GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[SpanishInquisition]

Am I understanding correctly these posts? Is the thinking now turning to the notion that the Meyers kids lied because they were ashamed that BM wasn't aggressive enough?

I'm saying that would tie up lose ends as far as the motive for lying and some of the other strange behaviors, particularly with what we know of the family dynamics. I don't see any other explanation for at first saying BM was the hero who was never in the car to it finally coming with him running away while simultaneously it looking to the outside world that TM was thrown under the bus. I don't see any other motive for the vast difference in stories in what BM did, but I'm open to other ideas. I also don't fully prescribe to this as this would suggest two separate confrontations rather than one long confrontation and I'm not prepared to fully get behind either scenario.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Is it really a cowardly thing for BM to be far away from his mother? Since the shooters would shoot back at the person with a gun, I'd think moving away from her would be a good thing. That's the purpose of "to draw fire."

And do we truly know where he was located in relation to his mother? I don't believe a diagram of the crime scene has been released.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I agree with this. I think BM didn't have any idea the Audi was going to shoot. The hunted suddenly became the hunter; the prey became the predator. BM wasn't expecting that.

It's also possible he could have had the safety on, or forgot to rack a round into the chamber.

By the time he was able to gather his wits and actually prepare to fire back, the Buick driver (whoever it was) was already backing up and fleeing toward home.

There is a mystery 9MM round that was found in Buick on the passenger side. The police report says it was unused, but it wouldn't surprise if they got the description wrong and that it was a dud or some other finer detail either not covered on the Complaint or missed by the police. After the first shooting BM could have chambered a round not realizing his pistol already had a round chambered.

 

[PaperDoll]

I agree with this. I think BM didn't have any idea the Audi was going to shoot. The hunted suddenly became the hunter; the prey became the predator. BM wasn't expecting that.

It's also possible he could have had the safety on, or forgot to rack a round into the chamber.

By the time he was able to gather his wits and actually prepare to fire back, the Buick driver (whoever it was) was already backing up and fleeing toward home.

I'm sure TM, or whoever it was driving, went into a panic, I know I would. I wouldn't want to hang around if someone is shooting at me. I'd leave, with head low and praying.. I'm also sure that once the Meyers got home, they were still in panic mode, even more so once BM saw headlights coming up the street, everything may have happened fast and not much time to think. The Audi came upon them pretty quickly if all this rings true in the police report. I also noted that BM said when he saw the headlights coming in his direction, he pushed his mom back in the car and yet after she was shot she was found on the ground bleeding. Per Krisztian statement, EN said he started firing at the person running towards the house, then he started shooting at the car and knew he shot someone. So, we know that the person who was shot was TM therefore she may have been the one at car.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Is it really a cowardly thing for BM to be far away from his mother? Since the shooters would shoot back at the person with a gun, I'd think moving away from her would be a good thing. That's the purpose of "to draw fire."
And do we truly know where he was located in relation to his mother? I don't believe a diagram of the crime scene has been released.

That is of course true if it was an act of bravery, but then what is the motive to lie about it? The lack of other apparent motive is what makes me consider it wasn't bravery afterall that was being lied about. We know roughly where BM was based on the Complaint, which BM says he was moving away from the car toward the house and he started this movement as soon as the Audi came onto Mt Shasta.

 

[sonjay]

I'm saying that would tie up lose ends as far as the motive for lying and some of the other strange behaviors, particularly with what we know of the family dynamics. I don't see any other explanation for at first saying BM was the hero who was never in the car to it finally coming with him running away while simultaneously it looking to the outside world that TM was thrown under the bus. I don't see any other motive for the vast difference in stories in what BM did, but I'm open to other ideas. I also don't fully prescribe to this as this would suggest two separate confrontations rather than one long confrontation and I'm not prepared to fully get behind either scenario.

