In their press conferences, LE hasn't sounded as if they're contemplating any charges against BM. That could change, of course.
If events that night unfolded the way I think they did, then I think BM bears a lot -- perhaps the majority -- of responsibility for what happened. But prosecuting a son for the killing of his mother by someone else would be a politically difficult choice, I would think.
JMO, BBM--He phrases this so well. A brand new 15yo "driver", without any legal permit, is taken about 11pm-ish to learn the finer skills of parallel parking. Gosh, something about the whole scenario sounds...fake.
What bothers me about this case is broadly speaking the Meyers and the Audi both acted the same way in chasing someone with a gun because they say they were scared, yet the only group that is facing known charges is the group that didn't premeditate the chase. Almost anything the prosecution says about the Meyers that they were acting lawfully and their activities were self-defense in order prove EN's guilt would actually show EN's being innocent under that prosecution logic. All Claus would have to do is a point to all the different statements the prosecution made how the Meyers are victims who were scared and defending themselves with their actions and then show how EN was doing the same. It can't be OK for the Meyers armed with a gun to hunt and chase the Audi from the school as the poor victims rightfully protecting themselves, but not be OK for the armed Audi to chase the Meyers to Mt Shasta as the villainous perps. EN is condemned and not acting in self-defense for shooting first when he was chased, yet EN is condemned yet again when the situation is reversed with the Meyers' own admission they might have fired on EN first when the Audi was chasing them at Mt Shasta.
Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed. Of course charging someone for the death of the mother when they didn't fire the shot could look bad, so the way you get around that by offering BM to plea to some minor charge with a wrist slap or alternatively with the unique circumstances of this case is that you don't charge anyone where you condemn everyone via press conference but say that you thought no criminal case could be brought that would meet the standards of proof necessary to get a conviction.
What bothers me about this case is broadly speaking the Meyers and the Audi both acted the same way in chasing someone with a gun because they say they were scared, yet the only group that is facing known charges is the group that didn't premeditate the chase. Almost anything the prosecution says about the Meyers that they were acting lawfully and their activities were self-defense in order prove EN's guilt would actually show EN's being innocent under that prosecution logic. All Claus would have to do is a point to all the different statements the prosecution made how the Meyers are victims who were scared and defending themselves with their actions and then show how EN was doing the same. It can't be OK for the Meyers armed with a gun to hunt and chase the Audi from the school as the poor victims rightfully protecting themselves, but not be OK for the armed Audi to chase the Meyers to Mt Shasta as the villainous perps. EN is condemned and not acting in self-defense for shooting first when he was chased, yet EN is condemned yet again when the situation is reversed with the Meyers' own admission they might have fired on EN first when the Audi was chasing them at Mt Shasta.
Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed. Of course charging someone for the death of the mother when they didn't fire the shot could look bad, so the way you get around that by offering BM to plea to some minor charge with a wrist slap or alternatively with the unique circumstances of this case is that you don't charge anyone where you condemn everyone via press conference but say that you thought no criminal case could be brought that would meet the standards of proof necessary to get a conviction.
Does BM's right to shoot at 2nd scene depend on these events being one string of events,
w no lapse of time between shooting scenes?
Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed.
I don't think LE expected this outcome.
I'm not at all sure BM had a right to shoot at the second shooting scene. If it unfolded the way it sounds -- 1st shooting scene, flee to cul de sac, and within seconds Audi arrives at second shooting scene -- then it may have been "part and parcel of one continuous action."
On further reading, I'm not at all sure that BM could be prosecuted for felony murder, even if he was the original aggressor and did set in motion the entire chain of events that led to his mother's death.
Nevada's felony murder rule consists of an enumerated list of specific felonies that quality a homicide to be charged as felony.
Murder which is:
Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary, invasion of the home, sexual abuse of a child, sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14 years, child abuse or abuse of an older person or vulnerable person.
NRS 200.030, 1(b)
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec030
Setting out to assault EN, or to kill him, would not fall under Nevada's felony murder rule.
Wow, still haven't caught the driver uh.. I would have thought they would by now.. Then again the driver had time to flee the State..