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

[SpanishInquisition]

KM had just testified that she knows EN — she identified him in a photograph.

Then she testified that she and her mom saw "a guy" walking back and forth. Nothing specific as to whether "the guy" was in the park, in the school parking lot, on the street, or what.

The DA did not ask her if she recognized "the guy" as EN. But he did ask her if she saw EN that evening while she was at the school, and her answer was "no."

So "the guy" they saw wasn't EN? I wonder what that's about.

Was there another guy there that night? Are we to believe that this other guy is the alleged road rager? Are we to believe that as soon as KM & TM switched seats and left the school, "the guy" jumped into his silver car, followed them, and road raged them?

Or is he just some random guy who has nothing to do with anything? Not EN, not the road rager, not the Audi driver. Just a guy. Maybe KM & TM had the same touch of paranoia that EN seems to have.

Her answers there really made it look like that was the real reason the Buick drove back there. She 'saw' the person enough to say they walked back and forth and did a re-appearing act, but only her mom actually took a 'look' at that person. Everything KM attributed to that person is the same thing EN said he had done and KM said because of that person the driving lessons ended and they went home. It seems awful coincidental that TM would decide to return armed to the spot where she ordered the windows rolled up and the lesson ended.

 

[sonjay]

Her answers there really made it look like that was the real reason the Buick drove back there. She 'saw' the person enough to say they walked back and forth and did a re-appearing act, but only her mom actually took a 'look' at that person. Everything KM attributed to that person is the same thing EN said he had done and KM said because of that person the driving lessons ended and they went home. It seems awful coincidental that TM would decide to return armed to the spot where she ordered the windows rolled up and the lesson ended.

Yes, especially since the alleged road rage allegedly happened way over on Cimarron. You'd think TM & BM would have focused their search efforts in the vicinity of Cimarron & Westcliff.

In the trial, if the prosecution doesn't specifically ask KM whether "the guy" she saw at the school was EN, the defense definitely will. If she says she didn't recognize him, they'll ask if he appeared to be tall or short, stocky or slightly built, long hair or short, what he was wearing, if he was carrying anything, exactly where he was while he was walking back and forth, and exactly where that was in relation to where they were in their car.

As far as I can tell, the closest thing to an "official" story from the Meyers kids is that "the guy" wasn't EN, the road rage driver wasn't EN, the Audi driver wasn't EN, and they never saw or recognized EN at any point that night and had no idea he was involved at all.

If the defense can get EN's alleged confession thrown out (due to his being high at the time), the prosecution will have virtually no case at all against EN. They'll only have ZA's & KK's statements, and those could be dismissed as EN bragging to gain street cred. Maybe he was in the silver car but not the one doing the shooting.

 

[PaperDoll]

What EN thought is quite relevant for the same reason EN allegedly thought he wasn't shot at, which was why the prosecutor went out of the way to introduce that to the GJ. What someone thought during a homicide most of the time involves LE-involved shootings where LE shoots and kills someone who had a toy, cell phone, etc. that LE mistook for a gun as cops don't get sent away to prison for mistaking an unarmed suspect for an armed suspect because they couldn't prove they saw a real gun, but this applies just as well to non-LE shootings...and it cuts both ways. This is the actual jury instruction and this goes to show why the DA wanted to introduce EN thought he hadn't been shot at when he was shooting:

If we just ignored what EN thought and only looked at the physical evidence, that would help rather than hinder EN.

Ok I can argue this I could assume my neighbor across the street from me is "out to get me" simply by looking in my direction, so in my mind real or not, I think he's going to kill me because he looked at me funny, so I decide to kill him first. Remember, my FEAR is real to me but may not be real to others. Make sense?

 

[sonjay]

In the arrest affidavit:

The daughter said a white male approximately 6' tall got out of the driver's seat of the silver car and said "I'm gonna back for you and your daughter."

In KM's GJ testimony:

Q. Now can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury what this person that's standing in front of your mom's car is saying, if anything, to you and your mother?
A. He said that he was going to kill, "I'm going to kill you and your daughter."

Q. Now after he says that, does he say when he's going to kill you? Is he going to do it right now or did he say something about what he was going to do in the future?
A. No.

In the GJ, they had KM backing off from her earlier statement that the spiky-haired dude was going to "come back for" TM & KM. It morphed into just "I'm going to kill you and your daughter."

It seems that the prosecution has definitely decided that the road rage and the road rage driver had absolutely nothing to do with the car chase and shootouts. They've already begun decoupling the two incidents.