Whether it was one chase or two and regardless of who was in the car, my take on the evolving stories is that details were added and changed for two reasons:

1. To accommodate new facts as they came to light, and

2. In response to public opinion.

As an example of #1, when EN was arrested, the Meyerses suddenly announced that they knew it was EN all along (but didn't say anything because it would compromise the police investigation). We know that's a load of horse-hockey; the police told us outright that they didn't know the Meyerses had known it was EN until shortly before the arrest. The only reason the Meyerses admitted to knowing it was EN was because he was their neighbor who lived a block away and they simply couldn't keep it secret any longer.

As an example of #2, when people were being critical that they didn't call 911 but instead went out hunting for EN, Brandon suddenly remembered that he had wanted to call 911 but his mom said she was going with or without him.

What I see is a series of lies told not as a result of some well-planned strategic goal but as a result of a series of discoveries and public criticisms. Each time a new fact came to light, the Meyerses suddenly revealed some detail that incorporated that fact. Each time public opinion was critical of something, the Meyerses suddenly revealed some detail that they thought made them look better.

Thus, the entire collection of lies are not part of a cohesive strategy that can be explained in toto by some single motive. The Meyerses haven't been pursuing a strategy that can be explained by logic; they've been playing whack-a-mole.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Thus, the entire collection of lies are not part of a cohesive strategy that can be explained in toto by some single motive. The Meyerses haven't been pursuing a strategy that can be explained by logic; they've been playing whack-a-mole.

But why would they want to whack-a-mole in the first place instead of telling the police the truth from the beginning? I absolutely agree they were playing whack-a-mole, but to me that raises more questions than answers as to why they're screwing up the police investigation into the death of the family matriarch rather than being straight and forthcoming with the police from the beginning. There's no inherent upside to withholding information and filing false police reports, so you have to be getting something out of it to take a route which itself could be criminally prosecuted.

 

[sonjay]

There is a mystery 9MM round that was found in Buick on the passenger side. The police report says it was unused, but it wouldn't surprise if they got the description wrong and that it was a dud or some other finer detail either not covered on the Complaint or missed by the police. After the first shooting BM could have chambered a round not realizing his pistol already had a round chambered.

Yep, that would explain the round inside the Buick.

I would guess that for the purposes of the arrest affidavit, it was irrelevant whether the 9mm round in the Buick was a misfire or simply a random round that got dropped on the floor. The point was that it wasn't an empty shell casing -- because a shell casing would very strongly indicate that BM had fired from inside the car, without even holding the gun out the window. Rather, it was a complete, unfired round.

IMO, that round isn't really proof of anything. BM could have dropped that round in the Buick any time. My husband teases me because I often have a couple of random unfired rounds on the floor of my car, or in the console or the cargo area. Or sitting on the kitchen counter. He calls me an ammo scatterer. I hope it's never used in court to prove that I killed someone! Actually, last year, we had a mysterious 9mm round sitting on our porch table for several weeks. I know it wasn't mine, nor my husband's: neither of us owns a 9mm gun, and we couldn't think of anyone who had been to the house around that time who does own one. We never did figure out where it came from.

 

[Miss Muffet]

RM actually acted very similarly to how TM is alleged to have acted in both keeping the police out of it and being willing to charge right into a potentially extremely dangerous situation and with parents like that, I don't think showing normal fear is treated how it is treated in other families.

I think the bolded is a very unfair assumption.

When I share this, please understand I'm not tooting my horn. There are significant downsides to my personality, but it is who I am and everything I believe. I'll readily admit I am very abnormal. I'm a very confident person who can be aggressive when necessary. I didn't even know passive-aggressive people existed in the world until I was in my early 40s. I can count on one hand how many times I've felt embarrassment. I'm a completely selfless person. My best and worst trait is to give the last shirt off of my back to someone.

I have physically stood in the face of danger and confronted it, not just for myself or my family but for strangers. I am the person who will give my life to save a stranger. When I have fear, I jump right in. It's the only way I know how to deal with fear. I'm terrified of heights, but I jump out of airplanes without hesitation.

