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

[SpanishInquisition]

Q. Now about Mr. Nowsch's behavior after the
first shooting and the observations that he made of the
green car leaving the area. Was it Mr. Nowsch's
position in his interview with you that he was concerned
about his family's safety?
A. Yes.
Q. Yet he describes that he doesn't go home to
protect his sister and his mother; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q.He goes to the Mount Shasta location and
follows the green car and comes in relatively closely
behind it?
A. That's correct.
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166...0515Nowsch.pdf

Yet the CCTV footage shows EN did go by his home and as Mogg had testified he gave directions from EN how to get there. So if the Audi was following Buick, that would mean that the Buick had been by EN's home going eastbound or Cherry River rather than having headed to Mt Shasta first for the Buick to be physically able to follow it.

 

[PaperDoll]

Please provide a cite to any portion of any official document that supports your claim that DA & EN "both deliberately decided they would chase the green car down and EN would shoot the occupants."

Ok call me confused again but isn't that what happened? Wasn't the Audi on Mt. Shasta shooting at the Buick/person running towards house from Buick? Didn't EN own testimony to Mogg give a bit of detail on how they turned a bit and EN shot off 22 rounds? I mean that is why were are all here talking about this isn't it? Someone was killed and EN killed that person who lives on Mt. Shasta.

 

[PaperDoll]

There is no testimony from KM regarding whether she noticed any vehicles near the school/park. Here is the only testimony from GJ that I think really applies here:
At that point he called two
friends whom he refused to identify to me and asked them
to come and assist him.
At one point he said that he
was actually waiting in the park and didn't want to get
into one of his friends' vehicles until the green car
had left the area. Eventually the green car leaves the
area. He said he got into the vehicle with a friend of
his whom he described as a white male. He was sitting,
Nowsch was sitting in the front passenger seat, the
other male was the driver, and he describes the car as a
cream colored four door vehicle.

Oddly, it is rather ambiguous and almost suggests that two cars did in fact show up when summoned to the park by EN. Did the M's know /see that EN was in one of the cars? IDK for sure. I think I need to read the GJ docs again and review everyone's stories. The idea that there may actually have been two cars showing up at that park is something briefly discussed here but may merit more thought. WAS there a cream colored car AND a silver Audi? It would seem that way from EN's account but LVDA did not delve into that.

I understand what you are saying, it can get confusing :crazy: But most people who were testifying either on the police report or the GJ report, claims silver Audi/car, not creamed colored. EN is the only one IIRC saying cream colored. Maybe that was the car he used when he switched cars after the shootings??????

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Didn't EN own testimony to Mogg give a bit of detail on how they turned a bit and EN shot off 22 rounds?

EN's own testimony per Mogg was that he told Andrews about a left turn to get his own home. EN's testimony per Mogg does not have him say about taking any turns to get to Mt Shasta. Neither K, nor A nor Mogg say anywhere about EN directing any kinds of turns to be made aside from a left turn to get to EN's own home. There is of course dispute as to what his intent was and what he really did, but as far as what Mogg testified that EN said per your question, it was not about making any turns having to do with the Meyers.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I understand what you are saying, it can get confusing :crazy: But most people who were testifying either on the police report or the GJ report, claims silver Audi/car, not creamed colored. EN is the only one IIRC saying cream colored. Maybe that was the car he used when he switched cars after the shootings??????

Or maybe he decided to make up the story about the cream colored car to throw LE off when they hunted for the additional suspect. Ya know the one he refused to give up his name.

I would think he would be more honest with his close friend about the color of the car rather than a detective who was trying to locate the second suspect he refused to identify.

 

[Steleheart]

The crime on the table is less about what happened before a bullet entered TM's head and killed her, but what happened at that instant. The trigger was squeezed, the .45 bullet left the barrel at somewhere around a muzzle velocity of 840 Feet Per Second (fps) and with a muzzle energy of around 365 Foot-Pounds. (ft-lb) That kind of punch is deadly. In the head, BTW.

I can't take my bullet back. When it leaves my barrel it is following my intent. So if there is any opportunity to not engage in that risk, then I have a responsibility to re-think my situation. EN had that chance and made a conscious choice to act otherwise.

This comes from my general knowledge and understanding so link here; http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?107203-Steleheart

IMO (meaning in my opinion), EN had enough time to just go home the same as the Meyers did. But he chose different and that is why he is charged with Murder.

When the deceased retreated there was no aggression on their part at that time, in fact it can be shown that they were running away and looking for cover. At that moment it makes no difference what they did before retreating, not the day before, the hours or the minutes. Makes no difference if they intended to confront, reason, be armed for safety, spit, swear or even shoot him.

