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

[SpanishInquisition]

Now I know why the sketch does not look like either one of the murder suspects and why LE said it was no longer relevant to the murder case when they took it down iirc.

That makes it highly relevant because it means that neither Nowsch nor Meyers had made the death threat to the Meyers, which would have established premeditation on their part, but instead whatever they did was wholly unrelated to that. They were confronted by an armed car and chased even though they were innocent of having made any death threats.

I don't understand what you mean about EN was ready to flee? When did he flee from the Myers? How can he want to flee and come right to their home like a homing pigeon?

Q. Let me just slow you down. So they pull
off in front of your mom after she stops?
A. Yes.
Q. And how far did they travel if you can
recall before they made that left?
A. Not quite sure.
Q. Was it a long distance or short distance?
A. Short distance.
Q. And the car in front of you, this gray
sedan, makes a left hand turn?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And does your mom follow the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. What were your observations about the
vehicle speed of this car after the left hand turn had
been made?
A. Approximately, they went from about a 10 to
about a 40, accelerating.
Q. As far as miles per hour?
A. Yes.

He said they were
sitting on the side of the street when all of a sudden
the green car came around behind them again, and they
pulled away, he said the green car started chasing them,
described how they went down a street, and then he said
at one point he was waving his pistol out the passenger
window of the car that he was in up in the air and he
couldn't believe that the car that was behind him didn't
see that and stop and just go away.

She had no way of knowing she was dealing with a paranoid violent murderous kid who thought people were out to get him who was planning to kill the occupants of the car behind him.

And how would EN know whether or not he's dealing with a paranoid violent murderous kid who just pulled up behind him and chased him? If it's good enough for the Meyers to go driving around armed looking for someone who was a thought to be a threat and just have coincidences happen to them, then it's good enough for EN to be driving around looking for someone who was a threat to him. What do you think the Meyers intended to do with the gun once they found that person who made a death threat to their family?

 

[sonjay]

Premeditation doesn't require cool thought. Premeditation can be formed in a short amount of time...even seconds. The jury will be instructed on that explaining it doesn't take long aforethought and planning for a murder to be premeditated. Of the cases I have followed for over three decades most wound up being M1 cases.

Actually, yes, it does. I believe it was SpanishInquisition who posted the link to Byford previously:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1474569.html

Deliberation remains a critical element of the mens rea necessary for first-degree murder, connoting a dispassionate weighing process and consideration of consequences before acting.  “In order to establish first-degree murder, the premeditated killing must also have been done deliberately, that is, with coolness and reflection.”
​

BBM. With coolness and reflection. This is not first-degree murder, no way no how. Saying it's so don't make it so.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Actually, yes, it does. I believe it was SpanishInquisition who posted the link to Byford previously:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1474569.html

Deliberation remains a critical element of the mens rea necessary for first-degree murder, connoting a dispassionate weighing process and consideration of consequences before acting.  “In order to establish first-degree murder, the premeditated killing must also have been done deliberately, that is, with coolness and reflection.”
​

BBM. With coolness and reflection. This is not first-degree murder, no way no how. Saying it's so don't make it so.

How much time does "coolness and reflection" take? Perhaps only seconds. JMO.

 

[BellaVita]

BBM: If he saw the Buick heading towards his house, then how did he know to turn on Mt. Shasta to find the Buick already parked? He apparently must have seen them make a turn on Mt. Shasta, right? Otherwise why even go into the cul-de-sac with gun loaded and ready?

AGAIN, he didn't know to turn on Shasta to find the Buick. They went into the cul de sac looking to make a shortcut toward EN's house/getting out of Dodge, IYKWIM. The Audi was trying to turn around/get out of there. In the process of doing so, EN spotted the Buick, saw HEADS, in the plural, still inside the car and a guy with a beard running toward the house. It was purely coincidence/bad luck that the Audi just happened to pull onto Shasta and voila----there was the Buick.

 

[sonjay]

How much time does "coolness and reflection" take? Perhaps only seconds. JMO.

Based on the description by EN to his friends and to Mogg, there was no coolness and reflection. There was fear and panic, but no coolness and reflection.

