GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[Miss Muffet]

I don't believe that would motivate them to say the car went home. First, BM knows gun laws and his right to open carry and stand his ground. Second, they didn't have time to coordinate their stories to suddenly say the car went home. They were covering up the car went home initially because going home to get the gun shows more ill intent than having the gun all along.

BBM
It depends on the reason BM was out driving around with his gun. If he was engaged in illegal activity, that might motivate the M's to fabricate an innocent-sounding story involving a mother and her young daughter.

If BM went out by himself with a gun on his own for one incident in the car and ultimately ended up in a shootout I front of the house that resulted in TM's death, there would be NO TIME for him to coordinate a story with his sister about a driving lesson to the point his sister could give elaborate directions and details of a road rage incident that took her brother to a point in the route where the Audi was scene, bla bla bla.

Reports say family and neighbors called 911. Police and ambulances would have been there very quickly. Not to mention, KM and BM would be distraught over their mother being shot and trying to help her. The shooting scene simply does not allow KM and BM time for KM to be brought into a story that she knew absolutely nothing about whatsoever. As a result, she had to have been involved at some point in the evening.

 

[Tricia]

Dear Everyone,

I am getting tired fo the snarkiness on this thread.

No more one line snarks, no more telling other's how to post, no more not so subtle hints that others don't know anything.

Come on...I know you know better. Please, if you feel a snarky comment coursing through your brain and you just know you will post it then push back, turn off, and walk away from the computer.

Thank you.

Tricia

 

[Miss Muffet]

You know what has been nagging me-- the whole idea that RM said TM used to tell EN to pull up his pants.

What business was of her to tell him that? (If it is true)...

I believe it. I've told my son's friends to pull up their pants when they could barely walk. I remember my watching them all climbing up the stairs. The legs of their pants would be a foot over their feet when they weren't wearing shoes. I feared they would fall down our stairs.

 

[Snoods]

I think KM went home to get BM. They can't wander too far away from the truth since there's two of them who need to tell the story without much time to formulate one. The entire "TM and KM went home to drop off KM and get BM" lie is too specific and complicated to dream up out of the blue unless someone actually went home for some reason or another.

Instead of just looking at the map, I'm going to make a spreadsheet of the distances and travel times to compare to the clock times stated in the warrant. This will be the best way to determine if there is a enough time or not enough time for various scenarios we're considering.

BBM Great idea, I can't wait to see it! No rush... :waiting:

 

[Snoods]

It's possible she was isolated. Being a SAHM with most of her children adult age can be very isolating for some. Her children are no longer in the age group that forces parents to socialize with each other at activities and sporting events. Add to it the rumor she was buying prescription medication that is commonly used for anxiety from EN, and she may have been more comfortable staying to herself and her close knit immediate family.

As for relatives, she has a brother (modsnip) who is obviously devastated by TM's murder. Perhaps he's not the type of person to speak to reporters. I'm not. I view reporters as vultures and ambulance chasers. I've had reporters show up at my door when a neighbor's house burned down, and I refused to talk to the reporters.

What you say makes sense. I would also feel uncomfortable speaking to the media about anything, but I'm shy when it comes to such things. But if you felt a good friend were being unfairly treated by the public and media would you feel compelled to come forward and speak on their behalf, if even to one trusted journalist? I know, oxymoron, trusted and journalist.

What is unusual to me is that in cases like this you usually have people coming out of the woodwork saying they knew the individual. You know what I mean, the 3rd grade classmate that will say she was great and regularly shared her chips at lunch. But there has been nobody, except for the blustery and unlikable official spokesman, RM.