So the prosecution's case seems to be that KM & TM were road raged, TM & BM armed up and went out looking for the road rager, and then TM & BM chased the wrong car.

Sadly, the passenger in that car just happened to be their neighbor who had received threats and was afraid that people were out to get him.

 

[sonjay]

Ok I can argue this I could assume my neighbor across the street from me is "out to get me" simply by looking in my direction, so in my mind real or not, I think he's going to kill me because he looked at me funny, so I decide to kill him first. Remember, my FEAR is real to me but may not be real to others. Make sense?

No, the fear has to be reasonable by the standards of a "reasonable person."

The green car pointed a gun at the silver car. The green car chased the silver car. Even after EN waved his gun out the window hoping it would cause the green car to go away, the green car continued to pursue the silver car.

Seems pretty reasonable to me that EN would fear that the green car meant to do him harm. Others might find that fear unreasonable. The members of the jury will be the only ones whose opinions count regarding whether EN's fear was reasonable.

 

[PaperDoll]

They took BM's 9mm and went hunting in their green car. They were out to get somebody that night.

EN thought people were out to get him. A green car showed up and pointed a gun out the window at him and chased him.

It sure seems reasonable that he concluded that the green car was out to get him.

After he scared them away by firing his own gun, he was on his way home. But he saw that same green car drive to within a couple houses of his own house and turn down a side road. It sure seems reasonable that he concluded they might be planning to come to his house.

He had been threatened with a gun. He had waved his own car out the window, hoping it would scare off his attackers. It had no effect. He fled; they pursued. He fired to scare them away, and he tried to go home, but there were his attackers, right there on his street! It's not even safe for him to go home.

I still wonder how that night would have ended if EN hadn't had a gun of his own.

BBM: EN told his friends he saw the "car" waved a gun out the window but didn't say on which side. Then when Mogg gave his statement to the GJ about EN he never mentioned that EN said he saw a gun being waved out the window of the Buick. EN told Mogg that when he saw the Buick in the parking lot that he himself took out his gun and loaded it. So, did EN really see a gun being waved out of the window of the Buick? Am I missing something?

 

[PaperDoll]

No, the fear has to be reasonable by the standards of a "reasonable person."

The green car pointed a gun at the silver car. The green car chased the silver car. Even after EN waved his gun out the window hoping it would cause the green car to go away, the green car continued to pursue the silver car.

Seems pretty reasonable to me that EN would fear that the green car meant to do him harm. Others might find that fear unreasonable. The members of the jury will be the only ones whose opinions count regarding whether EN's fear was reasonable.

Again, no one really knows if the Buick actually showed his gun, EN told his friends that but I don't recall him telling the police that. What I read is EN showed his gun hoping the Buick would flee. So the Audi decides to shoot which then causes the Buick to flee, that is when it should have STOPPED and not gone any further.

 

[sonjay]

BBM: EN told his friends he saw the "car" waved a gun out the window but didn't say on which side. Then when Mogg gave his statement to the GJ about EN he never mentioned that EN said he saw a gun being waved out the window of the Buick. EN told Mogg that when he saw the Buick in the parking lot that he himself took out his gun and loaded it. So, did EN really see a gun being waved out of the window of the Buick? Am I missing something?

I think he did.

In the arrest affidavit, both ZA and KK say that he told them he saw a gun out the window of the green car. KK also testified to that in her GJ testimony.

Mogg failing to mention that in his testimony doesn't mean that EN didn't tell him that. Maybe EN did, maybe EN didn't. But EN did tell ZA & KK, that very night, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, that he saw a gun out the window of the green car.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

How did KM know which brother TM meant? She's got 3 brothers. According to her own testimony, only one brother, Robert, lives in the Meyers house on Mt. Shasta.

Why would KM think TM meant Brandon? Or, how would she know that TM meant Brandon?

My speculation is that RM Jr was already in the car and with MM out celebrating his birthday that only left one brother in the house. That also would explain the 'heads' EN saw in the car after BM was already outside of it. EN allegedly said he saw a gun being waved at him somewhere on the passenger side but he didn't know front or rear passenger side, so if there was multiple people in the Buick, EN wouldn't know if the Buick was still armed after BM got out of it as either BM or the other passenger could have been the armed one he saw previously.

