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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #941
I found an article about proposed changes to Nevada's self-defense laws. While I don't agree with everything the author states in the article I did find this interesting and relevant to this case.

Very few things are worth a human life, and so it is only legal to kill when the threat is urgent and severe. The most important safeguard, though, is the legal process itself. In order to claim the protection of self-defense law, a person must prove to a jury that the threat was imminent, the killing was necessary to prevent the threat, and the fear was reasonable. The jury’s job is to make sure no one can kill a person out of anger, revenge or unreasonable fear, or target someone and then claim they were afraid. It’s not easy to get away with killing someone, and that is as it should be.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/15/expansions-nevadas-self-defense-law-are-unnecessar/
 
  • #942
I found an article about proposed changes to Nevada's self-defense laws. While I don't agree with everything the author states in the article I did find this interesting and relevant to this case.



http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/15/expansions-nevadas-self-defense-law-are-unnecessar/

And I found an interesting article about the history of self defense laws in Nevada:

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

I found the last case discussed in the article particularly interesting:

"The unwritten rationale for our laws is that we value human life," he said. "Once that danger is gone, you no longer have the right to self-defense."

That line became blurred in 1998.


On Oct. 25 that year, Thomas Gaule was accosted by two men when he entered his west valley home. He later said the men beat him and shocked him with stun guns, but he managed to retrieve a shotgun.


Gaule fired a shot as the two men ran for the door. One of the suspects collapsed in the driveway, but Gaule continued to pursue the other down the street. He shot him about 500 feet from his home, and the man died.


A jury found Gaule guilty of voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon for chasing down and killing the second man. He wasn't charged in the other man's death.


At his sentencing, officials with the state Division of Parole and Probation recommended Gaule serve at least four years in prison.


But the prosecutor and the judge disagreed, and Gaule received probation.
 
  • #943
But the prosecutor and the judge disagreed, and Gaule received probation.

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...... ??
 
  • #944
I found an article about proposed changes to Nevada's self-defense laws. While I don't agree with everything the author states in the article I did find this interesting and relevant to this case.



http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/15/expansions-nevadas-self-defense-law-are-unnecessar/

Great article, TY.

The DA gave the GJ information on the current self defense law and it is in the transcript. The information we have right now from both the victim's son and the suspect tells us that EN did not shoot TM in self defense. Unless there is a material change in the facts of this case, it's delusional to say his life was in imminent danger, IMO.
 
  • #945
And I found an interesting article about the history of self defense laws in Nevada:

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

I found the last case discussed in the article particularly interesting:

"The unwritten rationale for our laws is that we value human life," he said. "Once that danger is gone, you no longer have the right to self-defense."

That line became blurred in 1998.


On Oct. 25 that year, Thomas Gaule was accosted by two men when he entered his west valley home. He later said the men beat him and shocked him with stun guns, but he managed to retrieve a shotgun.


Gaule fired a shot as the two men ran for the door. One of the suspects collapsed in the driveway, but Gaule continued to pursue the other down the street. He shot him about 500 feet from his home, and the man died.


A jury found Gaule guilty of voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon for chasing down and killing the second man. He wasn't charged in the other man's death.


At his sentencing, officials with the state Division of Parole and Probation recommended Gaule serve at least four years in prison.


But the prosecutor and the judge disagreed, and Gaule received probation.

That case is a bit different than this one. Gaule was defending himself while in his home. Then his anger and desire for revenge took over. I agree with the jury that chasing someone 500 feet from your home and then killing him is a crime. Jury's don't decide on what the punishment is.

In this case Erich Nowsch was not in or near his home when he shot Tammy. He was doing a drive by shooting. No self-defense that I can see. JMO.
 
  • #946
I'm confused with how Nevada's self-defense law relates to Tammy and Brandon Meyers. Tammy is dead and can't be charged with anything. Brandon hasn't been arrested or charged with anything.

I'm more interested in what kind of defense Erich Nowsch will use. Will it be self-defense? I'm not sure how that will work. He went to the victims house and shot her dead. If it was the other way around I could see a self-defense case. JMO.

Exactly. Victim was followed to her driveway and shot to death.
How is that self-defense?
 
