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

[SStarr33]

Nobody has said that poor judgment on the part of TM requires a death sentence. However, poor judgment, which is as kindly as I can put it, did lead to a chain of events in which the M's were aggressors and TM was killed as a result. You keep missing the part where they were in the safety of their own home and decided to pursue someone, wave a gun and then be caught by surprise that other people have guns too. The M's weren't sitting in their yard having cookies and tea when out of the blue someone drove up and started to shoot.

You keep missing the part where the Meyers retreated. It was over but Erich had an urge to kill that he could not ignore.

 

[sonjay]

Read the interview that Brandon just did and I think you will have your answer.

You mean the interview in which BM says "My mom didn’t go looking for trouble. She keeps it away from the family. That was her goal that day, to keep it away from her family"? That interview?

The road rage was over (if it ever existed); it was already away from her family. Doing nothing or calling 911 would have been the best way to keep it away from her family.

Try again.

 

[sonjay]

You keep missing the part where the Meyers retreated. It was over but Erich had an urge to kill that he could not ignore.

Mischaracterizations of the evidence carry no weight.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You keep missing the part where the Meyers retreated. It was over but Erich had an urge to kill that he could not ignore.

Yes. Brandon was running for the safety of the Meyers home when Nowsch open fired on him and Tammy. JMO.

 

[LancelotLink]

I keep getting the impression that each revelation offered up by the M's strangely coincides with and attempts to explain the latest wrinkle in the rug. To me, it seems they are paying careful attention to social media, and whenever the comments raise a serious problem in their story, miraculously we are handed yet another explanation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

A victim of fate, not intentions. Based on events, anybody in either car could have been killed/been a victim. More than anything, TM was a victim of her own poor judgment.

Not really. Tammy is a victim of EN when he put a bullet in her head killing her.

That would be like saying if a woman goes to a bar late at night and she is raped its her own fault.

 

[sonjay]

Not really. Tammy is a victim of EN when he put a bullet in her head killing her.

That would be like saying if a woman goes to a bar late at night and she is raped its her own fault.

A woman going to a bar at night isn't even in the same neighborhood as a women getting her armed son to go with her to hunt for someone, threaten him and chase him down.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

To me, it seems they are paying careful attention to social media, and whenever the comments raise a serious problem in their story, miraculously we are handed yet another explanation.

Social media supposedly informed them that EN did it so they without informing the police of any of this went over to EN's on 2/15. Then after knowing about this, they offered up the car as a reward on 2/17. Then they didn't even inform police they knew EN until the day he was arrested on 2/19.

 

[BellaVita]

You keep missing the part where the Meyers retreated. It was over but Erich had an urge to kill that he could not ignore.

No. I am aware of the part where BM panicked after pursuit of an anonymous road rager (current M version) resulted in the discovery that other people have guns too. At that point, the chase DID break apart. There is a plausible explanation for how the Audi ended up on Shasta. It's not because the Audi was following directly behind the Buick. They were on separate streets. Unfortunately for TM, the Audi happened to turn down the street she lived on. The M's decided to start the chain of events resulting in her death. Unfortunately for TM, EN ended that chain of events. If the M's had just remained home having tea and cookies and playing xbox, TM would be alive today.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Reasonable doubt on what? EN admitted shooting at the person who was running away, because he didn't want to get this person to get away. I fail to understand where the reasonable doubt could be coming from in this case. He was shooting from the moving vehicle, fired multiple shots. Anybody in that area could have been shot that night. If that doesn't show depraved indifference for human life, I don't know what does.

Exactly. The DA is not required to prove motive anyway.

He has to prove the acts of the defendant were done with intent, willfulness, and were deliberate.

It is obvious they were since he continued to pursue the Myers as they fled to their own home and property and Tammy was murdered by the pursuer that followed them home.

