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

[SeeAlice]

It doesn't matter. EN had a gun. He chased them with the gun. He killed Tammy and then he attempted to murder Brandon.

And he never mentioned anyone shooting at him to the three people he told about this.

Unless some material fact changes he is toast.

Have I misunderstood? Did Brandon not have a gun? Did he not try to shoot and kill a person who was driving on a public thoroughfare?

What if Brandon had somehow managed to hit one of the occupants of the car? Lucky for him, I guess, that he is apparently a very lousy shot. Not so lucky for his mother if he indeed was attempting to "protect her" by discharging his firearm, but very fortunate in many ways for the occupants of the "silver car." He must not have even hit the car, or I feel certain the driver/owner would have been identified by now.

JMO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

That's his part of the story. The car that he thought was after him left the park without doing anything to him.

Actually his story per Detective Mogg is that the car was shadowing him:

He said he was standing in
the park and it was dark. He looked across the park and
saw a green car in the parking lot of the school. And
he told me that every time he would go left, the car
would go left, he'd go right, the car would go right,
and he felt that these were the people that were coming
after him to get him.

 

[jjenny]

Have I misunderstood? Did Brandon not have a gun? Did he not try to shoot and kill a person who was driving on a public thoroughfare?

What if Brandon had somehow managed to hit one of the occupants of the car? Lucky for him, I guess, that he is apparently a very lousy shot. Not so lucky for his mother if he indeed was attempting to "protect her" by discharging his firearm, but very fortunate in many ways for the occupants of the "silver car." He must not have even hit the car, or I feel certain the driver/owner would have been identified by now.

JMO

BM is allowed self-defense. When he started shooting, the person already shot at him. BM was at his own driveway. If he shot back and killed someone in the car, would have been self-defense and no charges.

 

[jjenny]

Actually his story per Detective Mogg is that the car was shadowing him:

You should finish up his story. In what was presented to the GJ, the car left the park without doing anything to him.

 

[SStarr33]

Have I misunderstood? Did Brandon not have a gun? Did he not try to shoot and kill a person who was driving on a public thoroughfare?

What if Brandon had somehow managed to hit one of the occupants of the car? Lucky for him, I guess, that he is apparently a very lousy shot. Not so lucky for his mother if he indeed was attempting to "protect her" by discharging his firearm, but very fortunate in many ways for the occupants of the "silver car." He must not have even hit the car, or I feel certain the driver/owner would have been identified by now.

JMO

None of that matters to LE or to me.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

You should finish up his story. In what was presented to the GJ, the car left the park without doing anything to him.

Shadowing is doing something, which was why EN called for a ride and cancelled his date. He didn't cancel his date over nothing - he may have been wrong about what he saw, but he isn't saying that he cancelled his plans over nothing happening to him.

 

[jjenny]

Shadowing is doing something, which was why EN called for a ride and cancelled his date. He didn't cancel his date over nothing - he may have been wrong about what he saw, but he isn't saying that he cancelled his plans over nothing happening to him.

Shadowing? Car was across the park in the school parking lot.
Sounds like the guy was paranoid. I am not saying nobody is after him. Considering his alleged occupation, a lot of people might be after him.
But it doesn't sound like Meyers were in the park.

 

[Gin]

Shadowing is doing something, which was why EN called for a ride and cancelled his date. He didn't cancel his date over nothing - he may have been wrong about what he saw, but he isn't saying that he cancelled his plans over nothing happening to him.

These are the kinds of details I am waiting to hear more about at trial. Lots of back story on this case. Lots.

 

[Miss Muffet]

My biggest problem with reading KM's and BM's testimony is both claim TM did not know the person in the "incident" with the guy in the sketch. But RM stated in his news conference the reason TM left the house was because he know where the M's lived and her intent was to lead him away from their house. How could she feel he knew where they lived if they're now claiming she didn't know who he was?

Now onto something else entirely on page 28:

something like that, we turned right, we ended up behind
the suspect.
Q. And at some point as you're driving down
that street did your mom indicate to you that she might
have seen or believed she had seen a vehicle that was
involved in the prior incident?
A. Yes, sir.

