GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #6

[ModMaiden]

With the second arrest maybe more answers will forthcoming and fill in the missing pieces. Of course, it could also lead to more questions and confusion. Should be interesting to see what Derrick Andrews has to say.

 

[SStarr33]

That depends on whether your last name is Meyers or Nowsch.

Actually, it depends on whether you end up murdering someone or if you end up retreating.

 

[BellaVita]

There is a world of difference in someone taking a legally owned gun for protection and not firing it than someone who had an illegal weapon and was trying to mow people down in two different locations by repeated fire.

There is a world of difference between EN sitting in a car minding his own business, regardless of what that business is, and a mother getting her son and a gun to go hunting for an anonymous road rager-if that is even the true story. Just because the gun was legally owned does not justify their ridiculous conduct that started the whole chain of events.

 

[SStarr33]

With the second arrest maybe more answers will forthcoming and fill in the missing pieces. Of course, it could also lead to more questions and confusion. Should be interesting to see what Derrick Andrews has to say.

He's been talking to an attorney for weeks. I hope you are right, but I doubt we will hear from him.

 

[SStarr33]

EN was going to murder someone that night. If it wasn't TM, it would have been someone else.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There is a world of difference between EN sitting in a car minding his own business, regardless of what that business is, and a mother getting her son and a gun to go hunting for an anonymous road rager-if that is even the true story. Just because the gun was legally owned does not justify their ridiculous conduct that started the whole chain of events.

Of course not, but the conduct of the legal gun owner does. Brandon did not shoot at anyone at any time until the shooter came to his own home and property firing 24 shots at him and his mother. Only THEN did he return fire.

I haven't seen them start anything other than searching for the car where the occupant threatened Kristal.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

How did he know the occupants had a gun before he shot at them?

Because he saw the gun - and surprise - BM did have the gun.

Why would he even believe they did yet he says they shot no shots toward him when he repeatedly fired.

Because he saw the gun that has been testified by everyone that the Buick had.

If the Myers really wanted a gun battle they would have come up very close and opened fire themselves.

The Meyers did come within 10-15 feet of the car where it drove away before the car got any closer, which that distance seems very close to me.

There is a world of difference in someone taking a legally owned gun for protection and not firing it than someone who had an illegal weapon and was trying to mow people down in two different locations by repeated fire.

Which is why he's charged for only the second incident rather than being charged for both since in the first incident he was being chased in an armed car that was pursuing him for no reason.

 

[jjenny]

IF he shot TM during the car chase part, he could have argued self-defense. But he didn't.
He shot TM after going to TM's cul-de-sac and shooting at TM and BM. As was presented to the grand jury, he shot because he didn't want a person who was running to get away. He also did not claim he shot at them because they were shooting at him. You are not allowed to shoot a person who is running away.
That's no longer self-defense.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Actually, it depends on whether you end up murdering someone or if you end up retreating.

Conspiracy to Commit Murder does not require a murder to happen. By Moggs own testimony he said EN was trying to retreat to his home, but for some reason ended up on Mt Shasta:

His house is further to the west on Cherry River
than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came
back and he said "He said they continued westbound and he
said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his
house. I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot.

According to Detective Mogg EN directed Andrews to his home because he was concerned about that but Andrews ended up on Mt Shasta. This would just be Andrews taking the left too soon by mistake on Mt Shasta instead of Cherry River. EN trying to get Andrews to drive him home but ending up on Mt Shasta is no conspiracy.

 

[jjenny]

Conspiracy to Commit Murder does not require a murder to happen. By Moggs own testimony he said EN was trying to retreat to his home, but for some reason ended up on Mt Shasta:

According to Detective Mogg EN directed Andrews to his home because he was concerned about that but Andrews ended up on Mt Shasta. This would just be Andrews taking the left too soon by mistake on Mt Shasta instead of Cherry River. EN trying to get Andrews to drive him home but ending up on Mt Shasta is no conspiracy.

Yes, they just innocently drove up to the victim's house, that's believable to you. And conspiracy charges come because they deleted their phone records.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yes, they just innocently drove up to the victim's house, that's believable to you.

Considering how even Robert Meyers has said EN may not have recognized the Buick since the car had been modified and in none of the confessions did EN say he knew the Meyers were in the car, there was no reason for EN to think it was the Meyers even if EN thought the car was on that street. So if it is believable to even the Meyers themselves that EN didn't know that was the Meyers car, it is believable to me.

