GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #5

[bessie]

Please continue the conversation here.

Please remember our rules. If you're unsure, please visit our Rule Forum....http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?159-The-Rules

Remember Websleuths is a victim friendly website.

:seeya:
fran

NV - Tammy Meyers Media & Timeline Thread ***NO DISCUSSION***

Previous threads:

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 [URL="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?272407-NV-Tammy-Meyers-Shot-and-killed-in-Las-Vegas-*Arrest*-4&p=11534141#post11534141"]Thread #4


[/URL]

 

[jayme1133]

EDIT: What makes think the Meyers may have kept on escalating things indefinitely is that I don't think they started calling LE after the first shooting, but instead didn't call LE until after the Buick already arrived home and TM had subsequently been shot. Given how that KM was allegedly home and could have called the police what TM supposedly said to BM to get his gun and ride instead, it looks like there was specific orders not to call the police even by those not in the Buick. The only thing that caused the Meyers to eventually call the police was because they ended up on the receiving side of a bullet instead of trying to dish it out and if EN hadn't shot back, KM would have been out there with a shotgun as well after getting into the Buick or in another car.

Do we know times of vid w/ cars and 911 call?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

EN isn't exactly sitting there minding his own business if he is involved in the alleged drug selling activity.
This defense of him is getting absolutely ridiculous.

No one is saying otherwise about his drug use/involvement, but whether or not a person was dealing drugs in a park, it does not give someone the right to go home, roust someone up to drive over there and chase them with a gun even after they've left the park and are fleeing from you. If someone is unhappy about a drug dealer selling nearby, you call the cops.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/11/do-drug-dealers-have-the-right-to-defend-themselves/

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Do we know times of vid w/ cars and 911 call?

The video with the Audi was at 11:22 PM and per the complaint BM is the one who called 911 after TM had been shot and he tried to render aid. BM had a cell phone with him, but was not calling 911 as the Buick was going back home.

 

[BellaVita]

The video with the Audi was at 11:22 PM and per the complaint BM is the one who called 911 after TM had been shot and he tried to render aid. BM had a cell phone with him, but was not calling 911 as the Buick was going back home.

Nope. M's did not want the law involved, no way, no how. IMO.

 

[jayme1133]

EDIT: What makes think the Meyers may have kept on escalating things indefinitely is that I don't think they started calling LE after the first shooting, but instead didn't call LE until after the Buick already arrived home and TM had subsequently been shot. Given how that KM was allegedly home and could have called the police what TM supposedly said to BM to get his gun and ride instead, it looks like there was specific orders not to call the police even by those not in the Buick. The only thing that caused the Meyers to eventually call the police was because they ended up on the receiving side of a bullet instead of trying to dish it out and if EN hadn't shot back, KM would have been out there with a shotgun as well after getting into the Buick or in another car.

911 call hasn't been released?

 

[al66pine]

BM said he saw headlights coming into his cul-de-sac and said he tried to push his mom back in the car. Then the Audi starts shooting half way up the street (which is a very small street) and shoots at a person RUNNING towards the house (not shooting) and then shoots at the car where he knew he hit someone. So, BM knew the Audi had a gun because of the 1st shooting incident and now sees the same car coming after them at their home. Self defense? I would say it was. EN fired 22 rounds, per his statement to friends, and there were 3 or 4 from BM's gun IIRC... Why would the Audi follow the Buick after the 1st shooting once the Buick fled? To kiss and make up? NO, to finish what they wanted to do..

bbm

Yes, Audi - the car - followed Buick.
Prosecutor faces challenge: Showing intent of who to follow?
What evd does prosecutor put on, to show intent to follow.
Will anyone in Audi speak or be a witness for the state?
Driver? Other passenger(s)? All? None ?
Will driver or passenger be a witness for state? IDK, doubtful, imo,
ETA: UNLESS they are located and want to arrange quid pro quo,
i.e., testifying against EN in exchange for leniency on some other criminal charges
already pending, or perhaps something they do between shooting and time of interview and trial.

Does def team argue -- EN did not want to follow Buick, but driver did so independently? IDK
ETA: Does def argue -- EN did not want to follow Buick, but another passenger persuaded driver? IDK
I think, to do either of above, that def team must put on the driver or other passenger.
Will driver or passenger(s) be a witness for defense? IDK, doubt it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

911 call hasn't been released?