It didn't happen and they went home. Gun jammed, change of heart, fear, the realization this punk is looking for blood. None of that matters as to when EN squeezed his trigger after the Meyers went home.

Is what led up to this confrontation important? Absolutely, especially in framing the intent of the accused.. Yes. But by itself It does not indict, convict, or make responsible the unarmed Woman shot dead in her yard, regardless of the actions beforehand. She was not a threat at the time she was shot.

En was known to the Meyer's. He knew exactly who they were and knew their car.;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/erich-milton-nowsch-jr_n_6742774.html
<snip>
"Meyers said that at least once, Tammy Meyers gave the teen $20 when he said he was hungry. Meyers also recalled Nowsch earning pocket money washing cars outside the Meyers family home."

IMO He knew who they were and knew that car intimately. {someone} threatened her and her daughter's lives;

"Kristal Meyers testified that after her mother gave her a 50-minute driving lesson in a green Buick, another driver swerved around their car, got out of his silver sedan and threatened them.
&#8220;I&#8217;m going to kill you and your daughter,&#8221; the man said.
But that man was not Nowsch, she said, describing a man who was 6 feet tall and 180 pounds. That person has not been identified, and it is not clear whether authorities are searching for him. Nowsch is 5-foot, 4-inches tall and weighs about 120 pounds.
I&#8217;m screaming &#8216;mommy, mommy, mommy, go,&#8217;&#8221; she testified"

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...rt-tells-story-about-night-tammy-meyers-death

At the time that EN came down the street shooting, it makes no difference if he was driving and shooting, or telling a driver where to go. He was firing a gun. It was not in self defense obviously. IMO that only leaves "Premeditated Murder". Did he think he was going to tickle someone wit his .45 bullets? No he went there to kill them.

He bragged afterward that he fired off 22 rounds at them;

<snip>
"The green car fled, Nowsch said, and he and his friend followed it. Nowsch said that when the green car stopped at a house, he began firing at it and at someone who was running into the home.
Nowsch told his friends he fired 22 rounds, according to the report. He never told them that shots were fired at him."

Read more: http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/2816...-pointed-at-him-before-he-fired#ixzz3VJrqgJu9


IMO at the time EN's bullet entered TM's head, EN had accomplished what he set out to do. KILL. If it was a neighbor killed by a stray bullet, then I could argue involuntary manslaughter.

But this is Premeditated Murder all day long IMO.

Whether I think they (EN/TM) should have phoned 911 makes no difference when the shooter had another choice. Regardless of what transpired before, EN chose to chase and kill. That is what he did.
Driving lesson? n/a. Previous drug deals? n/a. TM didn't call 911 n/a. TM left and got to her home and was killed? MOST applicable, IMO.

A mother was told "I&#8217;m going to kill you and your daughter,&#8221; OMG the emotions, However, IMO, over the course of events, the shooter had a choice before he even went down that cul-de-sac .

:cow:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

EN's own testimony per Mogg was that he told Andrews about a left turn to get his own home. EN's testimony per Mogg does not have him say about taking any turns to get to Mt Shasta. Neither K, nor A nor Mogg say anywhere about EN directing any kinds of turns to be made aside from a left turn to get to EN's own home. There is of course dispute as to what his intent was and what he really did, but as far as what Mogg testified that EN said per your question, it was not about making any turns having to do with the Meyers.

I noticed in the GJ testimony that EN must have drawn a map per Mogg's testimony. The detective probably had him draw out the entire scene from beginning to end in detail.

Things will become much clearer at trial about exactly what EN said because I don't have any doubt ENs statement/interview to police was recorded.

The detective just does a quick summary in the GJ since it is just to show enough probable cause exists for an indictment.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The crime on the table is less about what happened before a bullet entered TM's head and killed her, but what happened at that instant. The trigger was squeezed, the .45 bullet left the barrel at somewhere around a muzzle velocity of 840 Feet Per Second (fps) and with a muzzle energy of around 365 Foot-Pounds. (ft-lb) That kind of punch is deadly. In the head, BTW.

I can't take my bullet back. When it leaves my barrel it is following my intent. So if there is any opportunity to not engage in that risk, then I have a responsibility to re-think my situation. EN had that chance and made a conscious choice to act otherwise.

This comes from my general knowledge and understanding so link here; http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?107203-Steleheart

IMO (meaning in my opinion), EN had enough time to just go home the same as the Meyers did. But he chose different and that is why he is charged with Murder.

