Posted on 11/23/2021 8:25:38 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Devon Dontray Dunham has been found not guilty of murder in the shooting death of unarmed former volunteer fire chief Ernest Martin Stevens, 77, despite his confession and 19 witnesses taking the stand against him.
The shooting took place near Stevens’ home in Hardeeville, South Carolina on Aug 10, 2017.
According to Dunham’s lawyer, an armed Dunham “wanted a ride” from Stevens and approached him while he was sitting in his Ford F-150 in a parking lot “but felt threatened” by him and saw him “reach for something” so he decided to unload all 8 rounds of his 9 mm handgun into Stevens’ truck before running away.
Dunham struck Stevens with four bullets that hit his jaw, left arm, back and chest and fatally injured his heart and lung.
Stevens was unarmed.
Dunham initially lied to police and “denied knowing anything about the shooting” and “said he wasn’t in the city at the time” before confessing and claiming he “wasn’t trying to hurt him” when he unloaded into his car.
Dunham appears to have been acquitted because his lawyer made vague insinuations that racism may have been at play. Even though said insinuations were swiftly shut down by the judge, at least one member of the jury appears to have decided that was all they needed to hear and found him not guilty after less than 2 hours of deliberations.
“In South Carolina law, murder is ‘the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied,'” The Island Packet reported. “The prosecutors have to prove the charge ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and all 12 jurors must agree on whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty.”
“Prosecution should not have allowed this to be decided by jury.”
Isn’t that a choice made by the defendant?
So was it a hung jury or did all 12 jurors find him not guilty?
A judge may only throw out guilty verdicts. He may never overrule a jury that acquits a defendant and then himself declare the defendant guilty.
Please stop posting incorrect information.
Dunham appears to have been acquitted because his lawyer made vague insinuations that racism may have been at play. Even though said insinuations were swiftly shut down by the judge, at least one member of the jury appears to have decided that was all they needed to hear and found him not guilty after less than 2 hours of deliberations.
It would be interesting to know the killer’s arrest history, when exactly his firearm was drawn, whether he was known to the deceased, whether they had prior interactions, how the killer came to be at the location and why he was there, whether the forearm was owned legally, whether the accused had a legal right to be carrying a firearm based on prior convictions, whether the accused was out on bond/bail/own recognizance, parole or probation, etc. Did the shooter run off after the killing, or take the vehicle?
On what basis did the defense allege racism on the part of the deceased? Did the shooter act out of an assumption of racism? Maybe the victim was racist to assume a black guy approaching his vehicle with a suspicious weapon footprint was dangerous — can that be both racist and accurate?
“I was approaching his vehicle with a loaded pistol in my hand, but had to shoot him in self-defense because I assumed the driver might want to defend himself” = utter bs, if that’s what the case really entailed.
No.
“But, but, but, everyone has said a black man would be found guilty due to white supremacy.”
Yeah, especially here in SC the “Cradle of the Confederacy”. In truth this may be the best state of the fifty in which to be a “person of color” since we have gone from a time when “colored person” was considered demeaning to a time when “person of color” is a much desired title. I have lived in SC all my 77 years enjoying my “white privilege”, privileged to be born in a shack and to begin working as soon as I could carry a stick of firewood or even smaller things, privileged to begin walking behind a plow when I was too small to lift it and had to flop it on its side at the end of a row and turn the horse around, then straighten it up and start down the next row. As I grew I was given greater privilege such as milking the cow before and after school, pulling my end of a two man saw, splitting wood, picking cotton, corn, watermelons and such. I was TRULY privileged to be accepted into the US Navy just before my eighteenth birthday, the navy did more for me than anything I could ever do for my country.
Call for Mr. Dexter Morgan, we have a candidate for you.
Well, since every person is guaranteed in the Constitution the right to trial by a jury of his/her peers, there’s not much the prosecution could do about it.
“Why don’t we know the make up of the jury?”
I think we know the make up of the jury, whether it is announced or not.
We have a just us system.🙄
This is the sort of goofball logic that the fascist globalist financier oligarch neocon-controlled crypto-Nazi progressives need the public to employ for their bloodless revolution by infiltration. Seems to be working.
The conservative press should refer to them as oligarch-controlled progressives or NazBot progressives or freedom destroying progressives. C’mon, get creative.
So much for “white privilege.”
When people - of any color - acquit or convict another person - of any color - charged with a crime, then due process and the rule of law are dead.
FWIW, I think that the people who will be most victimized by this are those who are the least capable of dealing out a lot of violence to others...and given that a higher percentage of whites own guns and practice with them, that doesn’t bode well for the black community. Some of them may like acquitting a clearly guilty black man (and that wouldn’t be the first time - see O.J. Simpson, and even he wasn’t the first - and won’t be the last, but it is stirring up a LOT of anger in the white community, which will not turn out well for them.
We have systemic injustice.
WLE
W hite
L ives
E xpendable
“Angry Negro Kills White Man” is a better title.
Funny, no mention of the racial composition of the jury.
I suppose the question answers itself.
Yes.
That area of SC is made up of poor whites, the salt of the earth kind, and the redneck yahoo kind, and even poorer black folk; blacks and whites being about 50/50. Then interspersed with a few wealthy farmers and landowners. My sister lived in that area until she passed away last year. It's up for grabs about the jury makeup, but that gives you a general idea of the jury pool
The prosecutor screwed up and did not give the jury a lesser alternative. The state could not prove Dunham had malice aforethought and since there was no other charge for the jury to consider the shooter was found not guilty. This one is on the procsecution.
During closing arguments on Thursday, 14th Circuit Solicitor Duffie Stone wove together a story of a frustrated Dunham searching for a ride when he came across Stevens.
“… He sees a target,” Stone said. “A 77-year-old man alone with a running truck. What great fortune for Devon Dunham, a vulnerable elderly man by himself.”
Stone alleged Dunham walked up to Stevens, told him to give him the truck, then unloaded all eight rounds in his 9 mm handgun when Stevens tried to drive away.
“He shot Mr. Stevens because he was losing his ride,” Stone claimed, adding here’s no argument of the facts because “most of what I told you Devon Dunham told you” in his admission to police.
Sounds to me like Mr. Dindu Nuffin got mad because Martin wouldn't give him a ride. However, I suspect this was an attempted carjacking or maybe just an attempted robbery. Regardless, I don't give people I don't know rides either, particularly when they look like they could be a threat.
Found this "opinion" piece from Jeff Stephens, Dunham's defense attorney is his post election statement on the verdict:
In their verdict of “Not Guilty,” the jury, consisting of seven black jurors and five white jurors, found that the prosecution had failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to harm Mr. Stevens when he shot his pistol towards Mr. Stevens’ moving vehicle. Because Mr. Dunham was not charged with any other offenses and the Solicitor’s Office did not directly indict Dunham for any other or lesser offense, the jury could not consider and give a verdict on any other possible offenses. Mr. Dunham was later released.
I still don't understand how the jury could have reached a not guilty verdict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.