  • #947
That case is a bit different than this one. Gaule was defending himself while in his home. Then his anger and desire for revenge took over. I agree with the jury that chasing someone 500 feet from your home and then killing him is a crime. Jury's don't decide on what the punishment is.

In this case Erich Nowsch was not in or near his home when he shot Tammy. He was doing a drive by shooting. No self-defense that I can see. JMO.

Actually, EN was pretty near his home. According to Mogg's testimony about his interview with EN, after the first shooting, EN pretty much freaked out when he saw the Buick pass so close to his own house:

"...he would have seen that car coming down from Cherry River onto Carmel Peak probably prior to or just as it turned into the Mount Shasta cul-de-sac. He said they continued westbound and he said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came back ...."

Then on the next page Mogg testified that EN said he thought the person running toward the house was going to get more guns, and that's why he started shooting.

Remember, this is someone who has already been chased by someone who had pointed a gun at him out the car window. They're only about 550 feet from his own house (by the roads, not the crow), and he thinks these are the people who had been threatening himself, his mother and his baby sister.

Mogg's testimony is somewhat confusing, but you might want to read it. It's on page 100.
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf
 
  • #948
That case is a bit different than this one. Gaule was defending himself while in his home. Then his anger and desire for revenge took over. I agree with the jury that chasing someone 500 feet from your home and then killing him is a crime. Jury's don't decide on what the punishment is.

In this case Erich Nowsch was not in or near his home when he shot Tammy. He was doing a drive by shooting. No self-defense that I can see. JMO.

Exactly. There was a case of a pharmacist out in OK. Two teenagers came to his store to rob it. He shot one, the other run away. He then shot the one he already shot again. So prosecution argued that because he shot him again, he is guilty of murder. And he got convicted.
So you can't shoot someone after they are not a threat to you. Even if the pharmacist was justified shooting him the first time, when he finished the deed, it was ruled murder. Had the robber died after the first shot, it would have been at most abuse of a corpse.
But the coroner decided that he was still alive until the pharmacist shot him again.
 
  • #949
Actually, EN was pretty near his home. According to Mogg's testimony about his interview with EN, after the first shooting, EN pretty much freaked out when he saw the Buick pass so close to his own house:

"...he would have seen that car coming down from Cherry River onto Carmel Peak probably prior to or just as it turned into the Mount Shasta cul-de-sac. He said they continued westbound and he said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came back ...."

Then on the next page Mogg testified that EN said he thought the person running toward the house was going to get more guns, and that's why he started shooting.

Remember, this is someone who has already been chased by someone who had pointed a gun at him out the car window. They're only about 550 feet from his own house (by the roads, not the crow), and he thinks these are the people who had been threatening himself, his mother and his baby sister.

Mogg's testimony is somewhat confusing, but you might want to read it. It's on page 100.
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

Somebody might have chased him, but he was the one shooting multiple times at the first scene. He doesn't have a right to go after them to finish them off.
 
  • #950
Exactly. Victim was followed to her driveway and shot to death.
How is that self-defense?
I don't see how it can be considered self-defense. Erich Nowsch may have felt threatened by the Meyers allegedly following him, but that doesn't give him the right to go to their house and shoot at them.

The Meyers actions that night don't seem to me to allow a self-defense case for Nowsch.

JMO.
 
  • #951
I don't see how it can be considered self-defense. Erich Nowsch may have felt threatened by the Meyers allegedly following him, but that doesn't give him the right to go to their house and shoot at them.

The Meyers actions that night don't seem to me to allow a self-defense case for Nowsch.

JMO.

Seems very clear to me as well. If he managed to shoot TM or BM after they went to chase his car, he could have argued self-defense. But that is not what happened.
 
  • #952
I don't see how it can be considered self-defense. Erich Nowsch may have felt threatened by the Meyers allegedly following him, but that doesn't give him the right to go to their house and shoot at them.

The Meyers actions that night don't seem to me to allow a self-defense case for Nowsch.

JMO.

Their actions don't.

But Meyers Derangement Syndrome does.
 
