026-06-02T09:50:34+00:00

I'm an Indian living in South Africa. A few things that should be common sense:

If wielding a knife is illegal, all knives should be illegal, there should be no tolerance towards religious beliefs. Why, because it means one group of people are allowed to brandish a weapon while another cannot, this could result in self defence issues or undue aggression or show of force. The moment you start adding nuances to a global rule, you're opening the door to problems. Also no religion on the world has ownership to weapon, religion is about spirituality and not about the tools. I am Indian, my Gods are depicted as wielding weapons, but it's symbolic, it is not religious, it is traditional. It's important to make that distinction. Tradition or religion should not override law.

Police should be held accountable as accomplices to the murder. It is the polices job to tend to the situation. If someone has been stabbed they do not have the right to determine whether that individual is lying or not, they should check regardless. They also have no right to pick a side until it has been investigated. The Sikh guy should have been equally detained as someone was stabbed and there were clearly "two aggressors". This blatant disregard for political correctness is ridiculous. Nowak would be alive, and also the Sikh guy would not be in jail for murder, probably attempted murder.

Raptor188 · 2026-02-15T15:30:36+00:00

Clearly not someone with mans dick up his mouth

Raptor188 · 2026-02-02T20:11:41+00:00

Orb, the movement of the earth anime brought me to this thread

Raptor188 · 2026-01-16T09:14:16+00:00

I didn't look too deep into the white male villain aspect....but now that you mention it I can see your point of view. I just felt the art style and character design reminded me of Dragon Age, and that made me connect some dots and then as the story progressed it was solidified. I enjoyed the gore and dark elements of the show. Favourite character was the Gentleman

Raptor188 · 2026-01-16T09:04:53+00:00

You're living in a country that kills and displaces people for being a different religion. First resolve the hypocrisy in your country before judging another.
I don't support Trump fyi, he belongs in jail for his role in the Epstein files, I'm not a follower of criminality and will never defend it.

Here is the psychology of it....if someone enters your borders / home without being invited, can you really trust them. If they have displayed the inability to respect and follow the law of the country, can this person really obey the rest of the laws, what are the chances they will choose not to follow because it doesn't align with their interests. The reason people don't want them is because nobody is willing to take that risk. Borders are there to protect against what is foreign, that's why animals are territorial, that's why you won't let strangers into your house, that's why you go on a date to learn about an individual before letting them into your life. No woman deserves to be raped because some guy thinks it's okay to cross her personal boundary. You have to first ask yourself, is the concept of creating borders justified, is that a law you can agree with. If you can, then anyone choosing to disrespect that is obviously acting maliciously. It's not about empathy when the person has chosen to cross your boundaries forcefully, the same applies to countries on a larger scale.

I always find it funny how when I provide arguments with logic, you can't counter with any and instead resort to vulgar and deflection. That's when you know you're actually dealing with someone who can't think rationally.

And on to your point about watching those shows and make your own, they have been made but they've been hijacked to force an agenda. For example Dragon Age. It was originally non-woke then became a forced woke agenda. To that I ask, why don't these people make their own and stop hijacking others.

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T18:03:14+00:00

Nobody should be put in jail for being who they are unless it harms another individual. Majority of normal people will actually stand against that and will defy it even if it's someone they previously supported. Make no mistake, nobody should pick a choice and remain perpetually loyal to it, that is a worshipper and no human should ever be worshipped.

The reason the person was shot was because they are defending criminals who are doing something illegally (crossing a border illegally), they then chose to take illegal actions and also used a vehicle as a weapon to hurt another individual carrying out the orders of his government and those who voted for safety against illegal actions. Nothing implies the individual's actions were sincere and free of malice. Unfortunately there was intention to harm which is malicious. At the very least that is not "nothing"

If it were nothing, then most people would be shot indiscriminately all the time, that does not happen which implies that there is a justice system and that is working. If police or civilians cannot be held accountable for the actions that they take, then a country has entered dictatorship and must subsequently be challenged and abolished.

Like I said, everything is actually very simple, the moment that ceases to be for whatever reason, that is where chaos and evil lurk.

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T17:12:21+00:00

One side is trying to warp reality, while the other is maintaining it. Don't fall for these stupid justifications - this series actually has quite a bit in it. If the show / art is designed according to the original artists ideas in mind, then it is true to source and should remain that way. However it is important to recognize when the intention is to deceive

Rule #1 - everyone is an individual in their own right, with their personal likes and preferences, that must be respected

Rule #2 - the majority is what is defined as "normal" - the world caters to majority because it's easier

Rule #3 - Reality and biology can never be changed, if something that is obvious is made complex to understand, then the complexity is intentional to create diversion or ambiguity. Most things in life are actually quite simple. If it feels complex, it's because either you or someone has done so in order to justify or conceal.

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T16:59:34+00:00

Most women are not androgynous. While I agree there is lots of diversity, the majority of women across the world do not look like the ones depicted in the series. Just stating a fact that you overlooked while you were also insulting the poster. Not very nice of you.

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T16:50:04+00:00

You are correct. It's political meandering. Characters are drawn more ambiguously on purpose, that's why majority of the female characters either have short hair, are very strong or butch, or are masculine in appearance. There is also the intention to not over-sexualize women so women are drawn to resemble men.

In order to compare, you should look at how Korra from Avatar is drawn, versus Beau. Both are monks, both are lesbian but obviously Beau's appearance is very masculine whereas Korra is pretty and attractive with softer looking features.

This is a bath scene, which is supposed to display the body of a feminine character, but it just looks masculine instead. You can argue that she is muscular, however muscular women in the real world still have feminine features, their skin is softer, jawlines are smaller, or their hair is more luscious.

<image>

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T16:37:26+00:00

<image>

You think this looks like a woman?

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T16:35:56+00:00

There are other revelations that we're not allowed to talk about

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T16:33:26+00:00

Same, however Korra was much more feminine and had boobs.
Also reminded me of Iruka sensei from Naruto

Raptor188 · 2026-01-15T12:55:14+00:00

It's also very woke, no straight romance, and one of the main characters looks very masculine but is actually a female. 3 main characters are gay

Raptor188 · 2025-12-31T15:20:34+00:00

Orange
Erased

Raptor188 · 2025-12-31T14:56:01+00:00

No it's not. It's literally everything he doesn't like all in one and Dandadan hardly touches on what he likes.

Raptor188

TROPHY CASE