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

[jjenny]

I think that a lot of things being posted are not confirmed and will not been heard by the jury. With that said, being threatened by someone doesn't necessarily give a person the right to kill them at a later time. The threat has to be immediate. JMO.

I think in this particular case there will be nothing to present to the jury. EN didn't claim Meyers were the ones supposedly threatening him. Given his alleged occupation and alleged gang affiliation, a lot of people could have been threatening him, but there is no evidence he even thought it were the Meyers.

 

[RANCH]

Good point on the motive.

EN tried to kill them once, missed then hunted them down and killed Tammy. Sounds like pre-meditated murder.

To put this case into it's simplest terms, yes, that's what happened and that's what Erich Nowsch is charged with. JMO.

 

[sonjay]

There is NOTHING on social media about RM Jr. I have been thinking he might be the missing link. Regardless if you think EN should be hung by his toenails or think he should go home, you MUST ADMIT there are huge problems with this case. If not, I'm ignoring you from now on, since you aren't familiar with the judicial system. This is NOT cut and dry no matter how hard you try!

This will probably get some flack but....hehe I believe there is bigger story too. What is it?? RM Jr., RM or others. Could EN be a small fish in a huge pond w/ a very corrupt group of people?
Unless I see a video of parallel parking, I don't even entertain this as part of the story. Its ridiculous at almost midnight after a drinking b-day party. UGH!!

Yes, there are definitely huge problems with this case.

EN didn't set out that night to attack or harm TM. He was in the park minding his own business, not bothering anybody.

TM got her armed son and set that out that to hunt down EN. Her son pointed a gun at EN. Then TM chased EN.

The Meyerses then proceeded to lie to police at every turn. And we still don't know why, or exactly what they were trying to cover up.

When the charge is something that can send someone to prison for life -- or even conceivably result in the death penalty -- the only right and just thing to do is to find out all the details first, and pass judgment later.

Fortunately, this isn't Alice in Wonderland. We don't convict first and then hold a trial. We find all the evidence first. Then we hold a trial. Only after a jury has heard all the evidence do we then allow the jury to deliberate and reach a verdict.

 

[RANCH]

I think in this particular case there will be nothing to present to the jury. EN didn't claim Meyers were the ones supposedly threatening him. Given his alleged occupation and alleged gang affiliation, a lot of people could have been threatening him, but there is no evidence he even thought it were the Meyers.

I don't know. The defense may try to confuse the jury with things showing that Erich Nowsch was in fear of his life and that's why he did what he did.

I hope the prosecution does a good job during jury selection. JMO.

 

[jayme1133]

WOW TY for this...where was the Gaule case? I will look it up but just curious if you know? I don't think this will ever go to trial....anxious to see what tomorrow brings (new info). It's really a huge mess!

Some interesting similarities between the Gaule case and this case.

Gaule was minding his own business when he was accosted. EN was minding his own business when he was accosted.

Gaule got hold of a gun and used it to send his attackers fleeing. EN had a gun and used it to send his attackers fleeing.

Gaule chased one of his attackers. EN chased his attackers.

Gaule shot the man he chased about 500 feet from his home. EN shot TM about 350 feet (as the crow flies) from his home.

Gaule was charged with voluntary manslaughter. EN has been charged with first degree murder.

Gaule was found guilty and received probation. EN...... ??

 

[sonjay]

WOW TY for this...where was the Gaule case? I will look it up but just curious if you know? I don't think this will ever go to trial....anxious to see what tomorrow brings (new info). It's really a huge mess!

Somewhere in Nevada. West Valley? Is that a place?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/nevadas-stand-your-ground-law-goes-back-140-years

 

[RANCH]

Here's the Nevada statute for murder in the first degree.

2010 Nevada Code
TITLE 15 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
Chapter 200 Crimes Against the Person
NRS 200.030 Degrees of murder; penalties.

NRS 200.030 Degrees of murder; penalties.

