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

[SStarr33]

Split the baby is right. I would not want to be the DA in this trial. M1 is over charging. They seemed trapped within the varying scenarios offered up by the M family. Now we learn of an identical road rage incident with the car speeding up on TM. This family...each time they try to smooth over a hole in their story, they wind up with yet another hole. The DA has got to be seething by now.

There is no overcharging as the jury will get instructions with lesser includeds.

 

[LancelotLink]

And the family on top of that said TM just recently had another road rage incident where she allegedly followed a gang member home:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/column...n-tammy-meyers-was-mom-people-would-want-have
Surprisingly enough this came out voluntarily by the Meyers without EN's defense having to do any cross-examining to find this out. Unless they want EN to get off with a slap on the wrist, they really should be quite and let the legal system work its way through as all these out of court statements aren't exactly helping the prosecution.

I should have linked that article, TY. And at no time did the M's think this new old gang member put out a hit on her? Did they go knock on his door? See, I never believed there was a driving lesson across from a known drug dealer at night after a birthday party. I'm wondering who the two girls were that EN was supposed to meet. Two girls...and I have RM to thank for this suspicious thought. In his zeal to shine some glorifying light on his wife's decisions, he placed her at the park on at least two separate prior occasions.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There is no overcharging as the jury will get instructions with lesser includeds.

Imo, the DA would be remiss if he didn't go with the top charge.

This was very premeditated.

 

[SStarr33]

We must clarify this further. The DA now saying the M's lives were threatened by someone in one grey/silver car, and minutes later they were killed by someone in a different grey/silver car. Never mind the odds of having two people in two different grey/silver cars wanting you dead within the same time period. Oh, and the occupants of those two grey/silver cars are unrelated to each other.

Maybe it was the other person that EN called.

 

[Hiandmighty]

It's like a politician coming out with the story on the offense before the story comes out and he is then on the defense. Two lawyers too.

I'm speculating we are going to hear more from other family members.... Brandon is the first to tell a story.

Lotta road rage in that neighborhood. Another reason to not take daughter driving first time at 11:00 p.m. Those ragers probably don't get up early.

 

[PaperDoll]

In responding to you I just noticed a difference between EN's and BM's statements. EN (per Mogg) says he started firing because the Buick wouldn't stop following them and only after that did the Buick stop and put it in reverse while BM says the car stopped first and then the shots came. EN says the Buick left first while BM says the Audi left first. EN says he saw the Buick as he was on Alta and the Buick was on Cherry River.

So we have two different versions on who left first. Even if the Audi left first, and depending on how long the Buick stayed put, the Audi, IMO wouldn't make it to Cherry River in time to see the Buick there as well. I would also think that the Buick would be high tailing it home after being fired at, I know I would.. The short cut off Alta would be a right on Carmel Peak, not Cimarron to Cherry River, but if that is what EN is telling Mogg, than maybe that is what happened. However, where would the short cut come in if EN was already on his street? This is why I think the Audi was on Alta, passed Carmel Peak, looked down the street and saw the Buick making a turn on Mt. Shasta, then before they hit Cimarron they made a u turn and went back to Carmel Peak etc.... That could be why they actually were able to get the Meyers still in the car and or getting out of the car running. I can't see the Meyers taking another way home, that wouldn't make sense unless they were trying to not lead the Audi back to their house, but if that were the case than there was some minor, or major, time lapse between the 1st shooting and the 2nd..

 

[LancelotLink]

:thinking:I dunno. She only drove 25 mph...

 

[SStarr33]

:thinking:I dunno. She only drove 25 mph...

No, Brandon said she drove home fast.

 

[PaperDoll]

Let's imagine something:

Suppose this is two gangs having a gang war: self-defense for either?

I'm curious. No one needs to answer.


ETA: I'm trying to "free think" on this case. I'm starting off by saying I don't believe any of them.

The sticky point that get me thinking is that darn full metal 9mm jacket from Brandon's gun.

Well I'm going to answer with MOO Gang war or not, a woman/mother/wife was killed in this process while on her own property (yes, the driveway is her own property not the publics). They were fleeing the 1st shooting scene, if they really wanted to have all out gang war, then the Meyers would have shot back at that time and EN would have said he was being shot at in his statements. That wouldn't be something you would want to leave out. So, EN may have feared someone was after his family and assumed it was the Buick since the Buick followed them, gun out the window or not, the Buick didn't fire any shots, EN did. Do we let everyone off the hook and just look the other way because it's a gang war? Maybe it wasn't a gang war at all. TM to me doesn't look like she belonged in a gang, nor did her daughter.

Did I ever mention that NO ONE, NOT EN, NOT THE MEYERS EVER CALLED THE POLICE FOR HELP! And yet EN is calling it self defense?? He stayed in the very area where he felt threatened, he took matters into his own hands. He didn't bother calling the police to tell them that he fears someone is after his mom and baby sister, and if they would come check it out. No, he decided to play the law. The Meyers decided to play the law after feeling threatened by the "Road Rage" story. :tantrum:

 

[BellaVita]

We don't.