*Something just occurred to me* It is even possible KM had been in the car as it could have been that EN saw TM running toward the house - actually that may in some ways best explain the evidence. By the testimony of both Mogg and BM, TM was outside of the car rather than inside the car. BM's testimony is that TM was standing at the time BM looked back over and only collapsed subsequently to the Audi driving off. EN's alleged confession is that the last thing he did was fire at someone running, but per BM he stayed behind a truck once the bullets started to fly, so it wouldn't have been him running at the end of this. Unfortunately this second-hand testimony from EN is vague as it isn't clear whether EN is saying he shot at two separate people who ran or one person who ran, but whether it is one runner or two it still leaves heads in the car after BM got out.

Per EN via Mogg:
He believes
at that point that this person is going to get, in his
terms, more straps or guns and so he said that he also
saw heads in the vehicle so he started shooting at the
car and then he saw the person running toward the house
...So he started shooting
at the person that was running also. At that point they
left the area

Per BM:
A. Basically as soon as they started shooting
I ran towards this truck right here, it's this white
one, and I was about I want to say five feet behind it....
Q. Did they turn around or did they reverse?
A. Reversed.
Q. Did they do so slowly or rapidly?
A. Rapidly.
Q. And then what did you do?
A. Turned to my left and looked at my mother.
Q. And where was your mom?
A. Standing up and then she fell right there.
Q. By the driver's side door as we see it in
this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. And the door was open when you turned and
looked at your mom?
A. Yes.

 

[PaperDoll]

I think he did.

In the arrest affidavit, both ZA and KK say that he told them he saw a gun out the window of the green car. KK also testified to that in her GJ testimony.

Mogg failing to mention that in his testimony doesn't mean that EN didn't tell him that. Maybe EN did, maybe EN didn't. But EN did tell ZA & KK, that very night, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, that he saw a gun out the window of the green car.

But that is a very important thing not to mention. EN told his friends that but EN also said he shot off 22 rounds??? His friend thought that EN was exaggerating about that so maybe he exaggerated about the Buick showing a gun???? Just a thought


Q. No. And he says that he fires 22 times?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time you thought he was
exaggerating?
A. Very much so.
Q. Did he show you a gun?

 

[sonjay]

Again, no one really knows if the Buick actually showed his gun, EN told his friends that but I don't recall him telling the police that. What I read is EN showed his gun hoping the Buick would flee. So the Audi decides to shoot which then causes the Buick to flee, that is when it should have STOPPED and not gone any further.

I agree. But, you know, when people are panicked, things happen. Sometimes emotions get ahead of what you should do.

Here's Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, Feb. 18 — before EN was arrested:

COOPER: I mean the son is saying he was defending his family.

TOOBIN: How? I mean it just doesn't make any sense. I mean the incident had already taken place. They had an unpleasant encounter on the road. There was no follow-up necessary as far as I can tell. So, I mean, you know, I don't want to blame this guy who lost his mother, but, I mean, it certainly seems it would have been better off for all concerned if they had simply left this alone.

COOPER: Mark, I mean, could the suspect, who's still at large, claim that he was actually acting in self-defense, even though he apparently, and, again, from the early information we have, he apparently then followed these two home and that's where the shooting took place?

MARK GERAGOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's amazing how far this story has turned in just one day. It would not surprise me in the least if the person who did the shooting either conjures up or claims at some point, look, they came chasing after me. They waved the gun. Who knows if the gunshots were fired. We don't know that yet. We seem to keep learning things by the hour. I could think of, you know, 10 different scenarios where the person who did the shooting said he was doing it in response to or in self-defense from somebody who was chasing him down who was armed and who apparently, at least at some point, fired some shots.

TOOBIN: And who's to say, by the way, that they even have the right guy? I mean they were not a police force. They could have gotten into a confrontation with an entirely different person who wound up in this fatal conflict.

GERAGOS: That's exactly -- that's exactly -- right. That's exactly right. I mean it's entirely possible and who's going to -- who's going to be the person who's going to negate that? The only person who's going to negate it is going to be the daughter who was doing the driving lessons. Other than that, there's nobody else who's a witness to whoever the road rage was.

COOPER: The police are now saying, though, the son didn't fire the first shot. Does that matter that he fired back?

GERAGOS: Well, that's what -- the police are saying that. The police are saying that. But that doesn't mean anything. I mean, you've got shots fired right now. The police are saying that based on what? Based on the son who's saying that and the family who apparently was letting out information that wasn't correct in the first place? So the police don't have any corner on the truth and shouldn't be seizing the moral high ground here. I don't think anybody knows at this point. It's way too early to determine who was shooting first, who was doing what, because we certainly did not get the first story correct.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/18/acd.01.html

 

[SpanishInquisition]

You have no proof she hasn't ever called 911.