When the deceased retreated there was no aggression on their part at that time, in fact it can be shown that they were running away and looking for cover. At that moment it makes no difference what they did before retreating, not the day before, the hours or the minutes. Makes no difference if they intended to confront, reason, be armed for safety, spit, swear or even shoot him.

It didn't happen and they went home. Gun jammed, change of heart, fear, the realization this punk is looking for blood. None of that matters as to when EN squeezed his trigger after the Meyers went home.

Is what led up to this confrontation important? Absolutely, especially in framing the intent of the accused.. Yes. But by itself It does not indict, convict, or make responsible the unarmed Woman shot dead in her yard, regardless of the actions beforehand. She was not a threat at the time she was shot.

En was known to the Meyer's. He knew exactly who they were and knew their car.;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/erich-milton-nowsch-jr_n_6742774.html
<snip>
"Meyers said that at least once, Tammy Meyers gave the teen $20 when he said he was hungry. Meyers also recalled Nowsch earning pocket money washing cars outside the Meyers family home."

IMO He knew who they were and knew that car intimately. {someone} threatened her and her daughter's lives;

"Kristal Meyers testified that after her mother gave her a 50-minute driving lesson in a green Buick, another driver swerved around their car, got out of his silver sedan and threatened them.
“I’m going to kill you and your daughter,” the man said.
But that man was not Nowsch, she said, describing a man who was 6 feet tall and 180 pounds. That person has not been identified, and it is not clear whether authorities are searching for him. Nowsch is 5-foot, 4-inches tall and weighs about 120 pounds.
I’m screaming ‘mommy, mommy, mommy, go,’” she testified"

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...rt-tells-story-about-night-tammy-meyers-death

At the time that EN came down the street shooting, it makes no difference if he was driving and shooting, or telling a driver where to go. He was firing a gun. It was not in self defense obviously. IMO that only leaves "Premeditated Murder". Did he think he was going to tickle someone wit his .45 bullets? No he went there to kill them.

He bragged afterward that he fired off 22 rounds at them;

<snip>
"The green car fled, Nowsch said, and he and his friend followed it. Nowsch said that when the green car stopped at a house, he began firing at it and at someone who was running into the home.
Nowsch told his friends he fired 22 rounds, according to the report. He never told them that shots were fired at him."

Read more: http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/2816...-pointed-at-him-before-he-fired#ixzz3VJrqgJu9


IMO at the time EN's bullet entered TM's head, EN had accomplished what he set out to do. KILL. If it was a neighbor killed by a stray bullet, then I could argue involuntary manslaughter.

But this is Premeditated Murder all day long IMO.

Whether I think they (EN/TM) should have phoned 911 makes no difference when the shooter had another choice. Regardless of what transpired before, EN chose to chase and kill. That is what he did.
Driving lesson? n/a. Previous drug deals? n/a. TM didn't call 911 n/a. TM left and got to her home and was killed? MOST applicable, IMO.

A mother was told "I’m going to kill you and your daughter,” OMG the emotions, However, IMO, over the course of events, the shooter had a choice before he even went down that cul-de-sac .

:cow:

Post of the DAY! Excellent! (((Applaud)))))

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The crime on the table is less about what happened before a bullet entered TM's head and killed her, but what happened at that instant.

But as far as what level of guilt someone has it has everything to do with what happened beforehand. This is why there are distinctions between M1, M2 and Manslaughter. If you had thought someone just threatened you with a gun and chased you in their armed car less than a minute ago can you honestly say that in that time you would have had enough time to collect yourself to engage in cool reflection? I'm not saying you couldn't do something highly illegal in that time span, just I don't see how you or anyone else would have the ability to have composed yourself enough for cool reflection and if they killed someone during that minute it would fall under M2/Manslaughter.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I noticed in the GJ testimony that EN must have drawn a map per Mogg's testimony. The detective probably had him draw out the entire scene from beginning to end in detail.

Things will become much clearer at trial about exactly what EN said because I don't have any doubt ENs statement/interview to police was recorded.

The detective just does a quick summary in the GJ since it is just to show enough probable cause exists for an indictment.

Yes, I was answering a specific question as far was what had been stated in the GJ testimony and I think we'll find out a lot more things once things get rolling.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

But as far as what level of guilt someone has it has everything to do with what happened beforehand. This is why there are distinctions between M1, M2 and Manslaughter. If you had thought someone just threatened you with a gun and chased you in their armed car less than a minute ago can you honestly say that in that time you would have had enough time to collect yourself to engage in cool reflection? I'm not saying you couldn't do something highly illegal in that time span, just I don't see how you or anyone else would have the ability to have composed yourself enough for cool reflection and if they killed someone during that minute it would fall under M2/Manslaughter.