There's room for disagreement over whether the fear and panic was "reasonable," but there's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the shooting was a result of coolness and reflection, and plenty of evidence that it was a result of fear and panic.

To be more precise, Byford doesn't state that premeditation requires coolness and reflection, but that deliberation does. Under Byford, first-degree murder requires that the state prove all 3 elements of 1M: willfulness, deliberation and premeditation:

All three elements-willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation-must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first-degree murder.

​

Willfulness is the intent to kill.   There need be no appreciable space of time between formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing.

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.

Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killing.
​

The prosecution might be able to prove willfulness. They might even be able to prove premeditation. But no how no way can they prove deliberation. Byford states, "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."

DA turned into the cul de sac. EN saw the Buick in front of him and thought the running person was going to get more guns. He opened fire. That is clearly a "mere unconsidered and rash impulse" and is clearly not deliberate determination.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

AGAIN, he didn't know to turn on Shasta to find the Buick. They went into the cul de sac looking to make a shortcut toward EN's house/getting out of Dodge, IYKWIM. The Audi was trying to turn around/get out of there. In the process of doing so, EN spotted the Buick, saw HEADS, in the plural, still inside the car and a guy with a beard running toward the house. It was purely coincidence/bad luck that the Audi just happened to pull onto Shasta and voila----there was the Buick.

I don't understand your post. If Nowsch and Andrews were trying to get away from the Buick how did they end up turning into the cul-de-sac where it was parked? Nowsch lived in that neighborhood and had to know where they were heading. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Based on the description by EN to his friends and to Mogg, there was no coolness and reflection. There was fear and panic, but no coolness and reflection.

There's room for disagreement over whether the fear and panic was "reasonable," but there's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the shooting was a result of coolness and reflection, and plenty of evidence that it was a result of fear and panic.

To be more precise, Byford doesn't state that premeditation requires coolness and reflection, but that deliberation does. Under Byford, first-degree murder requires that the state prove all 3 elements of 1M: willfulness, deliberation and premeditation:

All three elements-willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation-must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first-degree murder.

​

Willfulness is the intent to kill.   There need be no appreciable space of time between formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing.

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.

Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killing.
​

The prosecution might be able to prove willfulness. They might even be able to prove premeditation. But no how no way can they prove deliberation. Byford states, "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."

DA turned into the cul de sac. EN saw the Buick in front of him and thought the running person was going to get more guns. He opened fire. That is clearly a "mere unconsidered and rash impulse" and is clearly not deliberate determination.

That may be what they said but the actions of the defendants suggest premeditation to me.

 

[sonjay]

I don't understand your post. If Nowsch and Andrews were trying to get away from the Buick how did they end up turning into the cul-de-sac where it was parked? Nowsch lived in that neighborhood and had to know where they were heading. JMO.

Nowsch wasn't driving. DA was driving, and he doesn't live in that neighborhood. It was 11:30 at night. All those houses on all those streets look very similar. They were panicked and had just been fleeing from an armed car.

Is there proof that EN deliberately instructed DA to turn onto Mt. Shasta? Is so, please provide a link.

 

[BellaVita]

In all my years here on Websleuths, I never thought I'd see the day that an accused murderer would be defended as if he were the victim.

You know what? There is plenty of blame to go around here. The hotheaded, aggressive, impulsive M family found safety in their home, yet found it necessary to go hunting with a gun. IF in fact there was a road rage incident, the M's decided to extend the incident after it was over by going hunting for an anonymous or not so anonymous (depending on the story) person. If there was truly road rage, which who knows because they have only told about 10 different stories, the M's look even more ridiculous because now they are saying that the M's identified the wrong car and EN had nothing to do with it. You can't make this stuff up. It was truly a crapshoot once the M's rolled up on their sitting duck. Their gun gave them courage they may not have had otherwise. Only the sitting duck, minding their own business, had a gun too. All bets were off at that point. It could just as well been EN that had been killed if BM was more adept with firearms. Two guns equals a toss-up. There are no clean hands here and the continual lying of the M family makes people wonder what they are hiding and why.