The Meyers own attorney just yesterday said EN though he shot a gang member, so that is indeed making it look like the EN didn't recognize the Buick and didn't conspire to go to the Meyers:

Samuel Schwartz, attorney for the Meyers family, said this in a statement:

"It looks as if the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has the driver. It is important to remember that there has been a good deal of speculation and publication of pure rumors about what motivated this killing. According to grand jury transcripts, Erich Nowsch admitted to a friend that he thought he was shooting a gang member. He told his friend he thought he had hit one of the people who were “after him.” Instead, he had killed a mother of four children, a wife, and her name has been tarnished by this kind of irresponsible speculation. Tammy Meyers and the Meyers family are the victims here."

 

[Hiandmighty]

Of course not, but the conduct of the legal gun owner does. Brandon did not shoot at anyone at any time until the shooter came to his own home and property firing 24 shots at him and his mother. Only THEN did he return fire.

I haven't seen them start anything other than searching for the car where the occupant threatened Kristal.

When did the unfired 9mm bullet get dispensed inside the car?

 

[Hiandmighty]

Question: does LE, in fact, have the spent bullet that actually is the kill bullet?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Question: does LE, in fact, have the spent bullet that actually is the kill bullet?

Per the complaint they have a 45 bullet that tested positive for human blood.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I just found that: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/00_2015/02-2015/Nowsch-Erich-15F02612X-declaration-&-complaint_Redacted.pdf

They have a .45 full metal jacket bullet that tested positive "for human blood"

 

[Hiandmighty]

I just found that: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/00_2015/02-2015/Nowsch-Erich-15F02612X-declaration-&-complaint_Redacted.pdf

They have a .45 full metal jacket bullet that tested positive "for human blood"

Per the information in this link KK states EN said the green buick was waiting for him at the school waving a gun at him-- waving a gun out the window (AT THE SCHOOL to start the events in motion). Green car started following him, which started a car chase between the two cars.

 

[jjenny]

Per the information in this link KK states EN said the green buick was waiting for him at the school waving a gun at him-- waving a gun out the window (AT THE SCHOOL to start the events in motion). Green car started following him, which started a car chase between the two cars.

This appears to be some sort of abbreviated version because that's not the sequence of events presented at the Grand Jury.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Doesn't it make more sense that KM wasn't in the car at all and here was no driving lesson and no road rage and that BM was in the car with his gun all along and they went to confront EN about something?

 

[jjenny]

Doesn't it make more sense that KM wasn't in the car at all and here was no driving lesson and no road rage and that BM was in the car with his gun all along and they went to confront EN about something?

Confront him about what? BM didn't even know EN, according to his grand jury testimony. And if BM wanted to confront EN in the park, why exactly hasn't he done so when EN was alone? If BM was in the park with a gun, he could have easy shot EN when EN was in the park doing whatever it is EN is doing in the park. EN had to call for his ride and wait, so there was plenty of time to "confront him" when he was not in a car and alone. So, no, it doesn't make more sense.

 

[SeeAlice]

Of course not, but the conduct of the legal gun owner does. Brandon did not shoot at anyone at any time until the shooter came to his own home and property firing 24 shots at him and his mother. Only THEN did he return fire.

I haven't seen them start anything other than searching for the car where the occupant threatened Kristal.

Am I incorrect in believing this post and others imply that EN was not in legal possession of his gun whereas Brandon was a "legal gun owner?" If that is what you intended to convey, what is it based upon?

I don't think I've seen anything saying that EN's gun was not legally owned or possessed. He has not been charged for illegal possession of a firearm that I am aware of, but admittedly I am behind in my reading.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/us/las-vegas-shooting/

I'm not sure if any assumption that He was not legally carrying a handgun is based on EN not being 21 or older, but I tried to find information regarding age requirements for open carry in Nevada on an NRA website. Alas, nothing there. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/nevada/

Perhaps it is alleged or assumed that a concealed weapon (CCW) permit was required for the manner in which EN carried his firearm that night?

CCW age requirement

Applicants for a concealed weapon permit in Las Vegas/Clark County must be at least 21 years old.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nevada.pdf


Concealed Weapons Inside Vehicles

"In a vehicle, a weapon may be concealed anywhere within the vehicle, or it may be out in the open within the vehicle. The only place it may not be when in a vehicle is concealed upon a person, such as under a jacket or in a pocket, unless that person has a concealed firearm permit."
http://armsinfo.com/nevada/NVCarryPamphlet.pdf

Based on the above, I don't think EN needed a CCW.

Thanks for any clarification!