BM said the Audi passenger fired first.

EN either said that no one shot back at him, or didn't say either way -- depending on which person's statement you're reading.

Probably EN shot first in the cul de sac. There's no hard evidence either way.

RM has said it doesn't matter. This bothers me.

ETA: EN clearly was mistaken if he said that no one shot back at him. We know that BM did fire 3 times in the cul de sac. Perhaps the Audi was already screeching out in reverse when BM fired, and EN was unaware that BM had fired.

We can't believe BM. EN possibly won't testify. We may not ever get clarification on that point.

Don't have quote right now but a neighbor reported hearing 3 shots boom, boom, boom in rapid succession and then rest of the shots. BM fired three times. Things that make you go ummm. IMO.

 

[PaperDoll]

He is going to claim self defense because what else can he claim?

I haven't posted much on this case, but I do read the posts everyday. I am totally fascinated how anyone could think EN has a viable self defense argument. That has been more interesting to read than the tragic case itself.

First, EN is known to be paranoid according to his friends. Imo, it shows he was up to no good and that brought on the paranoia and if he was doing drugs that would make his paranoia even worse.

So, what if LE has the camera footage of the school parking lot, and it shows no one in the Myers car pointing a gun at anyone? And I do believe Tammy was giving Kristal driving lessons and so does the DA. I thought she and Brandon both did very well in answering the questions in front of the GJ.

If there is footage and it shows no gun was flashed at anytime when T&K was in the parking lot, ENs story will start to crumble fast and I expect it will.

I do believe the jury will believe the Audi driver made threatening statements to T&K. Its going to be a rather strange case because it shows even though EN knows who the driver is he is protecting him from prosecution. That adds to him being a protector of criminals for the Audi driver would be charged with murder also since he was the driver. I think the jury will frown on anyone that protects their homies from prosecution.

Then we have the first shooting scene. Following behind someone in a vehicle is not against the law. There is no evidence at the first scene that Brandon fired his weapon even though shots were fired toward them repeatedly showing that EN was the aggressor. Even though EN shot at Brandon he did not return fire showing he was not the aggressive one in this nightmare.

But the first violent confrontation wasn't good enough for EN and the driver. They didn't go to ENs home and cool down. They continued to pursue the Myers car and occupants. Again the defendant and driver were the aggressors.

It doesn't matter that the Myers home sits on a cul-de-sac or on a rural road. What matters legally is Brandon, and Tammy were back on their own property when the second onslaught of shots was fired by the aggressor (EN) who came to their home with intentions to shoot them.

Brandon Myers had ever legal right to protect himself and his mother. If he had killed EN he would have done so in self defense and IMO, no charges would be filed against him. Sadly, he only fired three shots, none of them striking either occupants of the Audi.

The self defense claim by ENs lawyers is a farce, but I do understand they have to claim something. The self defense law is clear, and the jury will get it, and know in no way was EN defending himself, but was the aggressor/pursuer at the time Tammy was murdered.

EN and/or the unknown driver were the aggressors three times over.

1. Driver cuts off TM and threatens to do them harm. Aggressive/threats #1
2. EN shoots several times at the Myers vehicle at the first shooting location even though no gunfire was returned by Brandon at that scene. Even EN said the occupants of the other vehicle didn't return fire. EN, by shooting multiple times was the aggressor. (#2)
3. Then EN and unknown driver purposefully continue to pursue the Myers even though the Myers had retreated to the safety of their own home, and EN opened fire while Tammy and Brandon were on their own property resulting in the premeditated murder of Tammy, and attempted premeditated murder of Brandon. EN and driver were the aggressors for the #3 time.

Since I have read newer news articles now, I feel Tammy Myers couldn't stand anyone who was a bully. Imo, it was one of her pet peeves. Perhaps she was bullied severely in school herself or her children were, but this is the one thing that would set her off. IMO

I have seen/read other stories about moms or dads confronting bullies that had bullied their child, children or someone in their neighborhood. I have also read of others following people in their vehicle when they felt the occupants had done something wrong.

JMO though.........

Hi OceanB :blowkiss: LOVE your post, makes tons of sense to me.

 

[BellaVita]

because erich and brandon told us how it went down.

lol lol lol all day long funniest thing i have ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PaperDoll]

Don't have quote right now but a neighbor reported hearing 3 shots boom, boom, boom in rapid succession and then rest of the shots. BM fired three times. Things that make you go ummm. IMO.

BM who I think has a permit to carry, has a right to fire his weapon on the very car who fired the 1st shots at them while on his own property. Does EN have a permit to carry?

 

[SStarr33]

lol lol lol all day long funniest thing i have ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not surprised, but I doubt the jury will find it funny.

 

[BellaVita]

Exactly. EN appears to be exempt from normal rules of behavior. TM was supposed to call 911 and not follow anyone. But why doesn't the same apply to EN? His "fan base" seem to think normal rules shouldn't apply to him.

No, he's not exempt. Nobody expects a dealer to follow rules. But yeah, normal people with ordinary lives DO follow rules. And normal people with ordinary lives that are living within the law do not get involved with this type of stuff. Just Sayin'.