I really think it is obvious that he could have returned to his own home just like the Myers tried to do before being shot at when they arrived home. If they had time to reflect so did he but by his own admission he was out to kill the people in the green car so he had no intentions of going home or calling off the chase.

IMO

 

[PaperDoll]

Thank you to the kind folks with warm welcomes. I appreciate it.



With what? Paper cuts? Silly faces? There are no weapons in that photo. Just a kid showing off. (From all accounts, a troubled one. Probably trying to look tough.) For all we know it could be a hundred wrapped around a wad of ones. It's taken from an angle that projects a certain image. (I use it for men's headshots to project a "power stance".) Plenty of people goof around like that too. Kids with tin foil on their teeth and whatnot.

I don't judge a person's entire character by a single photo on FB or hearsay from random neighbors who may have their own agenda (towards someone who is allegedly bullied, no less...go figure...).

Sorry. If one were to judge me only by my FB profile photos, I could be construed as a 16th century French Lady, a 2018 dominatrix, a 1950s house wife, a bad version of Hamlet, a vampire, a soccer coach, an equestrian, a baker, a mom, and about a hundred other things - all the way up to a little old man (me in professional stage make-up).

The Ms have plenty of photos of their own that could be poorly interpreted. I prefer actual evidence of some sort.

It's great to have you join us, Meddlesome Kid, the more the merrier, I think? lol

Ok, I agree with your post. I always thought EN looked like a kid trying to fit in/show off be excepted. However, with that said, IMO no matter how troubled he is, he shot and killed a woman who was in her own driveway, who fled the 1st shooting scene. No shots from the Meyers were fired at the 1st shooting scene whether they were the aggressor's or not, they fled and went home. EN, for whatever reason was on Mt. Shasta, not at his home on Cherry River, but Mt. Shasta with a loaded gun firing off 22 rounds in a neighborhood were some innocent bystander could have been shot and killed due to flying bullets.

 

[PaperDoll]

EN's own testimony per Mogg was that he told Andrews about a left turn to get his own home. EN's testimony per Mogg does not have him say about taking any turns to get to Mt Shasta. Neither K, nor A nor Mogg say anywhere about EN directing any kinds of turns to be made aside from a left turn to get to EN's own home. There is of course dispute as to what his intent was and what he really did, but as far as what Mogg testified that EN said per your question, it was not about making any turns having to do with the Meyers.

But that is where the Audi ended up, am I correct? Does it really matter how they got on that street? They were on a street which happens to be the same street the Buick/Meyers live on and shots were fired from EN at the Buick/house. Per EN testimony he said no shots were fired at him but he admits to firing off 22 rounds. No one came out of the house with all these weapons that EN thought they were going for because he said no one fired at him. IMO the Meyers had enough and wanted to make it in the house safely and maybe this time actually call 911, who knows? I do know that EN shot and killed a woman in her own driveway.

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

But as far as what level of guilt someone has it has everything to do with what happened beforehand. This is why there are distinctions between M1, M2 and Manslaughter. If you had thought someone just threatened you with a gun and chased you in their armed car less than a minute ago can you honestly say that in that time you would have had enough time to collect yourself to engage in cool reflection? I'm not saying you couldn't do something highly illegal in that time span, just I don't see how you or anyone else would have the ability to have composed yourself enough for cool reflection and if they killed someone during that minute it would fall under M2/Manslaughter.

I would also contend that a good lawyer could argue that because EN saw "HEADS" in the car (which he could have thought were also armed), he was "trapped" and in a panicked state, and did not hit the person "running to get more weapon"; but fired rather wildly and INSTEAD hit one of the (possibly armed) heads at the car (now out of the car and possibly getting ready to confront him) that his thoughts AT THE TIME were about self-defense and not pre-meditated murder.

As to the bravado afterwards, his bragging that he "got those kids"...seems like the (IMO, dumb, overly macho, immature, Hollywood-style) response one would have after eliminating a THREAT...and there is similar hearsay about that same bravado becoming sorrow and contriteness after learning WHO it actually was. JMHO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

If they had time to reflect so did he but by his own admission he was out to kill the people in the green car so he had no intentions of going home or calling off the chase.

I'm not sure what you mean by if the Meyers had time to reflect so did he. Per the Meyers after the road rage there was the time to drive back home, TM talk to KM, KM to go in and talk to BM, BM to get armed, BM to talk to TM and for them to then drive around until eventually running into the Audi, which would have taken at least 10 minutes from the time of the alleged death threat and even with that I have no said it was necessarily enough time for the Meyers to coolly reflect, just that if either of the groups did have the time for them to achieve that mental state after a perceived provocation it was the Meyers compared to the Audi who had about 1/10th that length of time. I'm not saying what EN did was justifiable, just as far as what the level of guilt is given how we are talking about seconds rather than minutes from a preceding provocative act.

