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

[SpanishInquisition]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Even if it's proven that the Meyers followed Erich that didn't give him a right to go to their house and shoot them. They could have driven by his house a dozen times and he still wouldn't be in the right to go to their home and shoot at them.

I'm afraid it's as simple as that. And that's why Erich Nowsch is facing murder charges.

There is more than a binary choice between M1 and justifiable homicide. That's why a mile away from there a neighbor was able to chase after someone for 500 feet from their house long after they ceased being threat, shoot them in the back and kill them and then only get Voluntary Manslaughter with a sentence of probation with no prison time (and this was with a judge and jury, not as part of a plea bargain).

 

[Deleted member 39678]

There is more than a binary choice between M1 and justifiable homicide. That's why a mile away from there a neighbor was able to chase after someone for 500 feet from their house long after they ceased being threat, shoot them in the back and kill them and then only get Voluntary Manslaughter with a sentence of probation with no prison time (and this was with a judge and jury, not as part of a plea bargain).

I don't see how this case is a justifiable homicide. That other case is quite a bit different than this one. If I'm right about which case your referring to.

Erich Nowsch was angry with the Meyers, or for whatever reason, justifiably angry or not, traveled by car to their home and shot Tammy Meyers dead in cold blood.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

The State of Nevada seems to think that it's murder 1 and I agree. Being emotional or panicked goes to the state of mind that can show why Erich decided to shoot and kill Tammy Meyers. JMO.

And he admitted the whole thing to his two friends and to police. What he told his friends should be allowed at trial because it's a confession thus comes in under exception to hearsay.
From what he told his friends, he didn't think anyone shot at him. He was the one shooting.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

That other case is quite a bit different than this one. If I'm right about which case your referring to.[
Erich Nowsch was angry with the Meyers, or for whatever reason, justifiably angry or not, traveled by car to their home and shot Tammy Meyers dead in cold blood.

You've described Nowsch as angry/emotional/panicked, which precludes Nowsch from cool reflection just as Gaule was justifiably angry, but was not in a state of mind to coolly reflect.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You've described Nowsch as angry/emotional/panicked, which precludes Nowsch from cool reflection just as Gaule was justifiably angry, but was not in a state of mind to coolly reflect.

I'm not sure that "cool reflection" is necessary to prove premeditated murder. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I just looked up "cool reflection" and didn't find a lot. I guess the argument Spanish is making is if someone is angry or emotional to a great degree they can't premeditate a murder. It's a spontaneous response.

I don't see traveling to the victims home because they "don't want them to get away" as being spontaneous or an immediate response. JMO.

 

[sonjay]

There is more than a binary choice between M1 and justifiable homicide. That's why a mile away from there a neighbor was able to chase after someone for 500 feet from their house long after they ceased being threat, shoot them in the back and kill them and then only get Voluntary Manslaughter with a sentence of probation with no prison time (and this was with a judge and jury, not as part of a plea bargain).

I don't see how this case is a justifiable homicide.

There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who understand what binary means, and those who don't.

SpanishInquisition meant that this case doesn't have a single either/or: Either justifiable or M1. There are options between M1 and justifiable, such as voluntary manslaughter.

Saying that it's not M1 is not the same thing as saying it's justifiable.

 

[BellaVita]

KM does have a learners permit. It's in the GJ transcript.

From the transcript:
Q. And based upon your age, are you in the
permit process of getting a driver's license?

A. Yes.

IDK. That's ambiguous to me. "in the permit process"? Why not just ask if she had her permit at the time of the driving lesson.

 

[sonjay]

I just looked up "cool reflection" and didn't find a lot. I guess the argument Spanish is making is if someone is angry or emotional to a great degree they can't premeditate a murder. It's a spontaneous response.

I don't see traveling to the victims home because they "don't want them to get away" as being spontaneous or an immediate response. JMO.

