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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What I would do, were I in a car and someone had just shot at me, would be to drive straight to the nearest police station. This would be particularly true if I thought the shooter might know where I live.

Wait you wouldn't drop your child off alone, grab your son with a gun and head back out looking for the rat?!
How awful of you..

 

[PaperDoll]

Yes, I've gone back and forth in this discussion between theories of what actually happened, and the legalities regarding what can be proven. The Meyerses have wrapped up "reasonable doubt" in elegant gift wrapping with a giant bow on top and given it to the defense. The sketch that looks nothing like EN, the failure to identify EN, the later admission that they knew it was EN all along, the constantly changing narrative, etc. But I think much of that can be overcome by EN's story to his friends. I don't know Nevada's specific hearsay rules, but "admission against interest" is commonly one of the exceptions to the general hearsay rule and is commonly admissible in court. So to prove that EN was the shooter in court, a lot will ride on the credibility of EN's friends as witnesses. They seem credible in the affidavit, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be credible in court.

As far as a self-defense claim, IMO it gets pretty murky. As you pointed out, SYG doesn't apply when the person was the original aggressor. And IMO, once the 1st shooting incident ended and the Meyers car fled back home, that shooting incident was over. Then, when the Audi turned into the Mt. Shasta cul de sac, the Audi became the aggressor. So in theory, SYG wouldn't apply.

Except, since everyone agrees that EN was a passenger, he wasn't in control of where the Audi went, and that might throw an interesting monkey wrench into things. IMO, EN's "legal right to be there" wouldn't apply if he elected to chase the Meyers car once it fled. But since he wasn't the driver, he could make the case that he wasn't in control of where the Audi went, and therefore he wasn't the aggressor.

Right now, I would love to know if any cases have been decided, anywhere in the country, based on a SYG defense by a person in a vehicle that they weren't the driver of, in which the driver was being the aggressor but the passenger didn't want to. Or claimed in court that they didn't want to.

I'm picturing a taxi. You're riding in a taxi. The driver gets in a road rage incident with another car. The taxi driver is clearly the aggressor. The other driver pulls out a gun and starts shooting, in self defense. You pull out your gun and fire back -- also in self defense. One of your bullets finds it mark. It would be hard to claim that you were the aggressor.

Such a case would obviously have much more clarity than this case with respect to who the aggressor was. But such a case could also lay important legal groundwork for how SYG would apply in such a situation. I don't know if any such case exists. If it does, I haven't heard of it.

BBM: I agree that SYG doesn't apply since the Audi was the first to shoot at the first shooting location. The Buick fled the scene and headed home with Audi in pursuit. However, the Audi took another route to Mt. Shasta but they were still the aggressors at this point. As far as EN being a passenger, he was the one who took the shots, in fact 22 from what the police report said and only 3 from BM gun IIRC. I think the driver is just as much at fault as EN. WE NEED TO FIND THE DRIVER! lol maybe they have and are not telling us, or maybe I'm just missing something... UGH!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Same problem applies with your theory. Once KM escaped from EN and went home, what made her think she and BM could find him again? And the fact that they did find him again is pretty unlikely.

I keep coming back to the idea that one extended encounter involving one car chase is the most logical explanation.

I do think there is objective evidence that for a period of time the Buick got away from the Audi, which the evidence for that is the video footage of the Audi alone on Carmel Peak that was released when they were looking for the shooter, so under any scenario the Meyers did find him again. I don't consider that footage to disprove any theory as it can be explained under both long encounter or multi-encounter scenarios.

Interestingly the footage of the solitary car is dated 22:30, which is almost midnight:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/16/25B9586500000578-2955202-image-a-273_1424068479921.jpg
If the stamped hours were wrong that would alternatively put it at 11:30. Under either time it does raise questions as the Audi is either in the neighborhood pretty early or pretty late. If the stamp was correct, either KM mistook the start time of the alleged driving lesson or this was a chain of events that happened over a long period of time. Alternatively if the time was actually 11:30 when the Audi first showed up that would seem to indicate that EN called for it immediately once the Buick showed up on scene. I believe KM has stated (via RM or the police) that the picture of the Audi is from when TM/KM drove home after the verbal encounter, which was early in the alleged chain of events, but I could be mistaken.