This means TM identified the car EN was in as the same car of the incident. Even though KM and BM have slightly different descriptions of the car, TM was certain this was the same car.

I believe it was the same car. KM and BM descriptions are only slightly different. BM and KM aren't able to determine if its the same car because they both weren't present to see it both times. But TM was present both times and told BM it was the same car. This validates the car picked up a passenger while TM was at the house getting BM.

 

[sonjay]

You should finish up his story. In what was presented to the GJ, the car left the park without doing anything to him.

You mean this part of the GJ presentation?

Q. And at some point as you're driving down that street did your mom indicate to you that she might have seen or believed she had seen a vehicle that was involved in the prior incident?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember where that was, what street you were on?
A. I believe it's called Starboard.
Q. And can you describe the vehicle to me?
A. It's a gray four door, tinted windows.
Q. Four door sedan?
A. Sedan.
Q. And gray color?
A. Yes.
Q. When you and your mom pulled up behind it, how far away from the vehicle was it that you ultimately, your mom stopped behind the vehicle if you can recall?
​

Or this part?

Q. And at some point when your mom stopped the distance you just indicated, did you see the vehicle doanything after your mom stopped?
A. They drove off.
​

Or this part?

Q. And does your mom follow the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. What were your observations about the vehicle speed of this car after the left hand turn had been made?
A. Approximately, they went from about a 10 to about a 40, accelerating.
​

Or this part?

He was sitting, Nowsch was sitting in the front passenger seat, the other male was the driver, and he describes the car as a
cream colored four door vehicle. He said they were sitting on the side of the street when all of a sudden the green car came around behind them again, and they pulled away, he said the green car started chasing them,
​

And let's not forget the arrest affidavit. There's this part:

Brandon said as they approached the silver car from the rear his mother said there is the car at which point the silver car sped off in front of them west of Ducharme. Brandon said the silver car turned south on Villa Monterey on the west side of Johnson Middle School and began to speed up as they followed it.
​

And there's this part:

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following the Audi.
​

And there's this part:

Nowsch told Krisztian the green car began following him
​

So yes, you should finish the story. The green car chased EN in the silver car.

 

[sonjay]

BM is allowed self-defense. When he started shooting, the person already shot at him. BM was at his own driveway. If he shot back and killed someone in the car, would have been self-defense and no charges.

Self defense is not a valid defense if the person trying to claim self defense was the original aggressor. All of the testimony so far indicates that BM & TM were the original aggressors. You can't go pick a fight with someone and then shoot them and claim self defense. It doesn't work that way.

 

[sonjay]

My biggest problem with reading KM's and BM's testimony is both claim TM did not know the person in the "incident" with the guy in the sketch. But RM stated in his news conference the reason TM left the house was because he know where the M's lived and her intent was to lead him away from their house. How could she feel he knew where they lived if they're now claiming she didn't know who he was?

Now onto something else entirely on page 28:

something like that, we turned right, we ended up behind
the suspect.
Q. And at some point as you're driving down
that street did your mom indicate to you that she might
have seen or believed she had seen a vehicle that was
involved in the prior incident?
A. Yes, sir.

This means TM identified the car EN was in as the same car of the incident. Even though KM and BM have slightly different descriptions of the car, TM was certain this was the same car.

I believe it was the same car. KM and BM descriptions are only slightly different. BM and KM aren't able to determine if its the same car because they both weren't present to see it both times. But TM was present both times and told BM it was the same car. This validates the car picked up a passenger while TM was at the house getting BM.

No, that can't be it. KM testified that the driver in her road rage story wasn't EN. And EN's description of his driver doesn't match the police sketch. So it would have had to be a completely different car with a completely different driver.

If you believe KM's road rage story, then not only did TM go all vigilante that night, but she found and identified the wrong car as the one that was involved in the earlier altercation. TM may have been certain it was the same car, but it wasn't.

The police aren't looking for the dude in KM's police sketch. That tells us a lot.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I need to rant! I can't stand how the DA's verb tenses are wrong! :tantrum:

He's an educated man. He should know the appropriate usage of "is" and "are."