 

[sonjay]

That may be what they said but the actions of the defendants suggest premeditation to me.

A mere "suggestion" of premeditation is far from proof of premeditation. The law requires that the state prove all 3 elements of premeditation; there's no law that merely requires the state to "suggest" the existence of all 3 elements.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Premeditation doesn't require cool thought.

In Nevada for any crime that requires premeditation (M1/Murder Conspiracy) cool thought is expressly required to draw the distinction between M1 and M2 eliminating the meaning of M2 being reckless. This actually was decided as a Constitutional matter:
http://www.harmfulerror.com/2007/09/incredible_decision_by_9th_cir.html

Premeditation can be formed in a short amount of time...even seconds.

Yes, absolutely it can be, but I don't think in this case that it will be given how lesser charges apply when someone responds inappropriate to provocation. Even if in reality EN and/or Andrews did have cool reflection on what they were doing, I do not see a jury going to M1 rather than something like M2 given what had led up to it in the seconds prior.

The premeditation became obvious when DA and EN hunted down the green car after it had fled. They weren't coming there to have tea and cookies with the Myers.

I'm certain that is what EN thought when he was being hunted down by an armed car after the Audi fled as he did not think the Buick was there to have tea and cookies with him.

All EN had to do is formulate the thought that he was planning on killing whomever was in the green car when he located them and that is exactly what he did and tried to murder BM too by his own admission. His admissions of he 'killed those kids' will be critical to this case. That shows that was his premeditated intentions all along.

That isn't what he said and he said he thought they were getting 'more strapped.' In fact when he told K and A, he said he thought he hit someone in the car but didn't know how badly, which he has told no one he went to Mt Shasta to kill anyone and he didn't even know that he did kill anyone until days later.

It is the repetitive actions of the defendant that showed they did not stop with one shot or one stab, but continually repeated using the murder weapon over, and over again to achieve their premeditated objective of killing the person (s) or wanting to cause serious bodily harm.

Despite however many rounds he may have fired, he only thought he may have struck one person once and he wasn't sure how badly. He did not try to finish job as he didn't say he tried to fire again at the person he thought he had struck.

By firing his weapon repeatedly he meant for the victims to be hit, seriously injured or dead. Any reasonable person would know that if one shoots multiple times (22) toward a human being that death or serious injury would occur. EN knew this too and that is why he did it.

Yes, absolutely he knew that someone could have been seriously injured or killed, not that he expressly intended to kill. There is a legal difference where someone has to expressly intended to kill rather than doing something where someone may get killed. If you don't care whether what you do kills or injures someone that is reckless - M2 - where as when you expressly intend to kill specifically that is M1. Just because you shoot at someone multiple times is not itself proof of your intent to specifically them kill them...unless of course you knew you had already hit them the first time and wounded them and wanted to keep shooting to be sure they were actually dead.

And she nor Brandon was 'the kids' he thought had been after him which I find to be more paranoia than reality on his part. Even his friends said he was paranoid.

So you don't find that it was more paranoia than reality to chase EN with a gun even though he nor the driver were the ones who made the mere verbal threat? If one case of mistaken identity is paranoia devoid from reality, then so is the other and TM didn't have have a gun waved at her unlike EN.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Nowsch wasn't driving. DA was driving, and he doesn't live in that neighborhood. It was 11:30 at night. All those houses on all those streets look very similar. They were panicked and had just been fleeing from an armed car.

Is there proof that EN deliberately instructed DA to turn onto Mt. Shasta? Is so, please provide a link.

I don't think that Nowsch had his eyes closed. All of the houses in my neighborhood look similar and I have no problem finding my way around. Do we know for sure that Andrews was not familiar with that neighborhood from prior visit's? JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

A mere "suggestion" of premeditation is far from proof of premeditation. The law requires that the state prove all 3 elements of premeditation; there's no law that merely requires the state to "suggest" the existence of all 3 elements.

Okay, I'll reword it and say that the defendants actions prove premeditation to me. JMO.

