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

[jjenny]

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

BM is allowed to shoot at self-defense. If somebody was shooting at him, he is within his right to shoot back.

 

[sonjay]

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.

Except ..... except...... BM and EN both agree on this very important point: EN fled! The silver car fled from the green car! The green car chased it! EN couldn't just drop it and go home; he tried to get out of there, and the green car wouldn't let him.

EN says this in his statement to Mogg. BM says this in his testimony to the GJ and in his statement in the arrest affidavit. ZA and KK say this in their statement in the arrest affidavit. Everyone agrees. The silver car fled!

When you flee -- when you try to avoid trouble -- but trouble chases you down, your options are reduced. EN was not looking for trouble that night. TM & BM were.

 

[sonjay]

BM is allowed to shoot at self-defense. If somebody was shooting at him, he is within his right to shoot back.

Funny how that works.

EN is allowed to shoot in self-defense. If somebody was chasing him with a gun, he is within his right to shoot.

 

[jjenny]

Except ..... except...... BM and EN both agree on this very important point: EN fled! The silver car fled from the green car! The green car chased it! EN couldn't just drop and go home; he tried to get out of there, and the green car wouldn't let him.

EN says this in his statement to Mogg. BM says this in his testimony to the GJ and in his statement in the arrest affidavit. ZA and KK say this in their statement in the arrest affidavit. Everyone agrees. The silver car fled!

When you flee -- when you try to avoid trouble -- but trouble chases you down, your options are reduced. EN was not looking for trouble that night. TM & BM were.

And if EN shot TM at the time of the first altercations he could have claimed self-defense. But he didn't, did he?
So it doesn't matter who was looking for trouble.

 

[jjenny]

Funny how that works.

EN is allowed to shoot in self-defense. If somebody was chasing him with a gun, he is within his right to shoot.

By all accounts, nobody was chasing after him at the time he shot TM.

 

[Miss Muffet]

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.

Yes, it can be. KM testified there was one person in the car at the time of the incident. The driver. When TM sees the car again, it has two passengers.

I don't trust EN's description of car color or his driver since he is protecting the identity of his driver. I don't doubt at all that TM left the house to be a vigilante. It's possible TM identified the wrong car, but I think it's unlikely. This is the only part of what they say EN said that I don't believe. I believe everything else he told people.

Your version means she identified the wrong car. Oh, I forgot. You embrace the idea of disregarding a majority of the testimony instead of little slivers here and there. You're wanting to embrace a theory they left the house with the intent to harm EN based on a prior conflict will be extremely difficult to convince a jury since there's no evidence of anything of the sort. Plus, I believe most jurors will believe this was the same car.


But please comment on the first part of my post on how KM says TM doesn't know the driver of the car, and RM says she left the house that night because she knew the driver knew where they lived.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, it can be. KM testified there was one person in the car at the time of the incident. The driver. When TM sees the car again, it has two passengers.

I don't trust EN's description of car color or his driver since he is protecting the identity of his driver. I don't doubt at all that TM left the house to be a vigilante. It's possible TM identified the wrong car, but I think it's unlikely. This is the only part of what they say he said that I don't believe. I believe everything else he told people.

Your version means she identified the wrong car. Oh, I forgot. You embrace the idea of disregarding a majority of the testimony instead of little slivers here and there. You're wanting to embrace a theory they left the house with the intent to harm EN based on a prior conflict will be extremely difficult to convince a jury since there's no evidence of anything of the sort. Plus, I believe most jurors will believe this was the same car.


But please comment on the first part of my post on how KM says TM doesn't know the driver of the car, and RM says she left the house that night because she knew the driver knew where they lived.

No, I embrace the idea of disregarding all of the testimony of KM, whose story has not been the slightest bit consistent and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The majority of the testimony, I have no trouble with.

Heck, she claims in her GJ testimony that the silver car hit the Buick, but Mogg said it didn't. You'd think at least that part could remain consistent: Was there an accident or wasn't there?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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

If TM can arrive safely at her house, get a gun and go out and chase someone and have that be self-defense, wouldn't that also apply just as well to EN if he had no part in the alleged road rage (which per KM it was only the 6' 180 pound driver that was in the vehicle at the time)? From EN's standpoint the Meyers would be the original aggressors - irrespective to what happened with the alleged shadowing - because they alleged chased the car he was in with a gun. If TM can affirmatively go out looking for the car that made a verbal threat as part of self-defense, then that applies just as well as to EN having a right to affirmatively go looking for a car that allegedly pointed a gun at him and chased him. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive as to who had a right to self defense given how the parties involved didn't all get in the mix at the same time.

 

[SStarr33]

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

Not sure what you mean. I read that 3 were found behind the pickup

 

[PaperDoll]

Except ..... except...... BM and EN both agree on this very important point: EN fled! The silver car fled from the green car! The green car chased it! EN couldn't just drop it and go home; he tried to get out of there, and the green car wouldn't let him.

EN says this in his statement to Mogg. BM says this in his testimony to the GJ and in his statement in the arrest affidavit. ZA and KK say this in their statement in the arrest affidavit. Everyone agrees. The silver car fled!