I do agree with you that this goes towards her being extremely isolated and perhaps not maintaining any close friendships.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, I've been trying to make legal distinctions as there's a difference between what may be speculated and what can be proved to a jury. The DA/police right now are in a knot in saying EN was the 6' 180 person described in the sketch as the narrative of the complaint is explicit and for the most part mutual that EN was in the passenger seat. Regardless of the truth of the matter as far as the jury is concerned the DA would have to prove that EN was even in the car when the driver got out and made the verbal threat, which the current position that EN was the driver then and was described as 6' 180 pounds seems quite problematic from a legal perspective. Also the mutually agreed upon position that BM had a gun is also problematic as whether BM was just holding the gun by the window or pointing it at the car could be considered a difference without a distinction as long as the jury has to consider that it would have been visible to EN. Then regardless of whether or not the gun was intentionally displayed to EN, it is mutually agreed upon that the Meyers intentionally chased the Audi while armed, which this event alone could be all that is need for EN's defense make a Stand Your Ground defense. The most troublesome part for EN is the mutual agreement that the Audi followed the Buick to Mt Shasta, but again by mutual agreement EN was not the driver and he had a legal right to be there. I do for instance think EN could very well have been out for blood at that point and wanted the Buick to be chased, but I see that as difficult to prove and even if it is proved by the DA that doesn't necessarily tie into a conviction given EN's legal right to be on Mt Shasta only to arrive to BM standing outside armed. I think EN was bad news, but whatever my opinion of EN liking or disliking EN doesn't translate into seeing him convicted for murder (possibly manslaughter). I do think the DA/police were blindsided by the strength of EN's legal defense when they were probably expected he'd just end up with weak representation.

Yes, I've gone back and forth in this discussion between theories of what actually happened, and the legalities regarding what can be proven. The Meyerses have wrapped up "reasonable doubt" in elegant gift wrapping with a giant bow on top and given it to the defense. The sketch that looks nothing like EN, the failure to identify EN, the later admission that they knew it was EN all along, the constantly changing narrative, etc. But I think much of that can be overcome by EN's story to his friends. I don't know Nevada's specific hearsay rules, but "admission against interest" is commonly one of the exceptions to the general hearsay rule and is commonly admissible in court. So to prove that EN was the shooter in court, a lot will ride on the credibility of EN's friends as witnesses. They seem credible in the affidavit, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be credible in court.

As far as a self-defense claim, IMO it gets pretty murky. As you pointed out, SYG doesn't apply when the person was the original aggressor. And IMO, once the 1st shooting incident ended and the Meyers car fled back home, that shooting incident was over. Then, when the Audi turned into the Mt. Shasta cul de sac, the Audi became the aggressor. So in theory, SYG wouldn't apply.

Except, since everyone agrees that EN was a passenger, he wasn't in control of where the Audi went, and that might throw an interesting monkey wrench into things. IMO, EN's "legal right to be there" wouldn't apply if he elected to chase the Meyers car once it fled. But since he wasn't the driver, he could make the case that he wasn't in control of where the Audi went, and therefore he wasn't the aggressor.

Right now, I would love to know if any cases have been decided, anywhere in the country, based on a SYG defense by a person in a vehicle that they weren't the driver of, in which the driver was being the aggressor but the passenger didn't want to. Or claimed in court that they didn't want to.

I'm picturing a taxi. You're riding in a taxi. The driver gets in a road rage incident with another car. The taxi driver is clearly the aggressor. The other driver pulls out a gun and starts shooting, in self defense. You pull out your gun and fire back -- also in self defense. One of your bullets finds it mark. It would be hard to claim that you were the aggressor.

Such a case would obviously have much more clarity than this case with respect to who the aggressor was. But such a case could also lay important legal groundwork for how SYG would apply in such a situation. I don't know if any such case exists. If it does, I haven't heard of it.

 

[sonjay]

Eek, I meant to reply to Miss Muffet!

We already know the first story was a lie because there was a second shooting scene with bullets. The first story was told quickly to protect them. They subsequently had to adjust their story to match facts/evidence. Since they knew the police found out about the first shooting scene and had surveillance video of the cars, they had to explain the first shooting scene and explain the car returning home.