Am I an oppressive role model whose standards are impossible to emulate? Hell, no. I'm a hippie, for goodness sake. I embrace differences and individuality, the road less traveled, and authority is meant to be challenged. I didn't raise them with one religion. I taught them about all religions and let them choose for themselves. I let my children find their own path.

My children have a mix of timid fear, normal fear and absent fear----from my one son who is a professional freestyle skier who puts his at risk on a daily basis (don't get me started on the crazy Evil Knievel things he does!) to my other son who feared driving a car until 21 years old. The others are in between. My dominate personality has not made my children afraid of me. They share their fears and everything freely. That's why I know so much about their lives and their friends lives. They can tell me anything without judgment. What they do know is I will walk through a firestorm for them. I'm not just talking in the normal mommy way.

A risk taking personality doesn't automatically equate to an emotionally abusive parent whose children feel they need to emulate. We have no idea what type of family the Meyerses are, and I'm insulted on their behalf. The fact RM was a drag racer means he is also a risk taking personality. That in no way, nor his lack of fear pounding on EN's door, indicates he's a parent whose children fear his judgment. If you ask me, he looked very understanding when he told the media his son was suffering terrible guilt. He looked genuinely touched by his son's suffering. He pleaded to the public to lighten up on his son.

No, I don't see a macho monster father in RM. I see a man who is a thrill seeker, who puts himself in danger, but who also has an incredible heart and cares for his children. His inability to shut up in the media seems more of a man who is suffering. He's lashing out because he's in pain. He's begging because he's in pain. He's yelling because he's in pain. He's not a macho man. I don't believe for a minute that his children fear him.

 

[sonjay]

But why would they want to whack-a-mole in the first place instead of telling the police the truth from the beginning? I absolutely agree they were playing whack-a-mole, but to me that raises more questions than answers as to why they're screwing up the police investigation into the death of the family matriarch rather than being straight and forthcoming with the police from the beginning. There's no inherent upside to withholding information and filing false police reports, so you have to be getting something out of it to take a route which itself could be criminally prosecuted.

Yes, well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it?

My opinion and my opinion only, no evidence whatsoever: I think that whatever they're trying to cover up is directly related to what happened that night, and it's something serious enough that it motivated them to lie in the first place.

Once they lied in the first place, they had to start playing whack-a-mole and tell more and more and more lies to support the first lie -- which is why it's gotten so ridiculous and convoluted. But the original lie was to cover up something that they thought was serious enough to lie to police about with their mother lying there shot in the head and not expected to live.

If my theory is correct, that KM and BM set out that night with gun in hand to hunt down EN, that had to be over something serious. Probably serious enough to lie to police about.

Maybe my theory isn't correct, but regardless, I think the original lie had to be motivated by something serious -- not something minor like KM driving without a license, or fear that RM would think less of BM because he wasn't brave enough, or anything petty like that. Something serious. Something that could send them to jail, perhaps.

And then, once they told the original lie, more and more lies had to keep coming. They had boxed themselves in with the first lie, and now they were stuck with it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

That is of course true if it was an act of bravery, but then what is the motive to lie about it? The lack of other apparent motive is what makes me consider it wasn't bravery afterall that was being lied about.We know roughly where BM was based on the Complaint, which BM says he was moving away from the car toward the house and he started this movement as soon as the Audi came onto Mt Shasta.

The house is just feet away from the street. Maybe as close as 10 feet.

 

[katydid23]

I think the bolded is a very unfair assumption.

When I share this, please understand I'm not tooting my horn. There are significant downsides to my personality, but it is who I am and everything I believe. I'll readily admit I am very abnormal. I'm a very confident person who can be aggressive when necessary. I didn't even know passive-aggressive people existed in the world until I was in my early 40s. I can count on one hand how many times I've felt embarrassment. I'm a completely selfless person. My best and worst trait is to give the last shirt off of my back to someone.

I have physically stood in the face of danger and confronted it, not just for myself or my family but for strangers. I am the person who will give my life to save a stranger. When I have fear, I jump right in. It's the only way I know how to deal with fear. I'm terrified of heights, but I jump out of airplanes without hesitation.