When you flee -- when you try to avoid trouble -- but trouble chases you down, your options are reduced. EN was not looking for trouble that night. TM & BM were.

I agree that the Buick chased the Audi but the Audi fired shots at the Buick, then the Buick backs off and heads home only to have the Audi following them, and, again, firing shots. I totally understand EN was scared and felt threatened, but he did fire shots and killed a person in the process of all this. NO ONE CALLED 911.. NO ONE! Not EN, not the Meyers they took matters in their own hands and look where this ended up...

 

[Hiandmighty]

Why did no one call 911?

To me it presumes a level of illegality.

(They were all involved in something illegal and thus wanted to handle things themselves).

 

[Miss Muffet]

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.

There isn't any evidence there was another reason for TM and BM to chase the car either.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

Threatening someone with a gun is Assault With A Deadly Weapon, which that is aggressive plus you add the car chase onto that. If EN was not part of any road rage and the Meyers assaulted him with a deadly weapon and then chased him, they'd definitely be the original aggressors as far as EN was concerned, which EN said he only fired in response to the Meyers getting a weapon out on him.

 

[al66pine]

sorry, the el camino was sold for medical bills

IIRC, someone else posted ^this ~ wk ago, sorry, no link. Did this info come from MrM?
Anyone have experience w hosp & med billing, as I imagine would be likely in Mr/MrsM's situation - many, many billers.?

IIRC, shooting was Feb 12, so while seems likely he w/h/rcvd some med bills with 2 wks or 1 mo, does not seem likely, imo,
that med providers or collectors would be pressing for paymt so soon.
If M fam has med ins coverage, had any bills bn processed through insurer already, then remainder already billed to MrM? Doubtful, imo.
Even if some were hounding him, and if he had no other cash, accounts, liquid investments, etc. to use to pay w,
is it likely he would sell the beloved El Camino to pay some or all hosp & med bills?

My impression when ppl having money troubles of whatever sort (if MrM is in that category), is that hosp & med bills are paid late,
paid in monthly or irregular installments, or are unpaid, not that a person w/immed'ly sell a 'classic' original or restored car,
maybe a 'garage queen' to pay hosp & med bills.

If MrM said vehicle was sold to pay med bills, I'm taking it w a shaker of salt -
1. considering the source and
2. how ppl tend go pay hosp & med bills.
JM2cts & I may be wrong.

 

[Miss Muffet]

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

Yes! That's another example of an improper verb tense!

 

[SStarr33]

IIRC, someone else posted ^this ~ wk ago, sorry, no link. Did this info come from MrM?
Anyone have experience w hosp & med billing, as I imagine would be likely in Mr/MrsM's situation - many, many billers.?

IIRC, shooting was Feb 12, so while seems likely he w/h/rcvd some med bills with 2 wks or 1 mo, does not seem likely, imo,
that med providers or collectors would be pressing for paymt so soon.
If M fam has med ins coverage, had any bills bn processed through insurer already, then remainder already billed to MrM? Doubtful, imo.
Even if some were hounding him, and if he had no other cash, accounts, liquid investments, etc. to use to pay w,
is it likely he would sell the beloved El Camino to pay some or all hosp & med bills?

My impression when ppl having money troubles of whatever sort (if MrM is in that category), is that hosp & med bills are paid late,
paid in monthly or irregular installments, or are unpaid, not that a person w/immed'ly sell a 'classic' original or restored car,
maybe a 'garage queen' to pay hosp & med bills.

If MrM said vehicle was sold to pay med bills, I'm taking it w a shaker of salt -
1. considering the source and
2. how ppl tend go pay hosp & med bills.
JM2cts & I may be wrong.

He never said he sold the car to pay her medical bills. It's just a rumor that the victim bashers are passing around

 

[sonjay]

He never said he sold the car to pay medical bills. It's just a rumor that the victim bashers are passing around

On his FB page, he said exactly that.

He posted that immediately after he posted a picture of another Camino he had just bought.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

There isn't any evidence there was another reason for TM and BM to chase the car either.

This is why I have a hard time accepting one definitive version of events since none really make that much sense. BM in fact testified to this that his mom would normally either call the police or have RM deal with it. Whether there was road rage or not both seem equally inexplicable.

 

[sonjay]

Yes! That's another example of an improper verb tense!

Yes, you are correct! Well, sort of. Your example of misuse of "is" and "are" isn't a problem of tense but of number. My example (which I incorrectly said isn't tense) is indeed improper tense. So we is both correct and we is both incorrect. I seen that happen all the time.

 

[Miss Muffet]

No, I embrace the idea of disregarding all of the testimony of KM, whose story has not been the slightest bit consistent and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The majority of the testimony, I have no trouble with.

Heck, she claims in her GJ testimony that the silver car hit the Buick, but Mogg said it didn't. You'd think at least that part could remain consistent: Was there an accident or wasn't there?

Then how do you explain that BM states TM took him to the scene of the incident and identified the car as the same car in the incident? That's not part of KM's testimony.