I don't believe the voluntarily changed their story simply because they knew EN was in custody. Each time the police found evidence that didn't match their story, I'll bet the police went back to question them about what they found and that's when BM and KM adjusted their stories.

Since BM and KM weren't expecting to be questioned about the second scene or the surveillance video AND they were likely questioned separately, I'll bet their first adjustments to the story were close to the truth.

After police returned to re-question them the first time and they answered fairly honestly, they realized they were going to be re-questioned again and again as more evidence came up so they sat in that house and made sure they both had a story straight that made sense. Their sitting in the house working on their story, after they were re-questioned, and answered fairly truthfully since they were caught off guard and didn't have time to coordinate stories between then, would explain RM telling different stories to the media as the days progressed.


I don't believe that would motivate them to say the car went home. First, BM knows gun laws and his right to open carry and stand his ground. Second, they didn't have time to coordinate their stories to suddenly say the car went home. They were covering up the car went home initially because going home to get the gun shows more ill intent than having the gun all along.


This validates that they felt comfortable and didn't have time to coordinate a new story before LE showed up saying their first statement didn't match evidence.


I don't think EN being picked up for other charges had anything to do with them changing their stories, aside from the police showing up at their door unexpectedly asking questions about what didn't add up.

I think LE talked to EN's witnesses before picking EN up. That's how they learned about EN and how they learned about discrepancies. Then they unexpectedly showed up at the Meyers' house to re-question them about discrepancies.

I have to admit, I think your theory matches the evidence as well as mine, AFAIK. I'm trying to think of anything that we know for sure that would disprove either theory.

Let's see if I've got them straight. Your theory is (barebones version):

KM was out driving alone. Something happened with EN. There was a car chase. KM escaped, went home to get Brandon, and they set out to look for EN. Then a second car chase happened, the 1st shooting scene, then the shootout at the cul de sac. Under your theory, there were two car chases.

My theory is (barebones version):

KM and BM were out looking for EN. There was a car chase, the 1st shooting scene, then the shootout at the cul de sac. Under my theory, there was one car chase.

Both theories end with the Meyers car arriving in the cul de sac, the Audi turning in to the cul de sac, TM either running outside or already outside, the shooting, and TM getting caught in the crossfire.

All other differences between our theories, AFAIK, are based on what we think is the most logical or commonsense explanation of things, and minor details that would have to vary depending on whether Brandon was in the car the whole time.

There might be evidence that we're not aware of that proves or disproves one of those theories. I would bet that the police, by now, have a pretty good idea whether there was one car chase or two. They would have talked to neighbors, and to residents living near the 1st shooting scene, who might have seen or heard something. They would know the times of any other 911 calls that came in (if any). They've probably viewed additional surveillance video from various locations. They would have access to text messages and phone call times of the various players. They may have gotten calls from other motorists telling what they saw and where and when they saw it. But the police aren't sharing any of that evidence with us yet, so we're left with theories.

I think the most important thing, under both theories, is that TM was, indeed, innocent. Brandon and KM were out hunting for and chasing EN. And EN wasn't necessarily being paranoid when he thought that "those kids" were after him.

I also think we're going to have wait for more evidence to resolve which of our theories is correct, or if both of them are wrong. You support your theory with sound logic, but obviously I think my logic for my theory is just as sound.

I think we should both keep our eyes peeled for any hard evidence to support or disprove either of these theories. I'm more interested in figuring out the truth of what happened than in "being right," and I'm perfectly willing to discard my theory if the evidence leads somewhere else. And from your posts, I can tell you feel the same way.

Edited because I quoted the wrong person. I was replying to Miss Muffet!

 

[sonjay]

If BM went out by himself with a gun on his own for one incident in the car and ultimately ended up in a shootout I front of the house that resulted in TM's death, there would be NO TIME for him to coordinate a story with his sister about a driving lesson to the point his sister could give elaborate directions and details of a road rage incident that took her brother to a point in the route where the Audi was scene, bla bla bla.