Am I an oppressive role model whose standards are impossible to emulate? Hell, no. I'm a hippie, for goodness sake. I embrace differences and individuality, the road less traveled, and authority is meant to be challenged. I didn't raise them with one religion. I taught them about all religions and let them choose for themselves. I let my children find their own path.

My children have a mix of timid fear, normal fear and absent fear----from my one son who is a professional freestyle skier who puts his at risk on a daily basis (don't get me started on the crazy Evil Knievel things he does!) to my other son who feared driving a car until 21 years old. The others are in between. My dominate personality has not made my children afraid of me. They share their fears and everything freely. That's why I know so much about their lives and their friends lives. They can tell me anything without judgment. What they do know is I will walk through a firestorm for them. I'm not just talking in the normal mommy way.

A risk taking personality doesn't automatically equate to an emotionally abusive parent whose children feel they need to emulate. We have no idea what type of family the Meyerses are, and I'm insulted on their behalf. The fact RM was a drag racer means he is also a risk taking personality. That in no way, nor his lack of fear pounding on EN's door, indicates he's a parent whose children fear his judgment. If you ask me, he looked very understanding when he told the media his son was suffering terrible guilt. He looked genuinely touched by his son's suffering. He pleaded to the public to lighten up on his son.

No, I don't see a macho monster father in RM. I see a man who is a thrill seeker, who puts himself in danger, but who also has an incredible heart and cares for his children. His inability to shut up in the media seems more of a man who is suffering. He's lashing out because he's in pain. He's begging because he's in pain. He's yelling because he's in pain. He's not a macho man. I don't believe for a minute that his children fear him.

I may be interpreting the quote from SI incorrectly, but I did not think he was implying that RM was a monster father or that his kids were afraid of him. I thought perhaps he was saying that the Meyers were brave parents that taught their kids to face scary things head on. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I may be interpreting the quote from SI incorrectly, but I did not think he was implying that RM was a monster father or that his kids were afraid of him. I thought perhaps he was saying that the Meyers were brave parents that taught their kids to face scary things head on. I could be wrong, of course.

I don't see any other way to interpret the sentence below. He was talking about BM hiding his fear from his father because his father distains cowardice. He's basically saying BM can't empathize with his children's normal fears and that oppresses them from expressing their normal fears. He came to this conclusion simply because the parents have risk taking personalities and have done things most people would be too afraid to do.

I don't think showing normal fear is treated how it is treated in other families.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I think the bolded is a very unfair assumption.

I think it can be very wrong one, but I don't think I'm being unfair. I'm trying to explain why the fear-based parts of the story were only revealed until much later, so that BM would appear fearless. The first stories had BM going outside with guns blazing running towards his mom rand it completely removes TM basically forcing him to go out, how he ducked at the first shooting and finally was going away from his mom potentially leaving her a sitting duck in the second shooting. In the house shooting he's running in two completely different directions in relation to his mom from the beginning stories to the one in the Complaint, which to me is a major difference but I see no apparent purpose for this aside from what I've already said. I don't see an upside to giving a false police report that interferes with a police investigation over these parts, so I'm looking for answers and I most certainly can be wrong. Of course RM could have wanted it that way because it would embarrass him or other such reasons.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I think it can be very wrong one, but I don't think I'm being unfair. I'm trying to explain why they fear-based parts of the story were only revealed until much later, so that BM would appear fearless. The first stories had BM going outside with guns blazing rather than TM basically forcing him to go and it completely removes how he ducked at the first shooting and potentially was leaving his mom a sitting duck in the second shooting. I don't see an upside to giving a false police report that interferes with a police investigation over these parts, so I'm looking for answers and I most certainly can be wrong. Of course RM could have wanted it that way because it would embarrass him or other such reasons.

I think the lies are to cover up something illegal that caused the whole ordeal. Or the lies are to simply cover up any fault BM has in the shootings, not because he fears his father viewing him as a coward, but because he fears being charged with a crime.