1. Murder of the first degree is murder which is:

(a) Perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait or torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;

(b) Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary, invasion of the home, sexual abuse of a child, sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14 years, child abuse or abuse of an older person or vulnerable person pursuant to NRS 200.5099;

(c) Committed to avoid or prevent the lawful arrest of any person by a peace officer or to effect the escape of any person from legal custody;

(d) Committed on the property of a public or private school, at an activity sponsored by a public or private school or on a school bus while the bus was engaged in its official duties by a person who intended to create a great risk of death or substantial bodily harm to more than one person by means of a weapon, device or course of action that would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person; or

(e) Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an act of terrorism.

I think we have a deliberate and premeditated killing in this case. Erich Nowsch didn't accidentally happen upon the Meyers home with a loaded weapon. He planned and willfully went there and fired his weapon which caused the death of Tammy Meyers.

JMO.

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter200/nrs200-030.html

 

[sonjay]

Here's the Nevada statute for murder in the first degree.



I think we have a deliberate and premeditated killing in this case. Erich Nowsch didn't accidentally happen upon the Meyers home with a loaded weapon. He planned and willfully went there and fired his weapon which caused the death of Tammy Meyers.

JMO.

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter200/nrs200-030.html

I think we need a trial first before we can make that determination.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I don't know. The defense may try to confuse the jury with things showing that Erich Nowsch was in fear of his life and that's why he did what he did.

I hope the prosecution does a good job during jury selection. JMO.

By operation of Nevada law someone being in fear for their life is quite relevant, which the jury has to decide A) whether they actually were in fear B) if their response was reasonable to that fear. It's not to say that EN would meet the legal requirements, but say bringing it up would be confusing a jury, I would hope that the jury would be smart enough to understand Nevada criminal code and I would expect the prosecutors themselves to make their case on how EN's actions didn't qualify under the code for fear of his life as self-defense, which I don't think EN's actions did qualify.

 

[RANCH]

Here's a good explantion of what "Deliberate and Premeditated" means in regard to first degree murder.

Deliberation and Premeditation

Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. While this can happen very quickly, deliberation and premeditation must occur before, and not at the same time as, the act of killing.

Erich Nowsch didn't have to plan earlier in the evening to kill Tammy. His decision could have been made right before it happened for it to be premeditated.

JMO.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html

 

[jayme1133]

I think we need a trial first before we can make that determination.

How about getting the truth before we make a determination. We are all still scrambling to figure out what really happened. Not sure that anyone can say self defense or premeditation when you don't know WTH happened that night! I don't believe any of it....I'm still trying to get to the truth and you want to convict EN. Can't discuss when we don't agree with what happened or didn't happen!
I'm here to see if within all the theories we can agree on one! LOL still beating head!

 

[sonjay]

How about getting the truth before we make a determination. We are all still scrambling to figure out what really happened. Not sure that anyone can say self defense or premeditation when you don't know WTH happened that night! I don't believe any of it....I'm still trying to get to the truth and you want to convict EN. Can't discuss when we don't agree with what happened or didn't happen!
I'm here to see if within all the theories we can agree on one! LOL still beating head!

Wait, no, not me! I want to get at the truth too!

It's other people who want to convict him first without finding out what actually happened or seeing all the evidence.

I'm the one who said we need a trial first!

 

[RANCH]

By operation of Nevada law someone being in fear for their life is quite relevant, which the jury has to decide A) whether they actually were in fear B) if their response was reasonable to that fear. It's not to say that EN would meet the legal requirements, but say bringing it up would be confusing a jury, I would hope that the jury would be smart enough to understand Nevada criminal code and I would expect the prosecutors themselves to make their case on how EN's actions didn't qualify under the code for fear of his life as self-defense, which I don't think EN's actions did qualify.

I think your agreeing with my post, right? LOL.

It only takes one juror who doesn't understand the law as explained to him/her to cause a hung jury.

The defense will try and get at least one to be confused. That's their job. The state will try to counter that. We'll have to wait and see what happens in this case.

JMO.

 

[sonjay]

I think your agreeing with my post, right? LOL.

