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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #801
How ironic.

One of my best friends (vegan, homeschooling mother of four, small business owner) just posted a photo of herself and her kids acting like "gangsters" - complete with tin-foil grills - to FB. :laughcry:
 
  • #802
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.

According to all the available evidence, yes, DA & EN turned into Mt. Shasta and EN shot at the people at the car and running to the house.

What I was taking exception to was the unsupported claim that DA & EN "both deliberately decided they would chase the green car down and EN would shoot the occupants."

There's a huge difference, legally, between a sudden, impulsive, rash decision to fire when you turn a corner and suddenly see the people who have been chasing you, vs. a deliberate decision to follow those people and shoot them.

I know of no evidence that DA & EN coolly and reflectively discussed any such decision.
 
  • #803
I know of no evidence that DA & EN coolly and reflectively discussed any such decision.

I'm not even aware of any evidence of them even discussing it recklessly/passionately. Even if EN was guilty of M1, I'm not seeing how the evidence so far shows that Andrews is actually guilty of anything. Andrews lives 7 miles away and this was around midnight, so it's not like we can assume he knows his way around. For all we know from the record so far EN could have tricked the driver to go there or alternatively the driver could have made the decision on his own to go there.
 
  • #804
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 🤬🤬🤬t out as I'm not doing anything to you intentionally.

Again BBM:

~ I did? "They' who? There was no "they" in my post in reference to premeditated murder.

~ It's not personal, just etiquette and it clarifies what the discussion is.

Websleuths Lingo;
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?268731-Websleuths-Lingo

:moo:
 
  • #805
According to all the available evidence, yes, DA & EN turned into Mt. Shasta and EN shot at the people at the car and running to the house.

What I was taking exception to was the unsupported claim that DA & EN "both deliberately decided they would chase the green car down and EN would shoot the occupants."

There's a huge difference, legally, between a sudden, impulsive, rash decision to fire when you turn a corner and suddenly see the people who have been chasing you, vs. a deliberate decision to follow those people and shoot them. know of no evidence that DA & EN coolly and reflectively discussed any such decision.

BBM
~ Legally? in what sense?
~ "when you turn the corner" You have made -
~ a deliberate decision to follow those people .

:cow:
 
  • #806
  • #807
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.

<snipped for focus>

I disagree completely.

There's almost no question — it's about 100% certain — that EN pulled the trigger and fired the shot that killed TM. There's nothing to discuss with respect to who killed her.

This case is entirely about what led up to that moment. Was it first-degree murder? 2nd-degree? Manslaughter? Self-defense? That decision hinges on everything that happened prior to the moment the fatal shot was fired.
 
  • #808
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.

The defense is going to poke holes no matter what, which is their job to do. From my point of view and from the evidence I've read from the police report and GJ Testimony, I would convict due to the Audi, and I don't really care how the Audi got on Mt. Shasta even if it was due to wrong turn, I would convict because EN admitted he fired shots at the people in the driveway/car/running. I can not go by EN assuming they went to get more weapons, there is no evidence that the Meyers were getting more weapons.

Some people here believe that EN/DA took Cherry River to get to Mt. Shasta due to the "video" that is out there, and if that proves true, they intentionally went to Mt. Shasta and it wasn't a wrong turn because EN knows how to get in and out of his housing track and Mt. Shasta isn't a way out. If they took the way I think they did, Alta towards Cimarron, passed Carmel Peak, u-turned (short cut) back to Carmel Peak and right on Mt. Shasta, then there "could" be a possible wrong turn by the driver, but IMO I don't believe it. I truly think, and I could be wrong because we all have our own interpretation of the GJ Transcript, that the Audi saw the Buick making a turn on Mt. Shasta while driving Alta towards Cimarron.

From GJ Transcript per Mogg:

he and the other male drove westbound on
Alta towards Cimarron. He said as he was driving
westbound with the other male, he says "No, this can't
be happening, this can't be happening." And he
describes how the car was coming, the green car the
victim was in, was coming down the street. And based on
my knowledge of the scene, the location of the victim's
residence, the location of his residence where he would
have been at approximately the time that the victim was
driving westbound on Cherry River, basically paralleling
him to try to get home, he would have seen that car
coming down from Cherry River onto Carmel Peak probably
prior to or just as it turned into the Mount Shasta
cul-de-sac.
 