 

[sonjay]

BBM: I agree that SYG doesn't apply since the Audi was the first to shoot at the first shooting location. The Buick fled the scene and headed home with Audi in pursuit. However, the Audi took another route to Mt. Shasta but they were still the aggressors at this point. As far as EN being a passenger, he was the one who took the shots, in fact 22 from what the police report said and only 3 from BM gun IIRC. I think the driver is just as much at fault as EN. WE NEED TO FIND THE DRIVER! lol maybe they have and are not telling us, or maybe I'm just missing something... UGH!

Yep, I totally agree. Boy, do I hope they find the driver. I really really want to hear the driver's account of that night. Possibly they've found him but haven't released that information publicly? We can only hope.

 

[BellaVita]

I think it IS possible that BM was outside waiting with the gun. Not saying for sure, only that it is possible as I outlined in my previous post. If KM and TM were in the car and BM was at home. If they had a cell, BM could have been called by them and been waiting outside. Or, if there was some distance between the cars, BM could have gotten out and been waiting-I think it would only have been a very short timeline-events were happening fast. I guess a person's definition of "waiting" would come into play. My definition in this instance would apply to a very compressed time frame. When I say "waiting", I mean 30 seconds or less.

 

[sonjay]

I do think there is objective evidence that for a period of time the Buick got away from the Audi, which the evidence for that is the video footage of the Audi alone on Carmel Peak that was released when they were looking for the shooter, so under any scenario the Meyers did find him again. I don't consider that footage to disprove any theory as it can be explained under both long encounter or multi-encounter scenarios.

Interestingly the footage of the solitary car is dated 22:30, which is almost midnight:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/16/25B9586500000578-2955202-image-a-273_1424068479921.jpg
If the stamped hours were wrong that would alternatively put it at 11:30. Under either time it does raise questions as the Audi is either in the neighborhood pretty early or pretty late. If the stamp was correct, either KM mistook the start time of the alleged driving lesson or this was a chain of events that happened over a long period of time. Alternatively if the time was actually 11:30 when the Audi first showed up that would seem to indicate that EN called for it immediately once the Buick showed up on scene. I believe KM has stated (via RM or the police) that the picture of the Audi is from when TM/KM drove home after the verbal encounter, which was early in the alleged chain of events, but I could be mistaken.

I find that surveillance footage very mysterious. To my knowledge, the police have never said exactly where that camera is located, or which street it's looking at, or what direction the car was going. Nor have they confirmed that the timestamp on it is correct.

Also, all we have is a very short clip. The complete recording could show the Meyers car going down that same street either before or after the silver car.

Also, even in the one-chase scenario, there was lots of time that the cars were driving around separately. Maybe while the Meyers car was taking Alta to Durango to Westcliff to Buffalo, the Audi was cruising down whatever street that camera is on.

So.... yeah, I don't consider that footage to prove anything except that a grey car drove down a street somewhere in Vegas that night. If and when the police release more information about that video, it might prove something.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Even if you had a legal right to drive on that street, the fact that you chose to do so, knowing that that's where the other person went after they stopped being a threat, means that you did not in good faith attempt to avoid any further struggle. SYG only applies in cases of actual self-defense. It doesn't negate the requirements for something to qualify as self-defense. SYG removes the duty to retreat, but it doesn't remove the duty to avoid further conflict.

In simple terms, if you're threatening me, and I reasonably fear for my life, I don't have to run away. I can shoot you in self-defense. But once you stop threatening me and walk away, I can't follow you to continue the conflict and then claim self-defense if you turn around and threaten me again. MOO, JMO, IMO, and all that jazz.

You are correct, but that still leaves the prosecution proving EN directed the continuation of conflict rather than being a mere passenger. I think EN wanted it to continue, but what I think and what can be proved in court are two different things.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM: was BM actually standing outside with his gun drawn? and where was he standing? I must have missed this :blushing:

"Brandon said he had his gun in his hand and had moved several feet southeast from his mother's car...," so per BM he was already outside with his gun drawn when the Audi showed up on the street. Given this undisputed fact, EN's lawyers can claim BM pointed his already drawn pistol at the Audi, which may well be a lie but it raises reasonable doubt. Also the original claim was that BM ran outside with a shotgun or pistol, which it has been consistent throughout all the versions given that BM was outside armed with some type of weapon. The original version was that he came running out of the house with a shotgun.

 

[sonjay]

You are correct, but that still leaves the prosecution proving EN directed the continuation of conflict rather than being a mere passenger. I think EN wanted it to continue, but what I think and what can be proved in court are two different things.