It only takes one juror who doesn't understand the law as explained to him/her to cause a hung jury.

The defense will try and get at least one to be confused. That's their job. The state will try to counter that. We'll have to wait and see what happens in this case.

JMO.

Is it your position that mere act of defending the accused is an attempt to "confuse the jury"? Should we just not allow defendants to actually ... you know .... defend themselves? Because it might confuse the jury? It would certainly make the legal system more efficient, wouldn't it? Maybe we can all agree that due process does nothing but thwart the swift and efficient administration of justice.

 

[RANCH]

I think we need a trial first before we can make that determination.

I'm not on the jury so I can have any opinion I want with the evidence that we have at this time. If something comes up that convinces me that Erich Nowsch is innocent I'll definitely be on board with it.

I've pretty much ruled out self-defense as a viable defense for Erich. Do you have any other defense that would be plausible for him. I'm willing to explore any that you may have.

Thanks.

 

[jjenny]

I'm not on the jury so I can have any opinion I want with the evidence that we have at this time. If something comes up that convinces me that Erich Nowsch is innocent I'll definitely be on board with it.

I've pretty much ruled out self-defense as a viable defense for Erich. Do you have any other defense that would be plausible for him. I'm willing to explore any that you mave have.

Thanks.

Given that EN told the story to two friends who contacted police, and admitted it to the police, I think self-defense is pretty much the only option for the defense. His lawyer implied that self-defense is what the defense is going to be.

"The facts seem to point to self-defense in this situation," Claus told ABC News. "It seems to explain the facts we have in front of us more sensibly than any other explanation."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/road-rage-husband-details-story-shifted/story?id=29172065

 

[RANCH]

Is it your position that mere act of defending the accused is an attempt to "confuse the jury"? Should we just not allow defendants to actually ... you know .... defend themselves? Because it might confuse the jury? It would certainly make the legal system more efficient, wouldn't it? Maybe we can all agree that due process does nothing but thwart the swift and efficient administration of justice.

In my opinion when the defense attorney has little evidence to work with, he will have to resort to things like deception. I don't think that there's anything wrong with it. I just hope that the jury follows the judges instructions.

One of the most important ones is that the attorneys comments are not evidence. I think that some jurors don't understand that concept at all.

JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Given that EN told the story to two friends who contacted police, and admitted it to the police, I think self-defense is pretty much the only option for the defense. His lawyer implied that self-defense is what the defense is going to be.

"The facts seem to point to self-defense in this situation," Claus told ABC News. "It seems to explain the facts we have in front of us more sensibly than any other explanation."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/road-rage-husband-details-story-shifted/story?id=29172065

I think that Erich is in big trouble.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Given that EN told the story to two friends who contacted police, and admitted it to the police, I think self-defense is pretty much the only option for the defense. His lawyer implied that self-defense is what the defense is going to be.
"The facts seem to point to self-defense in this situation," Claus told ABC News. "It seems to explain the facts we have in front of us more sensibly than any other explanation."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/road-rage-husband-details-story-shifted/story?id=29172065

Which there can be self-defense in a sense in responding to M1 where the defense can argue that EN was provoked by being chased in a car with someone with a gun, but then he did a passionate response to that where he went beyond the bounds of the law to Manslaughter. I think a prosecutor would have a hard time proving to a jury that EN acted with coolness and reflection seconds after being chased by a car with a gun waved at him...that's not to say he gets off, but that's M2 or Manslaughter depending on to what degree the jury views EN's response as being a passionate over-response to what just happened to him. It's not like under any scenario proposed that EN had called for the Audi and were just about to do a drive-by when they were on Ducharme, but instead that only came about in response to the chase. In EN's confession he says he told the driver how to get to EN's home (actually in what Mogg testified to it was a sentence where he was quoting EN exactly rather than paraphrasing), not that he told the driver to keep driving past it.

 

[newone]

:fence:


can't hear to wait for the forensic evidence of the fatal bullet -- just how can we be sure which bullet was the fatal one!

MOO