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Shadowing? Car was across the park in the school parking lot.
Sounds like the guy was paranoid. I am not saying nobody is after him. Considering his alleged occupation, a lot of people might be after him.
But it doesn't sound like Meyers were in the park.

I never thought they were actually in the park, just what EN is saying is that across the street they were shadowing him. Also per KM they were the only car in the parking lot, so whatever EN thought he saw going on, it would be the Meyers car. EN may well have been totally paranoid about it and the Meyers might have just been out giving driving lessons, which things like this would be answered via school CCTV footage.

I haven't seen this commented by anyone, but now KM is saying that they were at the school the whole time for driving lessons when before in the complaint she said that she went to the school but also drove in the residential areas north of the school:

Q. And how long do you believe you and your
mother were at Walter Johnson Junior High practicing
driving?
A. About 50 minutes.

In the complaint it's in the first paragraph declared where they say the daughter drove around the residential neighborhood before returning back to the school. It may be irrelevant, but it also could matter how long the Buick was at the school and how many trips to the school were made.

 

[sonjay]

That is not true if you take the supposed "road rage" incident into account. That would be original aggressor.

IF there was a road rage incident -- a fairy tale for which there is, as of yet, no evidence -- that had to be a completely different car.

And regardless, TM and BM were the original aggressors in the chase that started at or near the park and ended at the cul de sac.

 

[PaperDoll]

Yes. Everyone agrees on that point. EN. BM. KK & ZA. EN was in the park minding his own business, not bothering anybody, and TM & BM came along and chased him. If they hadn't done that, everyone would still be alive.

Yes EN was in the park minding his own business but then jumped to the conclusion someone was after him when he spotted the Buick driving around the parking lot. Maybe the Buick really was there for "driving lessons" lol but for now it's all a guessing game. So IMO EN kind of "jumped the gun" and was the first to fire his weapon. IIRC he never said the Buick fired shots at him. Why TM wanted to go out to look for the Audi with or without her son, I don't know the answer to that. We also don't know TM and we are guessing how we would react in a situation like that.

When I read the GJ Transcript the more I believe that EN was afraid and his adrenaline really kicked in and he acted too quick. I also think TM was in the car driving when this happened.

 

[sonjay]

I need to rant! I can't stand how the DA's verb tenses are wrong! :tantrum:

He's an educated man. He should know the appropriate usage of "is" and "are."

LOL. I can forgive tense mistakes more readily than "I seen" and "we seen." That makes me crazy.

 

[jjenny]

IF there was a road rage incident -- a fairy tale for which there is, as of yet, no evidence -- that had to be a completely different car.

And regardless, TM and BM were the original aggressors in the chase that started at or near the park and ended at the cul de sac.

At the point of the shooting at Meyer's driveway, original aggressor would be considered someone who fired shots at the BM and his mother. Because BM and his mother left and went to their home. Obviously DA isn't charging BM, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Hiandmighty]

It doesn't matter. EN had a gun. He chased them with the gun. He killed Tammy and then he attempted to murder Brandon.

And he never mentioned anyone shooting at him to the three people he told about this.

Unless some material fact changes he is toast.

Like the 3 spent 9mm cartridges and the one live round in the green Buick?

 

[SStarr33]

Not to mention the immorality (IMO) of labeling someone as if they have already been found guilty of a heinous crime such as murder, child molestation, rape, etc., before the facts are known and the person has been allowed the due process of our legal system. Although imperfect it is the most fair one created by man so far. (And I won't even go into my thoughts regarding those found not guilty by a judge or jury only to have people continue to slander and libel them by referring to him/her as murderer, rapist, thief, etc.)

On the other hand, stating opinions such as someone is (or even better, someone seems) inconsistent, sincere, sneaky, open, confusing, admirable, nonsensical, level-headed, bizarre, honest, suspicious, sweet, creepy, strong, crazy, intelligent or dishonest are pretty much subjective. I don't have a big problem with that.

JMO, The Golden Rule can be pretty helpful.

I can see this case turning out just like the GZ case in that people are going to continue to blame the victims like they continue to blame GZ the victim.