 

[sonjay]

I don't think that Nowsch had his eyes closed. All of the houses in my neighborhood look similar and I have no problem finding my way around. Do we know for sure that Andrews was not familiar with that neighborhood from prior visit's? JMO.

We can't convict anyone of first-degree murder simply because we don't know for sure that it wasn't. We can only convict someone of first-degree murder if we know for sure that it was.

Is there proof that EN deliberately instructed DA to go to the Mt. Shasta cul de sac so that he could kill TM? If so, please provide a link.

 

[BellaVita]

As far as we know, and I'm going by the GJ statements, KM wasn't in the car during any of the shootings so I don't think she would know. However, I don't believe EN when he said "I can't believe they were driving past my house". I think he assumed they did in all the excitement. Again, I believe the directions per Gogg's testimony, I'm not challenging that because I do believe he is correct. I just think that EN saw the Buick as it turned on Mt. Shasta, I don't believe he saw in turning on Carmel Peak. JMO

Well, that's what KM says, if you believe it. Here is a statement by KM in the arrest complaint:



She says this happened with the alleged road rager but it almost exactly mirrors what BM says happened with the encounter with EN. That's why a lot of people think she may have been in the car for the whole thing.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Frankly, I'm not convinced that it wasn't self-defense; he may have reasonably believed that BM was on his way to get more guns, and/or reasonably believed that the "heads in the car" had guns and were going to shoot him before the Audi could get out of there. I want to know more about what happened before I can draw any such conclusion, but I think it's possible.

However, even with all that being true I don't think self-defense would apply given how that he went to that location (unless it was somehow accidental that he arrived there). Such a scenario greatly mitigates to what degree his guilt is, but I do not believe it removes it entirely. When the Buick wasn't at his house, it turned the threat from an immediate threat to a bare threat and if he encounter something along the way, that was of his own making as whatever imminent threat they were is because he went there. This is why I put the odds of either M1 or outright acquittal low as everything described shows impulsiveness and provocation, but provocation does not entitle him to go out searching for a bare threat.

 

[sonjay]

Okay, I'll reword it and say that the defendants actions prove premeditation to me. JMO.

The defendants' actions absolutely do not prove premeditation. The best evidence available to us is that EN was panicked and fearful; that's incompatible with coolness and reflection. Once the Meyerses pointed their gun at EN and started chasing him, there was no coolness and reflection.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We can't convict anyone of first-degree murder simply because we don't know for sure that it wasn't. We can only convict someone of first-degree murder if we know for sure that it was.

Is there proof that EN deliberately instructed DA to go to the Mt. Shasta cul de sac so that he could kill TM? If so, please provide a link.

Sorry no links. I'm just basing my opinion on common sense. If Andrews didn't know which way to go Nowsch was there to help out.

I'm not convicting anyone of anything, I'm stating my opinion.

 

[jennapuppy]

You know what? There is plenty of blame to go around here. The hotheaded, aggressive, impulsive M family found safety in their home, yet found it necessary to go hunting with a gun. IF in fact there was a road rage incident, the M's decided to extend the incident after it was over by going hunting for an anonymous or not so anonymous (depending on the story) person. If there was truly road rage, which who knows because they have only told about 10 different stories, the M's look even more ridiculous because now they are saying that the M's identified the wrong car and EN had nothing to do with it. You can't make this stuff up. It was truly a crapshoot once the M's rolled up on their sitting duck. Their gun gave them courage they may not have had otherwise. Only the sitting duck, minding their own business, had a gun too. All bets were off at that point. It could just as well been EN that had been killed if BM was more adept with firearms. Two guns equals a toss-up. There are no clean hands here and the continual lying of the M family makes people wonder what they are hiding and why.

Every version of events seems to paint the Meyers as the initial aggressors in the chain of events. It could have easily ended with EN as the deceased victim instead of TM.
JMO

 

[BellaVita]

But he turned there and we know he did because that is where the 2nd shooting happened. Why did he turn on Mt. Shasta if he didn't see the Buick there? EN knows he doesn't live on Mt. Shasta so what business would he have being there?

AGAIN, it is all in the GJ documents!