 

[SStarr33]

No. I am aware of the part where BM panicked after pursuit of an anonymous road rager (current M version) resulted in the discovery that other people have guns too. At that point, the chase DID break apart. There is a plausible explanation for how the Audi ended up on Shasta. It's not because the Audi was following directly behind the Buick. They were on separate streets. Unfortunately for TM, the Audi happened to turn down the street she lived on. The M's decided to start the chain of events resulting in her death. Unfortunately for TM, EN ended that chain of events. If the M's had just remained home having tea and cookies and playing xbox, TM would be alive today.

EN started blasting his gun at them when he was half way down the street to their house. He knew what he was doing.

And I would say that if EN wasn't such a paranoid stoner, he would not be in the pokey, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would have ended up there eventually.

If he gets acquitted, I hope he moves next door to a member of the Eric Fan Club, Inc.

 

[SStarr33]

Not really. Tammy is a victim of EN when he put a bullet in her head killing her.

That would be like saying if a woman goes to a bar late at night and she is raped its her own fault.

Or, if a guy raped her after she kissed/snuggled with him and then wanted no more (AKA retreated).

 

[BellaVita]

Not really. Tammy is a victim of EN when he put a bullet in her head killing her.

That would be like saying if a woman goes to a bar late at night and she is raped its her own fault.

Would never think it's the woman's fault. Even if she's a prostitute. Yes, TM was killed by the bullet of EN because she decided to get her son and a gun and go proactively looking for trouble. The Audi was sitting there minding its own business, not trying to look for TM. TM went out looking. Just as a woman at a bar would be sitting there minding her own business and then is aggressively approached by someone who intends to assault her. In this analogy, the woman is EN and the potential rapist is the M family. The woman wasn't bothering anyone but was threatened. EN wasn't bothering anyone but was threatened. If the rapist is killed by the woman, it is because he proactively went looking for trouble. If the woman is just angry because someone offended her and then went home to get her son and his gun, well that is poor judgment. And whatever happens next, whatever trouble she and her son get into, well, they are wholly responsible for that.

 

[BellaVita]

EN started blasting his gun at them when he was half way down the street to their house. He knew what he was doing.

And I would say that if EN wasn't such a paranoid stoner, he would not be in the pokey, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would have ended up there eventually.

If he gets acquitted, I hope he moves next door to a member of the Eric Fan Club, Inc.

If you would supply a link sometimes, it would be helpful.

 

[SStarr33]

If you would supply a link sometimes, it would be helpful.

Wasn't it you who was telling people to make sure they read and are clear on the documents that we have been given?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes. Brandon was running for the safety of the Meyers home when Nowsch open fired on him and Tammy. JMO.

Imo, that will be the waterloo for EN and DA if he doesn't turn state evidence and testifies against EN.

EN had plenty of time to reflect once he first shot at the green car multiple times. At that time he had seen the car turn around and flee from him and DA. He had seen the following car did not want a confrontation with him. He even admitted they did not return fire. If so, a gun battle would have ensued at the first location. So now he knows they are running from him trying to escape, and he deliberately decides to chase them. Iirc Brandon said he could tell they were following them.

I find jurors are very logical in their thinking process. They aren't going to believe some elaborate fantasy that EN&DA just (oops-oh lucky day) happened to wind up right in front of the Myers home by some bizarre co-inky-dink especially since the Myers lived in a closed in cul-de-sac. The only logical conclusion, imo, is they saw the taillights of the green car as they chased after them making both EN&DA the total aggressors now and followed them right to the home. The Myers didn't even have time to get to safety inside their home. That is how quickly the murderer and driver had them hemmed in.

Between the time of the first location (cooling down period) and the second one EN and also DA had plenty time to reflect and could have as easily chosen to go to EN or DAs home. They both knew the green car was no longer following them and they both knew no one in the green car fired at them. But instead both deliberately decided they would chase the green car down and EN would shoot the occupants.

IMO

 

[BellaVita]

Wasn't it you who was telling people to make sure they read and are clear on the documents that we have been given?