  • #809
BBM
~ Legally? in what sense?
~ "when you turn the corner" You have made -
~ a deliberate decision to follow those people .

No, that's not necessarily true. First we need to know WHY you turned the corner.

Were you trying to get home?

Was your driver lost?

Did your driver misunderstand your directions?

Or did you, in fact, make a deliberate decision to follow those people?

Let's not draw conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence. Let's look at the evidence. Is there any evidence that EN deliberately had DA turn the corner so that EN could shoot those people? If so, I'd like to know what that evidence is. Then let's discuss it.
 
  • #810
The defense is going to poke holes no matter what, which is their job to do. From my point of view and from the evidence I've read from the police report and GJ Testimony, I would convict due to the Audi, and I don't really care how the Audi got on Mt. Shasta even if it was due to wrong turn, I would convict because EN admitted he fired shots at the people in the driveway/car/running. I can not go by EN assuming they went to get more weapons, there is no evidence that the Meyers were getting more weapons.

You would convict of what? First-degree murder? Second-degree? Voluntary manslaughter?
 
  • #811
I'm not even aware of any evidence of them even discussing it recklessly/passionately. Even if EN was guilty of M1, I'm not seeing how the evidence so far shows that Andrews is actually guilty of anything. Andrews lives 7 miles away and this was around midnight, so it's not like we can assume he knows his way around. For all we know from the record so far EN could have tricked the driver to go there or alternatively the driver could have made the decision on his own to go there.

I am confused.:confused: Are you saying you have never seen a co-conspirator be charged and found guilty of M1 when they were the driver and didn't actually shoot anyone when the passenger in the vehicle did?

Wasn't this dude 26 years old and a big guy? I don't think its going to fly if he tries to say EN (120 pounds) made him do it. He actually was the facilitator in order for this murder to happen and acted in tandem with EN so EN would have the opportunity to shoot the people in the green car.

Unless DAs attorney is lucky enough to get him a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against the shooter he is in a world of trouble legally. I think his lawyer has told him what to expect if he doesn't try to turn state's evidence.

Many co-conspirators (driver) have been found guilty of M1 along with the shooter(s) and some have been given the death penalty even though they weren't the ones who shot the victim or victims.

DA knew EN had a gun. DA knew he planned to use it. DA stopped so EN could fire repeatedly at the green car at the first shooting scene. DA came to the Myers home after then putting the car in a position where EN could fire at the victims from the passenger seat.

imo
 
  • #812
<snipped for focus>

I disagree completely.

There's almost no question — it's about 100% certain — that EN pulled the trigger and fired the shot that killed TM. There's nothing to discuss with respect to who killed her.

This case is entirely about what led up to that moment. Was it first-degree murder? 2nd-degree? Manslaughter? Self-defense? That decision hinges on everything that happened prior to the moment the fatal shot was fired.

~ what led up to that moment is that the other party were retreating and he was chasing and shooting after having time to GO HOME.
~ Was it 1st degree.. I don't know, here is a document LINK we could start with.
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2005/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec020

~ entirely false. As long as there was no threat to him when he fired, he has no defense for firing his (legal?) weapon.

:cow:
 
  • #813
You would convict of what? First-degree murder? Second-degree? Voluntary manslaughter?


That I can not answer at this time, I would have to hear/see more evidence. I certainly, in this case, would not want the death penalty but I'm not going to let then walk either. :jail:
 
  • #814
  • #815
Just because somebody might have poor judgment, doesn't give somebody else a right to kill them. These people were in their own driveway trying to hide or run away when Tammy was shot to death.
The only reason they were trying to run away and hide is because they armed themselves, chased someone while possibly waving a gun at them, and then led them straight to their door. They were trying to run away and hide from the conflict that they started!
IMO
 
  • #816
BBM
~ Legally? in what sense?
~ "when you turn the corner" You have made -
~ a deliberate decision to follow those people .