 

[LancelotLink]

lol lol lol all day long funniest thing i have ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another great comment was "this was done with premedication." I thank the poster for making my day.

 

[LancelotLink]

No, he's not exempt. Nobody expects a dealer to follow rules. But yeah, normal people with ordinary lives DO follow rules. And normal people with ordinary lives that are living within the law do not get involved with this type of stuff. Just Sayin'.

ITA. No one acted with clean hands on this night.

 

[BellaVita]

We must clarify this further. The DA now saying the M's lives were threatened by someone in one grey/silver car, and minutes later they were killed by someone in a different grey/silver car. Never mind the odds of having two people in two different grey/silver cars wanting you dead within the same time period. Oh, and the occupants of those two grey/silver cars are unrelated to each other.

This is great stuff!!! You can't make up stuff like this. IMO.

 

[sonjay]

Don't have quote right now but a neighbor reported hearing 3 shots boom, boom, boom in rapid succession and then rest of the shots. BM fired three times. Things that make you go ummm. IMO.

It's entirely possible that BM fired first in the cul de sac.

We can't trust anything BM says about that night.

EN doesn't know; he didn't even remember BM shooting at all.

The neighbor -- I think the neighbor reported that his son heard the shots -- 3 shots, then a pause, then more shots. I wish one of the neighbors had actually seen this as it happened.

 

[BellaVita]

He is going to claim self defense because what else can he claim?

I haven't posted much on this case, but I do read the posts everyday. I am totally fascinated how anyone could think EN has a viable self defense argument. That has been more interesting to read than the tragic case itself.

First, EN is known to be paranoid according to his friends. Imo, it shows he was up to no good and that brought on the paranoia and if he was doing drugs that would make his paranoia even worse.

So, what if LE has the camera footage of the school parking lot, and it shows no one in the Myers car pointing a gun at anyone? And I do believe Tammy was giving Kristal driving lessons and so does the DA. I thought she and Brandon both did very well in answering the questions in front of the GJ.

If there is footage and it shows no gun was flashed at anytime when T&K was in the parking lot, ENs story will start to crumble fast and I expect it will.

I do believe the jury will believe the Audi driver made threatening statements to T&K. Its going to be a rather strange case because it shows even though EN knows who the driver is he is protecting him from prosecution. That adds to him being a protector of criminals for the Audi driver would be charged with murder also since he was the driver. I think the jury will frown on anyone that protects their homies from prosecution.

Then we have the first shooting scene. Following behind someone in a vehicle is not against the law. There is no evidence at the first scene that Brandon fired his weapon even though shots were fired toward them repeatedly showing that EN was the aggressor. Even though EN shot at Brandon he did not return fire showing he was not the aggressive one in this nightmare.

But the first violent confrontation wasn't good enough for EN and the driver. They didn't go to ENs home and cool down. They continued to pursue the Myers car and occupants. Again the defendant and driver were the aggressors.

It doesn't matter that the Myers home sits on a cul-de-sac or on a rural road. What matters legally is Brandon, and Tammy were back on their own property when the second onslaught of shots was fired by the aggressor (EN) who came to their home with intentions to shoot them.

Brandon Myers had ever legal right to protect himself and his mother. If he had killed EN he would have done so in self defense and IMO, no charges would be filed against him. Sadly, he only fired three shots, none of them striking either occupants of the Audi.

The self defense claim by ENs lawyers is a farce, but I do understand they have to claim something. The self defense law is clear, and the jury will get it, and know in no way was EN defending himself, but was the aggressor/pursuer at the time Tammy was murdered.

EN and/or the unknown driver were the aggressors three times over.

1. Driver cuts off TM and threatens to do them harm. Aggressive/threats #1
2. EN shoots several times at the Myers vehicle at the first shooting location even though no gunfire was returned by Brandon at that scene. Even EN said the occupants of the other vehicle didn't return fire. EN, by shooting multiple times was the aggressor. (#2)
3. Then EN and unknown driver purposefully continue to pursue the Myers even though the Myers had retreated to the safety of their own home, and EN opened fire while Tammy and Brandon were on their own property resulting in the premeditated murder of Tammy, and attempted premeditated murder of Brandon. EN and driver were the aggressors for the #3 time.

Since I have read newer news articles now, I feel Tammy Myers couldn't stand anyone who was a bully. Imo, it was one of her pet peeves. Perhaps she was bullied severely in school herself or her children were, but this is the one thing that would set her off. IMO

I have seen/read other stories about moms or dads confronting bullies that had bullied their child, children or someone in their neighborhood. I have also read of others following people in their vehicle when they felt the occupants had done something wrong.

JMO though.........

Which Meyers story do you believe???? There have been many!!!! Innocent people tell the truth. There is not a twisted maze leading to nowhere. There are a few on this board defending the M's till death do you part. I just want to know how you all explain not just inconsistencies but bald-faced huge lies. What is the reason for all this cover-up???? Sorry, just want to know.