Reports say family and neighbors called 911. Police and ambulances would have been there very quickly. Not to mention, KM and BM would be distraught over their mother being shot and trying to help her. The shooting scene simply does not allow KM and BM time for KM to be brought into a story that she knew absolutely nothing about whatsoever. As a result, she had to have been involved at some point in the evening.

BBM. This is definitely an important point that makes it highly unlikely that KM was not involved. She was definitely in the car, either for the entire incident or for at least part of it.

This alone informs us that the truth cannot be BM and his mother in the car, or BM and a friend, or BM and one of his brothers, without KM there at all. KM was definitely in the car for at least part of the incident, if not all of it. IMO, JMO, MOO, and all that jazz.

 

[sonjay]

I knew there was a reason that we thought the Meyerses story about dropping off KM at home meant that KM was left at home alone.

There's this quote from MM (the other brother):

"My sister and my brother are taking blame for everything that happened because they were the only ones here," he said.

https://gma.yahoo.com/inside-life-m...road-rage-161356981--abc-news-topstories.html

If BM and KM were "the only ones here," then if TM did in fact take KM home and pick up BM, that by definition meant that KM was left at home alone.

Since I don't believe the Meyers' story, I don't think KM was left at home alone, but anyone who believes the Meyers' story has to believe that TM deliberately left her daughter at home alone, when she knew there was a bad guy out there who knew where they lived.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I knew there was a reason that we thought the Meyerses story about dropping off KM at home meant that KM was left at home alone.

There's this quote from MM (the other brother):

"My sister and my brother are taking blame for everything that happened because they were the only ones here," he said.

https://gma.yahoo.com/inside-life-m...road-rage-161356981--abc-news-topstories.html

If BM and KM were "the only ones here," then if TM did in fact take KM home and pick up BM, that by definition meant that KM was left at home alone.

Since I don't believe the Meyers' story, I don't think KM was left at home alone, but anyone who believes the Meyers' story has to believe that TM deliberately left her daughter at home alone, when she knew there was a bad guy out there who knew where they lived.

This quote to me just shows how bad this story is. There is no logic in it just story. If you think bad guys are following you, you call police go in your house and lock the door and don't take your children to fight bad guys. I think you don't leave your daughter home alone where people can find her especially since I believe that TM knew exactly who that other person was and I do not believe it was road rage.

 

[sonjay]

Okay. I feel good about that.

BUT it doesn't explain lying about TM being out with KM earlier for driving lessons.

What about this: KM is out driving by herself. She goes home and gets BM. KM and BM go looking for EN. TM gets shot coming out of the house after she hears BM's gunfire. They lie about TM being with KM for driving lessons because they're trying to hide that KM was driving without a license.

This fits "I got those kids." It also fits TM suddenly being on the ground behind BM when BM claimed he pushed her back into the car. I'll bet KM is who he really pushed back into the car.

Okay, I thought of one thing -- not evidence, but fairly strong logic and common sense, IMO -- that's problematic with your theory. This theory has the same problem as the Meyers' story that TM went home then back out again.

Remember when the Meyerses first made their claim that TM took KM home, picked up Brandon, and went back out to hunt for EN? Everyone was asking, what made her think she could find him? And even if she thought she could find him, the fact that she actually did find him is pretty unlikely.

Same problem applies with your theory. Once KM escaped from EN and went home, what made her think she and BM could find him again? And the fact that they did find him again is pretty unlikely.

I keep coming back to the idea that one extended encounter involving one car chase is the most logical explanation.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

As far as a self-defense claim, IMO it gets pretty murky. As you pointed out, SYG doesn't apply when the person was the original aggressor. And IMO, once the 1st shooting incident ended and the Meyers car fled back home, that shooting incident was over. Then, when the Audi turned into the Mt. Shasta cul de sac, the Audi became the aggressor. So in theory, SYG wouldn't apply.