:cow:

In the state of Nevada under charges of M1 'deliberate' has a very specific legal meaning and is not for instance synonymous with 'intentionally.' In Nevada this lays out all the elements of M1 and the underling definitions of each element, BBM:
In sum, the Kazalyn instruction and Powell and its progeny do not do full justice to the phrase "willful, deliberate, and premeditated." 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." Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 539; see also LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law § 7.7(a), at 643.

Because deliberation is a distinct element of mens rea for first-degree murder, we direct the district courts to cease instructing juries that a killing resulting from premeditation is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder." Further, if a jury is instructed separately on the meaning of premeditation, it should also be instructed on the meaning of deliberation.[3]

Accordingly, we set forth the following instructions for use by the district courts in cases where defendants are charged with first-degree murder based on willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
Murder of the first degree is murder which is perpetrated by means of any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. 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.[4] Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killing. Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour, or even a minute. It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. For if the jury believes from the evidence that the act constituting the killing has been preceded by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the act follows the premeditation, it is premeditated. The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to *715 kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances. The true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection. A cold, calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time, but a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not deliberation and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of the first degree.
http://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2000/32207-1.html
Under M1 I'm not sure that there's willfulness - intending specifically to kill - rather than not caring if he killed or wounded (but I could see a jury saying that he did based on the number of rounds he may have fired); nor do I think there was deliberation under the M1 meaning of the word in that given the circumstances I just don't believe anyone short of perhaps a cop or combat soldier would be mentally capable of coolness and reflection in that length of time and this is my biggest sticking point on M1. I'm also not seeing that it was premeditated in the M1 definition with this being part of some plan rather than spontaneous.
 
  • #817
~ what led up to that moment is that the other party were retreating and he was chasing and shooting after having time to GO HOME.
~ Was it 1st degree.. I don't know, here is a document LINK we could start with.
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2005/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec020

~ entirely false. As long as there was no threat to him when he fired, he has no defense for firing his (legal?) weapon.

:cow:

And they certainly were no threat to EN at all at the time of the murder.

Both, EN&DA are guilty of M1, imo.
 
  • #818
I am confused.:confused: Are you saying you have never seen a co-conspirator be charged and found guilty of M1 when they were the driver and didn't actually shoot anyone when the passenger in the vehicle did?

Wasn't this dude 26 years old and a big guy? I don't think its going to fly if he tries to say EN (120 pounds) made him do it. He actually was the facilitator in order for this murder to happen and acted in tandem with EN so EN would have the opportunity to shoot the people in the green car.

Unless DAs attorney is lucky enough to get him a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against the shooter he is in a world of trouble legally. I think his lawyer has told him what to expect if he doesn't try to turn state's evidence.

Many co-conspirators (driver) have been found guilty of M1 along with the shooter(s) and some have been given the death penalty even though they weren't the ones who shot the victim or victims.

DA knew EN had a gun. DA knew he planned to use it. DA stopped so EN could fire repeatedly at the green car at the first shooting scene. DA came to the Myers home after then putting the car in a position where EN could fire at the victims from the passenger seat.

imo


I agree with your post OceanB :) Also I'm sure EN and DA communicated in the car and I'm almost sure DA knew EN had a loaded gun with him. DA also stopped the car on the 1st shooting and allowed EN to fire off his weapon in a residential area. DA also knew, and positioned his car just so once in the cul-de-sac so EN could fire off more shots.
 
  • #819
That I can not answer at this time, I would have to hear/see more evidence. I certainly, in this case, would not want the death penalty but I'm not going to let then walk either. :jail:

That's fair enough. I'm glad to see that you're willing to wait for more evidence before simply deciding it was first-degree murder. Some people are dead-set on first-degree without even hearing or seeing all of the evidence.

Myself, I can't see first-degree murder. 2nd? Maybe. Or maybe manslaughter. Or maybe even self-defense, depending on what the evidence shows at trial.

I'm pretty sure they won't go for the death penalty. I don't think they can get a conviction on M1 even if the DP isn't on the table; if DP is a possible sentence, I don't see how they could possibly get a conviction.
 
  • #820
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
2,134
Total visitors
2,226

Forum statistics

Threads
632,707
Messages
18,630,768
Members
243,265
Latest member
SavageJusticeForAll
Back
Top