That is expressly denied in the Criminal Complaint. EN is not alleged to have been the driver by any of the accounts.
To get back to discussing the actual case, this statement by SpanishInquisition is interesting. This could have interesting implications for the defense.
EN was a passenger. He told his friends he was a passenger, and the Meyerses have said it was the passenger who shot at them.
Let's think about that for a minute.
Let's say the Audi,
driven by someone other than EN, turned onto Mt. Shasta in pursuit of the Meyers car. EN didn't follow the Meyerses to their cul de sac; the Audi driver did, and EN was just along for the ride.
Now, we already know that the Meyers, in their car, searched for, found, and then chased the Audi. And we already know that Brandon had pointed his gun at the Audi earlier, at the first shooting scene. So EN had good reasons to think that Brandon was a threat. He wasn't just being paranoid.
Now let's suppose that EN says that Brandon fired first at the cul de sac, or at least that Brandon pointed his gun first.
And let's supposed that EN further says that he opened fire in self defense after Brandon pointed his gun at the Audi or fired at the Audi.
We only have Brandon's word for it that the Audi fired first. And we know that Brandon has trouble telling the story correctly.
It starts to look a lot like legitimate self-defense.
If EN had been the driver, I would say that once the Meyers car left and headed home, that incident was over, and EN became the aggressor when he followed the Meyers car into their cul de sac. But since EN was a
passenger in the Audi, I have to question whether he could legally be faulted for the Audi's pursuit/following of the Meyers back to their cul de sac. EN could have been begging the Audi driver to knock it off and take him home.
IMO. JMO. MOO MOO.