I never said I did, but rather I said what the defense can do. The defense has just had it handed to them that there was two back-to-back road rage incidents with TM where she chased the car and if the defense sees she has no record of calling LVMPD the entire time since they've lived in Vegas, that's both going to help the defense in general as well as the defense cross-examining BM in particular with his knowledge TM's other aggressive acts.

 

[sonjay]

But that is a very important thing not to mention. EN told his friends that but EN also said he shot off 22 rounds??? His friend thought that EN was exaggerating about that so maybe he exaggerated about the Buick showing a gun???? Just a thought


Q. No. And he says that he fires 22 times?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time you thought he was
exaggerating?
A. Very much so.
Q. Did he show you a gun?

There have been a lot of very important things about this case that a lot of people have failed to mention.

There were a lot of very important things that weren't part of the GJ testimony.

My opinion is that most people, most of the time, can't accurately say how many shots were fired in a shooting situation. Even cops tend to seriously miscount shots fired. That's the kind of thing that I never expect anyone to get right, and I'm always surprised when someone actually does.

So it doesn't surprise me at all if EN was wrong about the number of shots he fired. (For the record, we don't know for a fact that he's wrong. We only know that the cops didn't recover 22 spent .45 shell casings.)

But another car pointing a gun out the window at you? That's the kind of thing that most people can remember. Is it possible EN made that up? Sure. But my personal opinion is that he didn't.

I'm sure BM will be asked on the stand at trial if he waved or pointed his gun out the window. It'll be interesting to see his response.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Ok I can argue this I could assume my neighbor across the street from me is "out to get me" simply by looking in my direction, so in my mind real or not, I think he's going to kill me because he looked at me funny, so I decide to kill him first. Remember, my FEAR is real to me but may not be real to others. Make sense?

Yes and a jury would decide whether or not that was reasonable. What the fear is and how one responds to it depend on whether someone gets off (despite the threat not being real), gets Manslaughter, M2, etc. With your example if this was something that happened within seconds where you were fearful and you instantly got out your gun and fired the jury would probably find that excessive and you'd get Manslaughter or M2. EN did not respond as he didn't start shooting at the car while he was in the park because he generally thought they were 'out to get me,' but only fired after they were out to get him when he was chased by them and his first shooting over the immediate threat was most likely justified. However his second shooting - particularly if there had only been two people in the Buick car chase and EN didn't see BM shooting - would then most likely be Manslaughter or M2 given how by he wouldn't have been under the immediate threat any more, but instead would be acting out of passion/rashness in the seconds following being chased.

 

[sonjay]

From KM's GJ testimony:

Q. When you got home, do you recall your mother saying anything?
A. She said, "Go get your brother."
Q. And your brother meaning which brother?
A. Brandon.

How did KM know which brother TM meant? She's got 3 brothers. According to her own testimony, only one brother, Robert, lives in the Meyers house on Mt. Shasta.

Why would KM think TM meant Brandon? Or, how would she know that TM meant Brandon?

My speculation is that RM Jr was already in the car and with MM out celebrating his birthday that only left one brother in the house.

But how will KM explain how she knew which brother? Her story does not have RMJr in the car. He could have been in the house. Brandon doesn't even live there, according to KM -- so why would she think TM meant for her to get Brandon?

I don't know where MM lives. But I'm sure that I've read that his birthday celebration was "earlier that evening." When his girlfriend got the call about TM, she was home in bed, so either the birthday celebration was already over or it didn't include his girlfriend.

That leaves 3 brothers unaccounted for. So how did KM know that TM meant BM -- who, according to KM, doesn't even live there?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM: EN told his friends he saw the "car" waved a gun out the window but didn't say on which side. Then when Mogg gave his statement to the GJ about EN he never mentioned that EN said he saw a gun being waved out the window of the Buick. EN told Mogg that when he saw the Buick in the parking lot that he himself took out his gun and loaded it. So, did EN really see a gun being waved out of the window of the Buick? Am I missing something?

This is what Mogg testified to, but it doesn't mean Mogg said everything that EN had told him. K, A and Mogg are all hearsay witnesses responding to what they remember being told the them. Mogg may not have remembered that at the time he was testifying or he might not have thought it was relevant to the point he was making in his answer. Given how all this is hearsay and not coming from EN, K could have misunderstood EN saying that the Buick waved the gun when what he meant was he waived the gun to get the Buick to back off. There could have been two gun wavings alleged by EN or there could have been one alleged by EN done by either the Buick or himself.