Yep, I totally agree with you on this point. EN being a passenger in the Audi, not the driver, will make it harder for the prosecution to prove that he, EN, chose to continue the conflict.

Like you, I think EN did want it to continue. But, also like you, I question whether that can be proved in court.

I'm also trying to think of how the defense could assert in court that EN did not want to continue the conflict without putting EN on the stand. The attorneys don't get to just claim things in court. They have to produce evidence or witnesses. So they would have to have either EN himself, or the driver, or the other passenger (if there was another passenger), testify that EN did not direct the driver to turn onto Mt. Shasta. And that person, of course, would be subject to cross examination.

If this goes to trial, it's a trial that I would sure love to watch in person. The cross examinations are going to be interesting, to say the least.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I knew there was a reason that we thought the Meyerses story about dropping off KM at home meant that KM was left at home alone.

There's this quote from MM (the other brother):

"My sister and my brother are taking blame for everything that happened because they were the only ones here," he said.

https://gma.yahoo.com/inside-life-m...road-rage-161356981--abc-news-topstories.html

If BM and KM were "the only ones here," then if TM did in fact take KM home and pick up BM, that by definition meant that KM was left at home alone.

Since I don't believe the Meyers' story, I don't think KM was left at home alone, but anyone who believes the Meyers' story has to believe that TM deliberately left her daughter at home alone, when she knew there was a bad guy out there who knew where they lived.

Think about this: This report is only on the 16th before other versions of the story. If we believe BM and KM were lying due to feeling guilty about their father knowing the truth, BM and KM wouldn't have told the family this story is a lie. That means MM believes the first story when he's saying this. As a result, that means MM believes his mother to be the type of person who would leave a 15 year old child home alone shortly after someone threatened her.

Reading that article brings up another point:

Matthew Meyers explained that his mother and sister were going the speed limit, 25 mph, when the driver of another car got annoyed that they were going too slow and sideswiped them as he tried to pass.

This seems to support KM was driving the car at a time BM and KM were claiming TM was driving the car. KM was more likely to be driving 25. That late at night with no traffic, TM was likely driving over the speed limit. There's not reason to believe TM wouldn't be driving 30 to 35 mph over the speed limit. I don't know what it's like in Vegas, but nobody follows the speed limits in my region. Every region is different. But TM had no problem engaging in a high speed chase.

MM explaining the sideswiped molding when the other car passed in the biking lane points to KM driving. Since police have subsequently said there was no accident involving the vehicles, it's more likely she lost that molding by sideswiping a stationary object.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm also trying to think of how the defense could assert in court that EN did not want to continue the conflict without putting EN on the stand.

The prosecution has to prove EN wanted to continue the conflict, especially to prove a murder charge. No proof of wanting to continue the conflict, no premeditation. Without the prosecution proving EN's intent to continue the conflict at best you have crime of passion manslaughter. I don't think EN necessarily has to get on the stand for the EN defense to raise the issue that BM was pointing the gun at the Audi before EN fired on Mt Shasta. The prosecution can throw up a variety of theories to cast doubt on a murder or manslaughter charge without the defense requiring to stick to one theory. The prosecutors have to stick to one theory, but the defense doesn't.

EDIT: I think the police have potentially created fatal errors to the prosecution in seemingly saying EN was the one who made the verbal threat as the Audi driver then EN subsequently became the Audi front seat passenger with the gun during the shootings. I think the murder charge is based on EN being the original driver and that is where the premeditation is derived from, but that is just begging to be shot down by EN's defense, which I believe if that is how it goes to trial that it would be a truthful shooting down of that allegation and would not be a miscarriage of justice as the police would have over-charged EN based on an implausible set of facts offered up. For a conviction EN needs to be charged with manslaughter, not murder or he could walk or otherwise get off lightly. In both instances of EN shooting he only shoot after the driver did something, like in the first shooting by all accounts it was the driver who stopped the car and in the second instance it was the driver who chased, which under no scenario alleged is EN simultaneously the driver and shooter...at best EN was the driver when the verbal threat was made, but I find that highly doubtful and even if it was true that no jury would buy it given the description made virtually nothing matches EN's description.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

That means MM believes the first story when he's saying this. As a result, that means MM believes his mother to be the type of person who would leave a 15 year old child home alone shortly after someone threatened her.