 

[Steleheart]

I'm saying you do something highly illegal in that time span, just I don't see how you or anyone else would have the ability to have composed yourself r.

BBM, RSBM;


Aww. I would have hoped that you had read the whole post, or at least that you respectively snipped it for a specific reason and noting what you eliminated?

My snipping and eliminating your whole post here makes no sense, does it.


Just MY cow :cow:

 

[PaperDoll]

I would also contend that a good lawyer could argue that because EN saw "HEADS" in the car (which he could have thought were also armed), he was "trapped" and in a panicked state, and did not hit the person "running to get more weapon"; but fired rather wildly and INSTEAD hit one of the (possibly armed) heads at the car (now out of the car and possibly getting ready to confront him) that his thoughts AT THE TIME were about self-defense and not pre-meditated murder.

As to the bravado afterwards, his bragging that he "got those kids"...seems like the (IMO, dumb, overly macho, immature, Hollywood-style) response one would have after eliminating a THREAT...and there is similar hearsay about that same bravado becoming sorrow and contriteness after learning WHO it actually was. JMHO.

If EN thought they were going to get more weapons, then the Audi could have backed up and fled the scene, Mt. Shasta is a small cul-de-sac and if he saw a person running towards the house, well that says to me the person is trying to get out of danger because they were shot at during the 1st shooting scene and the "heads" in the car wouldn't have much time to get out and start taking shots at the Audi. The Audi didn't need to go looking for the Buick once it fled and when they spotted it on Mt. Shasta, they could have fled not start shooting. MOO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

But that is where the Audi ended up, am I correct? Does it really matter how they got on that street?

Legally speaking yes it matters a great deal as the circumstances surrounding that can be the difference between M1/M2/Voluntary Manslaughter and even theoretically outright Acquittal. Not that I think that is case but for purposes of demonstration, if Andrews misunderstood EN and took the wrong turn rather than either of them intending to go on Mt Shasta for any reason that would put it strongly on VM for EN (and outright Acquittal for Andrews) with the odds of Acquittal also going up. While on the other end of the spectrum if EN and Andrews had discussed it amongst themselves that they really wanted to get that Buick out of revenge and the EN knew where the Meyers lived and EN said where they lived and Andrews said he'd drive in the cul-de-sac in a special way for EN to shoot then you'd probably get nothing less than M2 (I'd give low odds to any less than that) where the deciding factor between that and M1 would be if the jury though the Audi had time to coolly reflect with Manslaughter never even coming up jury deliberations.

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

If EN thought they were going to get more weapons, then the Audi could have backed up and fled the scene, Mt. Shasta is a small cul-de-sac and if he saw a person running towards the house, well that says to me the person is trying to get out of danger because they were shot at during the 1st shooting scene and the "heads" in the car wouldn't have much time to get out and start taking shots at the Audi. The Audi didn't need to go looking for the Buick once it fled and when they spotted it on Mt. Shasta, they could have fled not start shooting. MOO

EN did not have control of the car. His atty can argue that he felt "trapped" in the "small cul-de-sac" with possibly armed multiple aggressors.

If the heads didn't have much time, neither did EN. TM must have exited the vehicle at some point AFTER the Audi was well into the cul-de-sac which could easily have been seen, especially in a panicked state, as aggressive or threatening. SHE could have been seen as the most dire threat and is the one he hit - not the person running towards the house to possibly get reinforcements. It's not like EN and DA sat around waiting for a gun battle or showdown or entered the house for a massacre (or ambush) after the volley that killed TM. They fled. Again.

Where is the evidence that they were "looking for the Buick"? It *could* have been the result of a wrong turn as has been discussed here many times. I am simply trying to think of the arguments a good defense lawyer would put forth to a jury to raise a "reasonable doubt" about a client's level guilt in such a serious charge.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM, RSBM;


Aww. I would have hoped that you had read the whole post, or at least that you respectively snipped it for a specific reason and noting what you eliminated?

My snipping and eliminating your whole post here makes no sense, does it.

I had read the whole post. You said you thought they committed premeditated murder. This is the first I've heard anyone expecting an explanation for why a portions of their posts weren't included in the reply and whatever it is I am or am not doing, you'll see that I'm doing it to everyone rather than singling you out or that post out as I'm not doing anything to you intentionally.