EDIT: Mogg did say EN had seen the gun out the window: "Q. But yet he would have, presumably the
person that he had seen the gun out the window, was
already armed?
A. That's correct."

 

[BellaVita]

But he wasn't asked about road rage. He was asked how she would normally respond to confrontations. He said most of the time she'd call 911 OR get his father. Well, his father wasn't home. She got her son instead.

This question about confrontations. What type of information is going to come out about "confrontations". How frequent and what type of severity were these "confrontations"? I am 50 years old and trying to think if I've ever had to call either 911 or my husband/father to handle a problem. I think I'd remember that. I do understand that things happen sometimes that get out of hand but if "confrontations" are a pattern and occur frequently, then maybe the problem is you. Just sayin'.

 

[al66pine]

(modsnip)
I'm surprised that lawyers for a key witness would allow their client to go to the media and I'd be really surprised if the DA knew about BM going to the media. BM seems to be contradicting his own sworn GJ testimony where he was asked about the very things he's now talking about:....
Why didn't BM testify to this after the DA asked him all those questions.

bbm sbm

SpanInq -
1.
If you are ref'ing to DA as atty and BM as his 'client' & key witness,
not agreeing w your characterization of that as an atty-client relationship.
I'd say DA speaks for crime victims and/or the gen public, w the st or county as 'client' more or less.
.
IIUC, LE or DA can and sometimes does ask, advise, tell, beg, or order witnesses not to discuss their observations re crimes &
versions of events, to friends, family, soc media, MSM etc.
But AFAIK, aside from certain GJ situations, ppl are not committing crimes by yakking.

2.
If you are ref'ing to Schwarz (Sam?, private prac atty that MSM quoted) as atty and BM as his 'client' & key witness,
still not necessarily agreeing that theirs is an atty client relationship. Yes, MrM said he had hired an atty, b/c of all the "incorrect info" in MSM.
If MrM has in fact hired an atty, doubtful that the contract or letter of engagement states that atty is rep'ing the "M family."
My SWAG is that per letter of engagement or contract, atty is rep'ing
- MrM in public relations matters, or
- poss MrM re (fairy tale, imo) civil suit MrM thinks he'll bring against LE or DA, re "incorrect info" (maybe same as above PR issue), or
- BM alone in any poss crim matters, or
- KM alone re same, or
- MrM alone re same.
Many possible legal conflicts of interest among fam members if an atty reps "family" in anything past public relations matters.


And realistically, an atty cannot prevent client from yakking. Can advise not to, etc.
JM2cts and I may be wrong.

 

[BellaVita]

Again that is a matter of public record as any calls to 911 about confrontations would be logged and recorded by LE. Any time you refer to the police - particularly calling them - that's something that can be proven or disproven. If there aren't records of TM calling LE over confrontations and there are at least two known confrontations that BM was aware of that she didn't, then she doesn't call LE over confrontations. Calling 911 creates a specific evidence unlike saying you speak to a spouse or neighbor, which if BM had just said that she'd speak to RM and left it at that there's no evidence like when you call LE.

IMO, even if there is a record of 10 calls to 911 for road rage/ confrontations, that is way too many. No normal person has that many problems in life. Also, it is weird that in both cases of road rage so far reported, they were both caused by TM "driving slowly at the speed limit". If that is true, then I would say that perhaps she slows down WAY too much in an attempt to tick off the other driver. IDK. I drive the speed limit regularly and it's not that big a problem to other drivers. And remember, BM reported on his FB about a road rage incident of his own filled with big talk about if only he had his gun. I am seeing a pattern of escalation. IMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

But that is a very important thing not to mention. EN told his friends that but EN also said he shot off 22 rounds??? His friend thought that EN was exaggerating about that so maybe he exaggerated about the Buick showing a gun???? Just a thought

Q. No. And he says that he fires 22 times?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time you thought he was
exaggerating?
A. Very much so.
Q. Did he show you a gun?

Yes and he could be exaggerating the whole thing where he was merely a passenger in the vehicle and the third passenger was the actual shooter. Not that such a defense would work or that it was true, but a known drug user who gets so plastered that he can't even walk, could have been in the car in a severe drug induced haze and after coming out of it believed he was the shooter.