Also that means MM believes TM would affirmatively say for the police not to be called. However, I believe it is also possible that MM may be helping to cover something up from RM. MM could also be a total bystander in all this feeling conflicted in either believing something really bad about his mother or something really bad about his siblings and could feel that he has no other emotional choice but to believe his living siblings.

 

[sonjay]

Think about this: This report is only on the 16th before other versions of the story. If we believe BM and KM were lying due to feeling guilty about their father knowing the truth, BM and KM wouldn't have told the family this story is a lie. That means MM believes the first story when he's saying this. As a result, that means MM believes his mother to be the type of person who would leave a 15 year old child home alone shortly after someone threatened her.

Nope. At that point, the story was still that TM & KM were out having driving lessons. MM believed (or pretended that he believed) that TM & KM were having driving lessons, that there was a road rage incident, that KM & TM were followed home, and that BM came outside to return fire as KM ran into the house. That was the first story. That was the story as reported in the linked article. That was the story MM was talking about in that article.

Also from that article:

"Las Vegas police are still trying to sort out who fired first."
and
"My brother saw the gun, he started popping shots at the dude," Matthew said, noting that it’s still unclear who fired first.

As of now, we only have BM's word that the Audi fired first. Regardless of what else did or didn't happen, and regardless of one car chase or two, we still only have BM's word that the Audi fired first.

I'm still not convinced that the silver car fired first. We know BM is a hothead. We know he was out with his gun hunting for the Audi, and then chasing it. (We know these things to be true whether he was with mom or sis, and whether there was one car chase or two.) It wouldn't be at all surprising to me to learn that he fired first in the cul de sac.

 

[EllenWickenburg]

Think about this: This report is only on the 16th before other versions of the story. If we believe BM and KM were lying due to feeling guilty about their father knowing the truth, BM and KM wouldn't have told the family this story is a lie. That means MM believes the first story when he's saying this. As a result, that means MM believes his mother to be the type of person who would leave a 15 year old child home alone shortly after someone threatened her.

Reading that article brings up another point:


This seems to support KM was driving the car at a time BM and KM were claiming TM was driving the car. KM was more likely to be driving 25. That late at night with no traffic, TM was likely driving over the speed limit. There's not reason to believe TM wouldn't be driving 30 to 35 mph over the speed limit. I don't know what it's like in Vegas, but nobody follows the speed limits in my region. Every region is different. But TM had no problem engaging in a high speed chase.

MM explaining the sideswiped molding when the other car passed in the biking lane points to KM driving. Since police have subsequently said there was no accident involving the vehicles, it's more likely she lost that molding by sideswiping a stationary object.

I was thinking the same thing. This side-swiping on the passenger side is EXACTLY the type of thing that happens to young inexperienced drivers (spoken from personal experience)

 

[sonjay]

The prosecution has to prove EN wanted to continue the conflict, especially to prove a murder charge. No proof of wanting to continue the conflict, no premeditation. Without the prosecution proving EN's intent to continue the conflict at best you have crime of passion manslaughter. I don't think EN necessarily has to get on the stand for the EN defense to raise the issue that BM was pointing the gun at the Audi before EN fired on Mt Shasta. The prosecution can throw up a variety of theories to cast doubt on a murder or manslaughter charge without the defense requiring to stick to one theory. The prosecutors have to stick to one theory, but the defense doesn't.

EDIT: I think the police have potentially created fatal errors to the prosecution in seemingly saying EN was the one who made the verbal threat as the Audi driver then EN subsequently became the Audi front seat passenger with the gun during the shootings. I think the murder charge is based on EN being the original driver and that is where the premeditation is derived from, but that is just begging to be shot down by EN's defense, which I believe if that is how it goes to trial that it would be a truthful shooting down of that allegation and would not be a miscarriage of justice as the police would have over-charged EN based on an implausible set of facts offered up. For a conviction EN needs to be charged with manslaughter, not murder or he could walk or otherwise get off lightly. In both instances of EN shooting he only shoot after the driver did something, like in the first shooting by all accounts it was the driver who stopped the car and in the second instance it was the driver who chased, which under no scenario alleged is EN simultaneously the driver and shooter...at best EN was the driver when the verbal threat was made, but I find that highly doubtful and even if it was true that no jury would buy it given the description made virtually nothing matches EN's description.