Yup. But why not quote the relevant part of the testimony you are referring to? It would be helpful to know that. The jury will be examining transcripts and dissecting all what was said. If one juror says that EN did this or BM did that, the other jurors are going to carefully consider everything if they are doing their jobs. During deliberations there will likely be disagreements among them. If a juror wants to make a point and others disagree, that juror will have to turn to the admissible evidence to back his claim. Other jurors are not just going to agree with someone's abstract thoughts. They will want to examine the specific testimony and concrete evidence before drawing a conclusion.

 

[BellaVita]

So now he knows they are running from him trying to escape, and he deliberately decides to chase them. Iirc Brandon said he could tell they were following them.

IMO

It is not in the testimony that EN deliberately chased the Buick onto Shasta. I would also like to see the testimony by BM that you are referring to. Please do not go off of recollection alone. If you are on a jury deliberating, your fellow jurors would ask you for concrete evidence and testimony to explain your position. Not just opinions you may have. If you would quote and discuss the specific testimony that is guiding your thoughts it would be more useful.

 

[SStarr33]

Yup. But why not quote the relevant part of the testimony you are referring to? It would be helpful to know that. The jury will be examining transcripts and dissecting all what was said. If one juror says that EN did this or BM did that, the other jurors are going to carefully consider everything if they are doing their jobs. During deliberations there will likely be disagreements among them. If a juror wants to make a point and others disagree, that juror will have to turn to the admissible evidence to back his claim. Other jurors are not just going to agree with someone's abstract thoughts. They will want to examine the specific testimony and concrete evidence before drawing a conclusion.

I will use your words from the other day:

What is so hard about reading the documents? Sorry, I have cut and pasted so many times. The explanation is right there. It is up to the reader to decide what they think but the reason is stated in black and white.

 

[sonjay]

Imo, that will be the waterloo for EN and DA if he doesn't turn state evidence and testifies against EN.

EN had plenty of time to reflect once he first shot at the green car multiple times. At that time he had seen the car turn around and flee from him and DA. He had seen the following car did not want a confrontation with him. He even admitted they did not return fire. If so, a gun battle would have ensued at the first location. So now he knows they are running from him trying to escape, and he deliberately decides to chase them. Iirc Brandon said he could tell they were following them.

I find jurors are very logical in their thinking process. They aren't going to believe some elaborate fantasy that EN&DA just (oops-oh lucky day) happened to wind up right in front of the Myers home by some bizarre co-inky-dink especially since the Myers lived in a closed in cul-de-sac. The only logical conclusion, imo, is they saw the taillights of the green car as they chased after them making both EN&DA the total aggressors now and followed them right to the home. The Myers didn't even have time to get to safety inside their home. That is how quickly the murderer and driver had them hemmed in.

Between the time of the first location (cooling down period) and the second one EN and also DA had plenty time to reflect and could have as easily chosen to go to EN or DAs home. They both knew the green car was no longer following them and they both knew no one in the green car fired at them. But instead both deliberately decided they would chase the green car down and EN would shoot the occupants.

IMO

Bizarrely, the bizarre coinkydink is that TM & BM, who apparently went out to do a little road-raging themselves, just happened to chase the wrong car, and the wrong car that they just happened to chase was a car that their neighbor coinkydentally happened to be riding in -- their neighbor who coinkydentally lives just about 500 feet away from them. Now, that is a bizarre coinkydink!

Yep, jurors tend to be logical in their analysis, and they ain't a-gonna buy that coinkydink.

No, the jurors are going to see that the Meyerses set out with a gun that night to stalk, threaten, terrorize and chase EN, who wasn't bothering anybody. They'll also see that EN tried to flee, but the Meyerses wouldn't let him get away. And they'll see that after EN finally resorted to using his gun to drive off his pursuers, he was trying to get home, and the driver of his car, who doesn't live in that neighborhood, somehow turned onto Mt. Shasta instead of onto EN's street.