I'm not sure that would be the case and it might depend on the ability of EN's lawyers to argue otherwise. I don't think chasing someone else's car is itself inherently illegal as you're in a location that you are allowed to be, but specifically what happened the first time according to EN and semi-agreed upon by the Meyers was the Audi fled because they were chased with a gun pointed at them, which resulted in the first shooting. The Meyers themselves then fled and were chased at some point by the Audi, but there's no accusation from either side that the Audi was chasing the Buick with a pistol pointed at it, so the Audi was technically doing nothing illegal by driving into Mt Shasta...I don't see that making the Audi the aggressor from a legal standpoint as you can't lose your self-defense rights by engaging in a legal driving activity. Of course trying to find the car that just pointed a gun at you and you fired upon is extremely foolish, but within the confines of what I consider a very bad law I don't see how that results in SYG losing protection.

Part of the issue with SYG is how long it lasts temporally and I don't think the time when you lose you SYG is something black and white, but depends on how good your legal representation is. The Audi could be argued to still have original SYG protection when it went to Mt Shasta as everyone in the Audi had a legal right to be on Mt Shasta. If the original SYG defense gets reset after the first shooting it could easily be argued that EN gets new SYG protection because the Audi legally arrived on Mt Shasta where EN is now confronted with someone standing outside with a gun, which even if EN said to go to Mt Shasta he has a legal right to be there. Given the admission by BM that he was standing outside with a gun, EN can say he only drew his weapon on Mt Shasta after BM pointed the gun at him again and let the prosecution disprove that, which again BM's admission would align with that as BM says EN pulled the gun out only after driving into Mt Shasta rather than EN arriving with his gun already out the window.

I think a problem for the prosecution is that BM went out armed and the Buick chased the Audi, so it's not like EN was hallucinating about a non-existent weapon and being chased plus there's no reason for him to lie to his friends about this. The prosecution will say BM had his gun with him when the Buick chased the Audi, but wasn't pointing or displaying it at the Audi, just I think they'll have a hard time saying that credibly. Given the initial car chase initiated by the Meyers, EN was objectively right that they were out to get him rather than this being merely the paranoid delusions and hallucinations of a drug-addled mind.

Right now, I would love to know if any cases have been decided, anywhere in the country, based on a SYG defense by a person in a vehicle that they weren't the driver of, in which the driver was being the aggressor but the passenger didn't want to. Or claimed in court that they didn't want to.

Given what was said in the Complaint, EN and the Audi had a legal right to be on Mt Shasta even if EN was the driver or the driver took orders from EN to go there. I can very well believe EN directed the driver to Mt Shasta, just even if that is true, such an action by EN wouldn't be illegal. EN of course gets two layers of defense in being the passenger and I think how that would play out depends on quality of legal representation if it was shown the Audi acted unlawfully in going to Mt Shasta.

 

[EllenWickenburg]

This quote to me just shows how bad this story is. There is no logic in it just story. If you think bad guys are following you, you call police go in your house and lock the door and don't take your children to fight bad guys. I think you don't leave your daughter home alone where people can find her especially since I believe that TM knew exactly who that other person was and I do not believe it was road rage.

What I would do, were I in a car and someone had just shot at me, would be to drive straight to the nearest police station. This would be particularly true if I thought the shooter might know where I live.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not sure that would be the case and it might depend on the ability of EN's lawyers to argue otherwise. I don't think chasing someone else's car is itself inherently illegal as you're in a location that you are allowed to be, but specifically what happened the first time according to EN and semi-agreed upon by the Meyers was the Audi fled because they were chased with a gun pointed at them, which resulted in the first shooting. The Meyers themselves then fled and were chased at some point by the Audi, but there's no accusation from either side that the Audi was chasing the Buick with a pistol pointed at it, so the Audi was technically doing nothing illegal by driving into Mt Shasta...I don't see that making the Audi the aggressor from a legal standpoint as you can't lose your self-defense rights by engaging in a legal driving activity. Of course trying to find the car that just pointed a gun at you and you fired upon is extremely foolish, but within the confines of what I consider a very bad law I don't see how that results in SYG losing protection.