True, and good point. The prosecution has to prove every element of the charge, while the defense only has to raise reasonable doubt. Defense will be able to raise tons of reasonable doubt simply through cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

OTOH, I believe that juries really like to hear from the defendant in self-defense cases. They like to hear, directly from the defendant's mouth, what he was thinking, what he perceived, and why he did the things he did and reacted the way he did.

I think you might well be right that the police might have created fatal prosecution errors. The police have publicly stated a lot of the Meyers stories as fact, and have been confusing, at best, about the sketch and the verbal threat and other details.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

We know he was out with his gun hunting for the Audi, and then chasing it. (We know these things to be true whether he was with mom or sis, and whether there was one car chase or two.) It wouldn't be at all surprising to me to learn that he fired first in the cul de sac.

Strictly speaking that is not an objective fact as he is alleged to be the passenger. For the same reason I've raised objections on here to claims EN was chasing the Meyers, I have to raise an objection for the same reason with BM. By all accounts BM was the passenger, so it was not him doing the chasing and there's nothing affirmatively showing he directed the Buick driver to chase the Audi. I have certain opinions and beliefs about what EN and BM were doing as passengers in their respective vehicles, but I can't say they're indisputably true, particularly when it comes to intent and if the driver is being given instructions.

 

[sonjay]

Strictly speaking that is not an objective fact as he is alleged to be the passenger. For the same reason I've raised objections on here to claims EN was chasing the Meyers, I have to raise an objection for the same reason with BM. By all accounts BM was the passenger, so it was not him doing the chasing and there's nothing affirmatively showing he directed the Buick driver to chase the Audi. I have certain opinions and beliefs about what EN and BM were doing as passengers in their respective vehicles, but I can't say they're indisputably true, particularly when it comes to intent and if the driver is being given instructions.

Oh, gawd, you're right!

So what we have here, by all accounts, are two drivers driving around chasing each other, and two passengers who are the ones doing the shooting.

I give up. Brain cells are dying.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

OTOH, I believe that juries really like to hear from the defendant in self-defense cases. They like to hear, directly from the defendant's mouth, what he was thinking, what he perceived, and why he did the things he did and reacted the way he did.

I think you might well be right that the police might have created fatal prosecution errors. The police have publicly stated a lot of the Meyers stories as fact, and have been confusing, at best, about the sketch and the verbal threat and other details.

If EN is charged with murder rather than manslaughter under the claim EN was the driver when the alleged death threat was made, no assertion of self-defense is required. EN doesn't have to take the stand for the defense to undermine any prosecution claims of premeditation. Under a Murder 1 or Murder 2 charge it takes a whole lot of affirmative proof by the DA to meet the standards of the charge as the defense could basically say at best their client was guilty of manslaughter but they weren't charged with that and there's no proof of premeditation/malice aforethought. For 2nd Degree Murder it requires an extremely reckless act, which as EN as mere passenger it is difficult to prove he was being extremely reckless being at Mt Shasta since he wasn't the one who drove himself there...I think he wanted to be driven there, but good luck proving EN directed the driver there. Per the complaint itself it is implied the driver of the Audi knew where they lived before the fatal shooting because the driver drove by Carmel Peak when the car returned home after the verbal confrontation (seeing the car drive by is the alleged reason why they got BM out and armed), which would undermine EN telling the driver where the Meyers lived hence no provable Murder 1 or Murder 2 charge.

 

[jayme1133]

If this goes to trial, it's a trial that I would sure love to watch in person. The cross examinations are going to be interesting, to say the least.

Me too!! I hope EN does not plea and this goes to trial! Prosecution will NOT want to go to trial from what I see. Hopefully EN's attorney's don't cater to the prosecution.
I would love to watch this case too.

For now, I would like to hear from some independent witnesses. The Meyers and EN versions are all full of holes. Where are all the witnesses, driver of "audi", neighbors, others at the park, b-day party goers etc.??

 

[PaperDoll]

But we do know that EN was the actual shooter who killed TM, and we know that there were at least 22 shots fired on Mt. Shasta and only 3 from BM's gun. Per BM's statement, he said the shooter was leaning out the window taking shots, so I'm assuming that the Audi also drove around the cul-de-sac to leave the street, or they backed up. If they made the complete turn, then the passenger side of the Audi would be facing the Meyers home. If BM took the first shots, he would have most likely hit the front of the car as it was coming up the street, that street is VERY SMALL, not much room to "get away"..