Ferguson Pastor's Comments

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

All I can say is this is just incredible.

http://video.lauraingraham.com/Ferguson-Pastor-Stuns-MSNBC-Shooting-Suspect-Set-Up-by-Police-28735950?utm_content=buffer74f5d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know for sure here. I don't know anything about this guy that they are interviewing but this is not a new allegation in situations like this. I'm surprised at the reaction of the host in that she actually challenged him to provide some evidence of this. Usually MSNBC will just go along with this and accept it at face value. He may be correct but I rather suspect that he's throwing accusations against the wall and seeing what sticks. We'll see how it all shakes out.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

[AURaptor 1,122]

" I don't think he had a negative motive at all "

See, this is why I don't buy religion, under any guise. This amoral piece of crap, who calls himself a pastor, calmly sits there on national t.v. and tells us that a man who fires a gun into a crowd of protesters, strikes 2 cops, actually has the nerve to claim the SHOOTER had no negative motives at all, and then goes on to say he was set up BY the police. Who apparently took the bullets, as part of their master plan to frame yet ANOTHER innocent young black man.

The PASTOR's own story, meritless, with out ANY evidence, is so completely full of holes and convoluted, it might be worth while to question his motive, if not sanity.

Pastor claims Williams had been robbed, and was upset. That he shot at the crowd, with no negative motive, but then he was beaten, brutally, into confession , by the cops, with out any legal counsel. So what the hell did he confess to ? Shooting into a crowd ? Shooting at the cops? The pastor's smarmy replies and baseless claims make me think the cops should speak to him for a few minutes too.

[WarTim 3,456]

Typical and exactly what was expected.......

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

" I don't think he had a negative motive at all "

See, this is why I don't buy religion, under any guise. This amoral piece of crap, who calls himself a pastor, calmly sits there on national t.v. and tells us that a man who fires a gun into a crowd of protesters, strikes 2 cops, actually has the nerve to claim the SHOOTER had no negative motives at all, and then goes on to say he was set up BY the police. Who apparently took the bullets, as part of their master plan to frame yet ANOTHER innocent young black man.

The PASTOR's own story, meritless, with out ANY evidence, is so completely full of holes and convoluted, it might be worth while to question his motive, if not sanity.

Pastor claims Williams had been robbed, and was upset. That he shot at the crowd, with no negative motive, but then he was beaten, brutally, into confession , by the cops, with out any legal counsel. So what the hell did he confess to ? Shooting into a crowd ? Shooting at the cops? The pastor's smarmy replies and baseless claims make me think the cops should speak to him for a few minutes too.

All we know right now is the guy has admitted to firing a pistol in the crowd. Until we know more, get ballistics back and check his gun, it's irresponsible to say what he did or didn't do in relation to these two cops. He's obviously not a "poor innocent kid" if he's shooting into a crowd even over a robbery. So he should be prosecuted for that crap regardless. But we'd all do well to lay off the amateur detective stuff until more evidence is known.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The " pastor " even knows that any claim that the shooter was just upset over an incident or robbery , and that shooting into THIS crowd, above all others, and hitting 2 cops, and didn't mean to actually shoot anyone, has to be one of the weakest stories ever told.

And then to go on and charge police brutality and corruption ? HERE ? With exactly zero proof ?

It's a special level of stupid we're dealing with here folks. Truly bizarre.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

Someone needs to know a prosecutor. Hint. Whether you use the term know or believe, it's the same thing. They don't prosecute suspects when they have doubt as to their innocence. They must know or believe,as you say, there is guilt. They don't go into trial to find out if they have the right guy.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

Someone needs to know a prosecutor. Hint. Whether you use the term know or believe, it's the same thing. They don't prosecute suspects when they have doubt as to their innocence. They must know or believe,as you say, there is guilt. They don't go into trial to find out if they have the right guy.

Gee, what a perfect system. They have never made a mistake. :-\

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

Someone needs to know a prosecutor. Hint. Whether you use the term know or believe, it's the same thing. They don't prosecute suspects when they have doubt as to their innocence. They must know or believe,as you say, there is guilt. They don't go into trial to find out if they have the right guy.

Now someone needs to acquaint themselves with a dictionary. "Know" and "believe" are not the same thing. Even in a legal sense.

And I would expect at a minimum level of competence and basic ethics, a prosecutor would only prosecute if they believed the person did it. But as history has shown us, many a prosecutor has taken a suspect to trial that they "believed" guilty who turned out to be innocent. DNA evidence exonerating guys on death row alone should make that point abundantly clear.

So we are still where I said we were: not knowing whether this guy shot the cops or not. The evidence and trial will help us figure that out.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The " pastor " even knows that any claim that the shooter was just upset over an incident or robbery , and that shooting into THIS crowd, above all others, and hitting 2 cops, and didn't mean to actually shoot anyone, has to be one of the weakest stories ever told.

The pastor doesn't "know" either. All he knows is what the guy is saying. And he believes him.

And then to go on and charge police brutality and corruption ? HERE ? With exactly zero proof ?

It's a special level of stupid we're dealing with here folks. Truly bizarre.

If you made me bet, I'd say they've got the right guy. Whether he intended to hit the policemen or not might be a question, but I think they probably found the guy who fired the bullets that hit them.

The pastor is being irresponsible. What he should call for is for everyone to wait until all the facts come out and that he believes the guy's story may have merit, but none of us know.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The paster is being irresponsible. What he should call for is for everyone to wait until all the facts come out and that he believes the guy's story may have merit, but none of us know.

He's being many things, and none fo them, imo, have a damn thing to do w/ being a Christian.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

Someone needs to know a prosecutor. Hint. Whether you use the term know or believe, it's the same thing. They don't prosecute suspects when they have doubt as to their innocence. They must know or believe,as you say, there is guilt. They don't go into trial to find out if they have the right guy.

Gee, what a perfect system. They have never made a mistake. :-\/>

i made it clear earlier they make mistakes. That is why the burden of proof is there. Knowing or believing is worthless until you prove it.

[WarTim 3,456]

I don't know a lot about this case, but the alleged shooter is now claiming he confessed under duress. He was pistol whipped by police and coerced into a confession.

The pastor might not be wrong.

please, he is full of shat. Just trying to make bogeymen out of police again. he didn't ax him if he did the shooting..... Why the hell not?

He could be. Or the police, understandably pissed, have jumped to conclusions. It's too early to be declaring the police a 'bogeyman' or declaring them to have gotten the right man. It's why we have trials.

so you are saying with all the shat going on in this area the police are going to beat an innocent black kid into confessing to a crime he didn't do? That is not why we have trials. The authorities do not try suspects to see if they are guilty. They prosecute people who they know have committed crimes. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they don't have convincing enough evidence for a jury. But they should never prosecute to find truth but to show the truth.

Someone needs remedial civics.

They prosecute people they believe have committed crimes. They do not know they did them. We have a trial to determine guilt.

The bottom line is...we don't know if this guy did it or not. Until we hear/see the evidence, no one does. It may turn out he didn't do it at all and they've nabbed the wrong person. Or he may be guilty as sin. It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongfully prosecuted or that a confession was given under duress. We will just have to let it play out.

Someone needs to know a prosecutor. Hint. Whether you use the term know or believe, it's the same thing. They don't prosecute suspects when they have doubt as to their innocence. They must know or believe,as you say, there is guilt. They don't go into trial to find out if they have the right guy.

Gee, what a perfect system. They have never made a mistake. :-\/>

i made it clear earlier they make mistakes. That is why the burden of proof is there. Knowing or believing is worthless until you prove it.

That would have been prudent advice for the "Hands up-Don't Shoot" crowd.......