That's backwards from how EN described it. The Audi pulled into the cul de sac and EN saw a person running toward the house. He thought they were going to get more guns. That's when he thought to himself that he couldn't let them get away — because he thought they were going to come back out with more guns. That sounds pretty spontaneous and immediate to me. JMO, IMO, MOO and all that jazz.

 

[BellaVita]

I don't see how this case is a justifiable homicide. That other case is quite a bit different than this one. If I'm right about which case your referring to.

Erich Nowsch was angry with the Meyers, or for whatever reason, justifiably angry or not, traveled by car to their home and shot Tammy Meyers dead in cold blood.

JMO

What if it cannot be proven who shot first at the M home? You don't think that would create a problem for M1?

 

[sonjay]

From Nevada statutes on homicide: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec020

"Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being, without malice express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation."

"Malice: Express and implied defined.
​

1.  Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
2.  Malice shall be implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

To prove just manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove that malice (either express or implied) existed in EN that night.

Obviously, the #2 definition of malice (implied malice) does not apply here — it's clear there was considerable provocation.

That means that definition #1, express malice, is what they would have to prove — manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.


"First Degree Murder:
1.  Murder of the first degree is murder which is:

(a) Perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait or torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;"

"Willful, deliberate and premeditated" and "angry/emotional/panicked" don't see to be compatible with each other. IMO.

There is no way this case rises to the level of first-degree murder. Possibly manslaughter, but I think EN's got a pretty good chance at an acquittal or a hung jury. Especially if the Meyerses keep changing their story. Or if the school surveillance footage shows no driving lessons. Or if other evidence comes to light that shows that the Meyerses were in fact stalking EN, lying in wait for him at the school, and trying to kill him or harm him.

 

[sonjay]

From the transcript:
Q. And based upon your age, are you in the
permit process of getting a driver's license?

A. Yes.

IDK. That's ambiguous to me. "in the permit process"? Why not just ask if she had her permit at the time of the driving lesson.

I agree. I thought that was worded ambiguously the first time I read it, and I still do.

Also, the part where she's describing the alleged route home from the alleged driving lesson:

Q. And then you leave the parking lot and where do you then go on your way to?
A. We go straight on Villa Monterey.
Q. Is that the way you would go to go home?
A. Yeah.

Well, yeah, Villa Monterey is the way they would go to go home — for a very short distance. But KM said the road rage/accident/death threat took place over on Cimarron near Westcliff, which isn't anywhere close to the way they would go to go home.

A lot of things were left ambiguous or unclear, or left out altogether, in the GJ presentation. All of it will be examined in depth at the trial, when the defense gets to cross examine these people.

I think we'll learn a lot of interesting things during the trial. Many of those things will show that there have been even more lies than we're currently aware of. JMO.

 

[newone]

From the transcript:
Q. And based upon your age, are you in the
permit process of getting a driver's license?

A. Yes.

IDK. That's ambiguous to me. "in the permit process"? Why not just ask if she had her permit at the time of the driving lesson.

sneaky guy right?? LOL....

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm not sure that "cool reflection" is necessary to prove premeditated murder. JMO.

The Byford decision from the Nevada Supreme Court explains the elements that are required to prove first-degree murder:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1474569.html
Coolness and reflection are required merely for the 'premeditation' element, while there are other requirements in addition to that for 'willful' and 'deliberate' as you have to prove all the individual elements of first-degree murder for it to be that rather than something else meaning you can't just have two out the three elements or one out of the three.
This article explains the issue of premeditation in Nevada where a woman only got second degree even though she had made a notarized statement the very day about killing her ex as a way to resolve a child custody dispute and her ex was unarmed and had no weapons in his vehicle:
http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/939690

 

[BellaVita]

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

Matthew Meyers said his older brother ran out with his gun after his sister ran into the family home to say that a car was following them.

"My brother protects my mom, he has a concealed weapon," Matthew said.

"My brother saw the gun, he started popping shots at the dude," Matthew said, noting that it’s still unclear who fired first.