  • #953
Actually, EN was pretty near his home. According to Mogg's testimony about his interview with EN, after the first shooting, EN pretty much freaked out when he saw the Buick pass so close to his own house:

"...he would have seen that car coming down from Cherry River onto Carmel Peak probably prior to or just as it turned into the Mount Shasta cul-de-sac. He said they continued westbound and he said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came back ...."

Then on the next page Mogg testified that EN said he thought the person running toward the house was going to get more guns, and that's why he started shooting.

Remember, this is someone who has already been chased by someone who had pointed a gun at him out the car window. They're only about 550 feet from his own house (by the roads, not the crow), and he thinks these are the people who had been threatening himself, his mother and his baby sister.

Mogg's testimony is somewhat confusing, but you might want to read it. It's on page 100.
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

BBM

It doesn't really matter to me if he was near his home or not. He was in a car that traveled to the Meyers's home, he then open fired on them and left the scene in that car.

I don't care if they lived next to each other, it's still a drive by shooting. JMO.
 
  • #954
I don't see how it can be considered self-defense. Erich Nowsch may have felt threatened by the Meyers allegedly following him, but that doesn't give him the right to go to their house and shoot at them.

The Meyers actions that night don't seem to me to allow a self-defense case for Nowsch.

If the Claus Bros. mount a self-defense case for EN, we'll all get to see how it plays for a jury.

The jurors will see and hear all of the evidence -- any surveillance footage, phone records, etc. They'll get to see and hear BM and KM testify, and how their stories stand up or break down under cross. They'll see how close the Meyers house is to EN's. They'll hear about threats to EN, his mother and his baby sister.

Then they'll decide what, if anything, EN is guilty of.

IMO, the Meyers' actions that night certainly allow for mounting a reasonable self-defense case. It might or might not be successful, but there's definitely, IMO, some credible arguments to be made.
 
  • #955
Their actions don't.

But Meyers Derangement Syndrome does.

I've never heard of that, but it must be a DSM classification for people who are unable to tell the truth. :laughing:
 
  • #956
If the Claus Bros. mount a self-defense case for EN, we'll all get to see how it plays for a jury.

The jurors will see and hear all of the evidence -- any surveillance footage, phone records, etc. They'll get to see and hear BM and KM testify, and how their stories stand up or break down under cross. They'll see how close the Meyers house is to EN's. They'll hear about threats to EN, his mother and his baby sister.

Then they'll decide what, if anything, EN is guilty of.

IMO, the Meyers' actions that night certainly allow for mounting a reasonable self-defense case. It might or might not be successful, but there's definitely, IMO, some credible arguments to be made.

Nowsch will have to convince a jury that he was not acting out of anger or revenge when he decided to go to the Meyer home. Obviously he can't say that he feared for his life when he decided to go to their house instead of his own.

Any threats made by the Meyers towards him could be used by the prosecution to show motive for him wanting to kill them.

No self-defense case that I can see. JMO.
 
  • #957
There is no evidence whatsoever Meyers made any threats toward him or his mother. He certainly didn't say they were the one making threats, he didn't even know who he shot (if his story he told his friends and police is to be believed).
 
  • #958
In the big scheme of things, what will matter in court is whether or not Erich Nowsch is guilty of murdering Tammy Meyers. It doesn't matter if Tammy was a good or bad person. What matters is she didn't deserve to die.

It will be interesting to see if any of Robert Meyers comments about the death of Tammy make it into the courtroom. I kind of doubt it because he didn't witness anything. Him changing stories probably wont make it into trial.

JMO.
 
  • #959
Nowsch will have to convince a jury that he was not acting out of anger or revenge when he decided to go to the Meyer home. Obviously he can't say that he feared for his life when he decided to go to their house instead of his own.

Any threats made by the Meyers towards him could be used by the prosecution to show motive for him wanting to kill them.

No self-defense case that I can see. JMO.

Good point on the motive.

EN tried to kill them once, missed then hunted them down and killed Tammy. Sounds like pre-meditated murder.
 
  • #960
There is no evidence whatsoever Meyers made any threats toward him or his mother. He certainly didn't say they were the one making threats, he didn't even know who he shot (if his story he told his friends and police is to be believed).

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,170
Total visitors
2,233

Forum statistics

Threads
632,800
Messages
18,631,892
Members
243,295
Latest member
Safeplace07
Back
Top