That's one of the things Claus is asking for:"Clause said he wants to remove obstacles to getting information such as the 911 recordings and the toxicology report on Tammy Meyers, whom Nowsch is accused of shooting."
http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/...as-shooting-court/_jV9b32rDEClYg3j6KyFYA.cspx

 

[SpanishInquisition]

bbm

Yes, Audi - the car - followed Buick.
Prosecutor faces challenge: Showing intent of who to follow?
What evd does prosecutor put on, to show intent to follow. Will anyone in Audi speak or be a witness?
Driver? EN? Both? Other passenger(s)? All? None ?
Does def team argue -- EN did not want to follow Buick, but driver did so independently? IDK

That I see as a big problem as the evidence is pretty consistent that EN wasn't getting in the car to either go after the Buick nor go to the Meyers. Just based on what we've seen so far - which of course there's a lot we haven't seen - before a jury is even empaneled the defense could file a motion to dismiss the 1st degree murder charge because even if everything in the complaint was true, the complaint only says that EN was the passenger and does not say anywhere he intended to go to Mt Shasta. However, if EN was charged with manslaughter or maybe 2nd degree murder there's enough in the complaint that a motion to dismiss those charges would fail. If the prosecution is going into this basing their 1st degree murder charge on EN having been the original Audi driver who got out of the car made the verbal threat and was described as 6' 180 pounds and then subsequently EN got into the passenger seat later on, the prosecution might as well forget that as that is just a waste of the taxpayers and the courts time as no jury would buy that.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Even if BM's actions perfectly justify murder charges under the law, the DA's office is never going to charge him. Maybe the DA would feel differently if a neighbor ended up killed by EN's bullet, but TM being BM's mother is causing the DA to view this all as bad judgment on the M's part.

The DA's office even acknowledged the drug rumor and said it wasn't relevant to what happened that very moment TM was shot. All that matters is what the DA considers relevant for determining who he choses to charge. EN can be found not guilty or acquitted wouldn't necessarily mean the DA would charge BM.

I think TM being actively involved in the poor judgment also influences how the DA views this. If an uninvolved Meyers family member had been killed, like MM running outside when he heard gunfire, maybe the DA's office would feel differently about charging BM with murder.

There's also a line of thinking that the punishment was already served via the loss of a family member resulting from the poor judgment. It's not uncommon for DA's to not prosecute because of that, and it's also not uncommon for judges to make that ruling if it does end up at trial.

Any way I look at it, the DA's is not going to charge BM. He's going to stick with his decision to pursue the course of action he has chosen.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Nope. M's did not want the law involved, no way, no how. IMO.

This was guaranteed to be a night that did not end well, but didn't have to be that way:
* Alleged car threat while in the car - No LE call from any Buick passengers
* Arrival home from alleged car threat - No LE from anyone in Meyers home
* Buick out hunting - No LE call from anyone either at home in the car
* Buick finds the Audi - No LE call from anyone in the car
* Buick gets shot at by the Audi - No LE call
The biggest one to me is why RM didn't immediately call LE after he had been shot at.

 

[katydid23]

Even if BM's actions perfectly justify murder charges under the law, the DA's office is never going to charge him. Maybe the DA would feel differently if a neighbor ended up killed by EN's bullet, but TM being BM's mother is causing the DA to view this all as bad judgment on the M's part.

The DA's office even acknowledged the drug rumor and said it wasn't relevant to what happened that very moment TM was shot. All that matters is what the DA considers relevant for determining who he choses to charge. EN can be found not guilty or acquitted wouldn't necessarily mean the DA would charge BM.

I think TM being actively involved in the poor judgment also influences how the DA views this. If an uninvolved Meyers family member had been killed, like MM running outside when he heard gunfire, maybe the DA's office would feel differently about charging BM with murder.

There's also a line of thinking that the punishment was already served via the loss of a family member resulting from the poor judgment. It's not uncommon for DA's to not prosecute because of that, and it's also not uncommon for judges to make that ruling if it does end up at trial.

Any way I look at it, the DA's is not going to charge BM. He's going to stick with his decision to pursue the course of action he has chosen.

I agree that the DA will probably not charge BM with anything. But I do think BM's actions might affect the court case and giver EN some 'reasonable doubt' issues , potentially.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Any way I look at it, the DA's is not going to charge BM. He's going to stick with his decision to pursue the course of action he has chosen.