Snipped for focus, and BBM.

The Nevada law on self-defense is as follows:

NRS 200.200  Killing in self-defense.  If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1.  The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2.  The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

Source: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec200

Paragraph 2 applies here, IMO. Once the threat has stopped, if you then proceed to follow the threat when they leave the area, you cannot plausibly claim that you "in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given."

Even if you had a legal right to drive on that street, the fact that you chose to do so, knowing that that's where the other person went after they stopped being a threat, means that you did not in good faith attempt to avoid any further struggle. SYG only applies in cases of actual self-defense. It doesn't negate the requirements for something to qualify as self-defense. SYG removes the duty to retreat, but it doesn't remove the duty to avoid further conflict.

In simple terms, if you're threatening me, and I reasonably fear for my life, I don't have to run away. I can shoot you in self-defense. But once you stop threatening me and walk away, I can't follow you to continue the conflict and then claim self-defense if you turn around and threaten me again. MOO, JMO, IMO, and all that jazz.

 

[PaperDoll]

That doesn't explain why the warrant says the car returned home. If we think BM was in the car all along, there needs to be a different reason the car returned home (since the warrant says it returned home to deposit KM and pick up BM).

Unless BM and KM went to the park looking for EN without his gun the first time and then returned home to get his gun because something happened. Then left KM home and went out by himself. EN could have believed there was still more than one "kid" in the car since he saw more than one earlier.

I believe the car returned home. It's too weird they said it did if it didn't. If we don't believe the car returned home, we need a good explanation to explain why they said it did. We can't just say we don't believe it without figuring out why.

One good explanation could be that BM didn't want to admit he had the handgun on him the entire time. Maybe he felt that showed intent to instigate what happened. That doesn't make sense since he knows gun laws and his rights to open carry and stand his ground.

Could it be as simple as BM being ashamed he didn't fire back during the first encounter? He didn't want to admit he had a firearm on him all along and was too afraid to use it and ran home?

BBM: I'm with you on this, why lie about the car coming home? There would be no need so I do believe the car returned home, maybe to actually get his gun? But then I would think he would drop KM off, if she was in the car with BM, or maybe TM and KM really were in the car, I DON'T KNOW!!!! lol Again, and I'm repeating myself here, how would the Meyers know who was in the Audi??? EN doesn't drive and has friends that come get him, so maybe the Meyers felt threatened by some strange person in the Audi????

 

[BellaVita]

WOW! Have read every post in every thread and wondering what I can contribute that hasn't been said already. I think I do believe that there was one long incident. Who was in the Myers' car? I think definitely KM and TM. Not sure about BM. If BM was in the car, I think TM was in the back seat. Not sure why I think this. Just a feeling I have had all along. I tend to think both kids were in the car. Keep going to statement by EN that "I got those kids". Don't have an opinion about who was driving. I think it's possible that whoever was the passenger did in fact have a gun and did in fact brandish it toward the occupants of the Audi. On second thought, as stated by another poster, I have a hard time believing that inexperienced driver KM would easily pursue another vehicle in a chase. I think it's entirely possible that BM may have handed her the gun and told her to point it at the Audi. Would possibly explain why the 9mm was not fired even though there was shooting from the Audi. Perhaps KM was not well-versed in firearms. Do we know for sure who was behind who when both cars came into the cul-de-sac? If EN was being chased, he knew who was chasing him and where they lived. As such, I believe the Audi driver was under EN's direction and could have broken off the chase and gotten away at some point. Maybe they tried that and the M's still kept following. If EN was the one doing the chasing, the same thing applies-break off at any point. In either scenario, once everyone gets to the cul-de-sac, that is the point of no return. No easy way out. No side streets to escape to. If EN wants to get out of there without being shot-he knows the M's have a gun-the Audi driver has to maneuver well and fast. In this scenario, I think BM got possession of his gun from KM and began shooting and KM and TM ran for the house. That is why KM says "It could have been me". Also, very hard to believe that none of the M's have a cell phone in the car. At the point where EN shoots at you 7 times in the first shooting scene, that is when you dial 911.