I entertained the coward scenario myself previously, but not because of family dynamic resulting from having parents with aggressive personalities. My angle had more to do with the possibility---my own hypothetical based on nothing whatsoever---that BM might be involved in illegal activity and his being feared by others might be important for his financial bottom line.

Having fearless parents who do incredibly dangerous things is relevant to explain why BM would grab a handgun and ensue on a high speed chase and brandish a handgun. Similarly to how my personality probably had some influence an adrenaline thrill seeker professional freestyle skier. But that doesn't mean all Meyerses were influence by their parent's personalities in that manner. Of my children, I only have one thrill seeker.

 

[BellaVita]

Miss Muffet wrote:
Having fearless parents who do incredibly dangerous things is relevant to explain why BM would grab a handgun and ensue on a high speed chase and brandish a handgun. Similarly to how my personality probably had some influence an adrenaline thrill seeker professional freestyle skier. But that doesn't mean all Meyerses were influence by their parent's personalities in that manner. Of my children, I only have one thrill seeker.

Being a thrill seeker and choosing activities such as skydiving, etc. is not the same thing as being an impulsive law breaker, riding around with guns and engaging the local drug dealer. IMO.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Being a thrill seeker and choosing activities such as skydiving, etc. is not the same thing as being an impulsive law breaker, riding around with guns and engaging the local drug dealer. IMO.

The thrill seekers and lawbreakers share the same personality traits.

Type T personalities: Thrill-seekers, risk-takers, and rule-breakers

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/News/NewsAndFeatures/Pages/Type-T-personalities.aspx

Are You a Risk Taker?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200011/are-you-risk-taker

Thrill-seeking Separates T`s From T`s The World Is Made Up Of Adventurous `Big T` Personalities And Routinized `little T`s` -- And Those In Between -- One Researcher Says.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-02/features/8602220188_1_low-levels-stimulation-high-levels

Here's a book if anyone wants to read up on it.

Sensation Seeking and Risky Behavior

http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317124.aspx

Type T Personality

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Type+T+Personality
.

 

[Miss Muffet]

We were talking about the impact a parent with this type of personality has on their children.

RM actually acted very similarly to how TM is alleged to have acted in both keeping the police out of it and being willing to charge right into a potentially extremely dangerous situation and with parents like that, I don't think showing normal fear is treated how it is treated in other families.

The Psychology Today article linked above titled "Are You a Risk Taker?" says:

If children resemble parents or siblings in sensation-seeking, it is probably due to shared genes rather than the influence of the family. Friends and others outside of the home may provide behavioral models and reinforce the disposition carried in the genes.

Genes play yet another role in risk-taking: They influence two other personality traits associated with general risk-taking, including the traits of aggression, or its obverse, agreeableness, and for sociability, the main component of extroversion.

 

[BellaVita]

Quote Originally Posted by Miss Muffet View Post

The thrill seekers and lawbreakers share the same personality traits.

Type T personalities: Thrill-seekers, risk-takers, and rule-breakers

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/New...onalities.aspx

.
I do understand all that but though skydiving for example is considered risk taking or thrill seeking, it is on a different continuum than engaging in unlawful behavior such as drug dealing, brandishing guns, civilians involved in car chases and selling drugs. Sky diving will not land you in jail. The skydiver is channeling his/her desire for excitement in a way that will not harm others nor break the law. I have also read that police officers and criminals are often flip sides of the same coin. These individuals have chosen what fork in the road they wanted to follow. When a rule-breaker crosses over into major criminal behavior, they are no longer just a thrill-seeker. They are criminals acting without impulse control and endangering the lives of others without regard. I do not find such individuals any where near the same type person as a skydiver, mountain climber, etc. who does not get in trouble with the law. Though there are overlapping traits, there are many traits that would not overlap. IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I check in her once a day or so and I have to tell you when I come in I have no idea what I will learn about this case.

Everything from Erich is her son, to The wookie did it..