Which that would a be a reason not to charge EN either where the DA could have washed their hands of this by saying that they don't condone the actions of anyone that night, but there wouldn't be enough evidence to get a conviction (which may well be true). The Meyers and the Audi passengers basically mirrored one another in their actions, which greatly complicates prosecution. Until there's more and better evidence against EN or the charges against EN are switched to something less than 1st degree murder, all I'm seeing is a needless huge waste of money or the main charge dismissed.

 

[Miss Muffet]

The biggest one to me is why RM didn't immediately call LE after he had been shot at.

Perhaps they intended to after making it to safety. The drive from the first shooting to their house is less than a minute driving at normal speeds, and they were fleeing at high speed.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I agree that the DA will probably not charge BM with anything. But I do think BM's actions might affect the court case and giver EN some 'reasonable doubt' issues , potentially.

Oh, absolutely!!!

 

[Miss Muffet]

Will anyone in Audi speak or be a witness for the state?
Driver? Other passenger(s)? All? None ?
Will driver or passenger be a witness for state? IDK, doubtful, imo,
ETA: UNLESS they are located and want to arrange quid pro quo,
i.e., testifying against EN in exchange for leniency on some other criminal charges already pending, or perhaps something they do between shooting and time of interview and trial.

The Audi driver's will be a witness for the state if he's found. His involvement in the shooting is reason enough or him to exchange testimony for plea deal.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Which that would a be a reason not to charge EN either where the DA could have washed their hands of this by saying that they don't condone the actions of anyone that night, but there wouldn't be enough evidence to get a conviction (which may well be true).

That's too risky for a politician whose career depends upon reelection. The public would not be satisfied a claim like that without a trial proving there was no evidence to get a conviction for a mother shot in her own driveway.

ETA:

Nobody is protesting in the street over EN being charged. They're eating popcorn and posting in the comments section of newspapers. If BM was charged, I envision the loud minority camping out on the sidewalk in front of the DA's office with Justice for Tammy signs.

Small segments of society have a tendency to latch onto causes, and mother-and-wife is a much more inspiring cause. Who is going to head to the streets for EN-the-drug-dealer? Most will say it's a travesty and injustice, but they wouldn't create a public circus for EN.

.

 

[jayme1133]

I agree that the DA will probably not charge BM with anything. But I do think BM's actions might affect the court case and giver EN some 'reasonable doubt' issues , potentially.

They will encourage a plea deal to protect the lack of evidence and political outcry. I will be curious if Claus will accept...I DO think the M family will.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

That's too risky for a politician whose career depends upon reelection. The public would not be satisfied a claim like that without a trial proving there was no evidence to get a conviction for a mother shot in her own driveway.

I think it would be worse than being a DA who can't even get a conviction for a mother shot in her own driveway. It's not unusual for DAs to condemn things that happened while saying they lacked insufficient evidence to prove a case. Also for the individual DDAs involved, losing cases can be very detrimental to their careers. This for instance is a recent DA declining to prosecute a suspect accused of a more heinous crime that was more high profile, but letting him go due to insufficient evidence:
http://abc7news.com/news/sf-suitcase-body-parts-suspect-released-from-jail/502705/
Here's another case where the DA declined to file charges against a police officer even though the highway patrol recommended it because they said there was insufficient evidence:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/governmen...officer-in-fatal-crash-returns-to-police-duty
Then here's one where the DA declined to prosecute capital murder charges over a drug deal gone bad:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts...cle_85f5927e-fd1f-5af0-a749-9046c31a77bb.html

There's costs and benefits to decisions either way, but at least when a DA doesn't pursue Charge of the Light Brigade cases they have more staff and funding to increase their odds of winning their existing cases where they can for instance say during their tenure they never lost a murder trial, which is something every DA wants to be able to say.

 

[Miss Muffet]

They will encourage a plea deal to protect the lack of evidence and political outcry. I will be curious if Claus will accept...I DO think the M family will.

Do you mean the M family accepting EN getting a plea deal? I don't believe they have a say in a criminal matter.

Civil court is entirely different, but I can't imagine M's ever pursing a civil lawsuit because they wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry. This is one murder case that wouldn't have a chance in civil court anyway because the M's participated in events.