Again, it is possible that only KM and TM were in the car. But I still believe that they had a gun and brandished it if that is the case. But still, no 911 call! WHY NOT????????? Did they call BM and tell him get your gun ready. Or, KM or TM handed him the gun that was already in the car with them. Just can't believe nobody had a cell phone. In this scenario, TM and KM are running toward the house and TM gets shot. Still think it very possible BM began shooting first. I keep going back to this because of the witness report of hearing 3 shots close together, then a pause, then more shooting. Running toward the house would explain why BM found TM behind him. KM made it inside, TM did not. Because of TM being so gravely wounded, and the police believing their story about a road rage driver, they were probably not interrogated immediately in the manner that a suspect would be questioned. Police were satisfied with the loose narrative of road rager following mom and sister home and big brother defended them with his gun. KM and BM would have had time to discuss best story to tell when the time came to be questioned further. Either way you look at, even after being fired at 7 times before arriving home, if anyone had a cell phone, in a normal world, 911 would have been dialed right away. IF there was a cell in the car, there was a reason why the M's did not want police involved. Presence or absence of a phone would explain a lot, IMO.

 

[PaperDoll]

EN told his friends he was chased by a car with an armed passenger pointing a gun at the car he was in, which he felt like the like people in that car were after him as that was why he called for the Audi in the first place. Then the Audi driver (not EN) chased the Buick only to see BM standing outside with the gun. Most all of this is universally agreed upon by both EN and the Meyers, which the only things not mutually stated was that the Buick passengers were menacing EN at the park and that the Buick passenger pointed a gun at the Audi rather than just carrying it.

BBM: was BM actually standing outside with his gun drawn? and where was he standing? I must have missed this :blushing:

 

[jjenny]

Snipped for focus, and BBM.

The Nevada law on self-defense is as follows:

NRS 200.200  Killing in self-defense.  If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1.  The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2.  The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

Source: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec200

Paragraph 2 applies here, IMO. Once the threat has stopped, if you then proceed to follow the threat when they leave the area, you cannot plausibly claim that you "in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given."

Even if you had a legal right to drive on that street, the fact that you chose to do so, knowing that that's where the other person went after they stopped being a threat, means that you did not in good faith attempt to avoid any further struggle. SYG only applies in cases of actual self-defense. It doesn't negate the requirements for something to qualify as self-defense. SYG removes the duty to retreat, but it doesn't remove the duty to avoid further conflict.

In simple terms, if you're threatening me, and I reasonably fear for my life, I don't have to run away. I can shoot you in self-defense. But once you stop threatening me and walk away, I can't follow you to continue the conflict and then claim self-defense if you turn around and threaten me again. MOO, JMO, IMO, and all that jazz.

Exactly. Even if you have fight with someone, you can't follow them after they run away, kill them and then claim self-defense.

 

[jjenny]

BBM: was BM actually standing outside with his gun drawn? and where was he standing? I must have missed this :blushing:

BM wasn't standing outside with his gun drawn in anybody's versions of the story.

 

[sonjay]

BBM: was BM actually standing outside with his gun drawn? and where was he standing? I must have missed this :blushing:

According to the police affidavit, BM said that when he arrived back in the cul de sac, he got out of the car before the Audi turned onto that street. So, from the point of view of the Audi, BM would have been "standing outside."

I don't think anyone is claiming that BM was back home while all this was going on, and standing outside waiting for the car chase to arrive there.