Quoted article is from 2/16 Bolded part is interesting. And of course, in this version of the story there is no mention of a first shooting scene. How long did they think they could keep this story going without being outed?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I just looked up "cool reflection" and didn't find a lot. I guess the argument Spanish is making is if someone is angry or emotional to a great degree they can't premeditate a murder. It's a spontaneous response.

I don't see traveling to the victims home because they "don't want them to get away" as being spontaneous or an immediate response. JMO.

That isn't what he said. What the confession actually said was that EN directed the driver to EN's own home - the Audi driver did eventually go to the Meyers, but it is not in the confession that the driver was following EN's orders rather than the driver going there on his own. Also in the confession EN said he didn't want them to get away because he thought they were getting even more armed to go after him with even more weapons - his confession said he thought the "get away" part after EN arrived on Mt Shasta not prior to his arrival on Mt Shasta. As the Pinkston case showed where even if you have notarized statement from the same day talking about killing someone as a solution to a problem and that person on the list is shot the same day and they are unarmed and running to an unarmed vehicle, that still doesn't mean you have first-degree murder.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

What if it cannot be proven who shot first at the M home? You don't think that would create a problem for M1?

If any or all of the confessions are deemed admissible during the trial it wouldn't matter whether BM fired/pointed his gun first as what matters was what EN thought was happening. Having these confessions cuts both ways in that it shows EN was the shooter and he did not believe he had been fired upon on one hand, but on the other hand it shows that he thought he had just been assaulted with a deadly weapon and that the ones who had gone after him were going to get even more weapons in their pursuit of him.

 

[BellaVita]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ision-chase-angry-motorist.html#ixzz3S7bARVfi

He said she found, and for a time followed, the vehicle she had apparently been looking for.

Tammy Meyers then drove home, Steiber said, where a vehicle described only as a four-door gray or silver sedan pulled up and someone inside opened fire.


Interesting that this article is from 2/18 and still no mention of the first shooting scene. We know police were already aware of it. Maybe they were waiting for ballistics to confirm connection? They'd already talked to KK and ZA who'd told them about it a few days prior to 2/18. If the M's had told police about this, it seems that would be part of the narrative. It doesn't seem like a super secret detail that police would need to withhold for later investigation.

 

[sonjay]

The Byford decision from the Nevada Supreme Court explains the elements that are required to prove first-degree murder:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1474569.html
Coolness and reflection are required merely for the 'premeditation' element, while there are other requirements in addition to that for 'willful' and 'deliberate' as you have to prove all the individual elements of first-degree murder for it to be that rather than something else meaning you can't just have two out the three elements or one out of the three.
This article explains the issue of premeditation in Nevada where a woman only got second degree even though she had made a notarized statement the very day about killing her ex as a way to resolve a child custody dispute and her ex was unarmed and had no weapons in his vehicle:
http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/939690

Interesting articles. The Byford vs. State on findlaw.com contained this:

Deliberation is the process of determining upon a course of action to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the action and considering the consequences of the action.

A deliberate determination may be arrived at in a short period of time.   But in all cases the determination must not be formed in passion, or if formed in passion, it must be carried out after there has been time for the passion to subside and deliberation to occur.   A mere unconsidered and rash impulse is not deliberate, even though it includes the intent to kill​

This case is absolutely not first-degree murder, no matter how one tortures the facts in an attempt to make it so.

 

[sonjay]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ision-chase-angry-motorist.html#ixzz3S7bARVfi

He said she found, and for a time followed, the vehicle she had apparently been looking for.

Tammy Meyers then drove home, Steiber said, where a vehicle described only as a four-door gray or silver sedan pulled up and someone inside opened fire.


Interesting that this article is from 2/18 and still no mention of the first shooting scene. We know police were already aware of it. Maybe they were waiting for ballistics to confirm connection? They'd already talked to KK and ZA who'd told them about it a few days prior to 2/18. If the M's had told police about this, it seems that would be part of the narrative. It doesn't seem like a super secret detail that police would need to withhold for later investigation.

But it was apparently a super secret detail that the Meyerses needed to withhold.