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

[kimi_SFC]

I have too much cognitive dissonance about this case.

I too have trouble supporting full acquittal. EN pulled the trigger; he fired the shot that killed TM.

But at the same time, I see the Meyerses as bearing more of the responsibility for what happened than EN does. The Meyerses went out looking for trouble that night; EN took steps to avoid trouble. EN did nothing wrong except as a response to what the Meyerses started.

The jury can't convict EN of 30% of the blame and BM et al for 70%. It doesn't work that way. (Even if BM et al were charged, which they're not.) I get that; I know it doesn't work that way. But I have a lot of trouble with sending EN to prison and letting BM et al off scot free for something that was more their fault than his.

I have a couple of dogs that didn't get along at first. One of them would snap at the other; the other one would ignore it as long as she could, but finally she would defend herself against the first one. She's bigger than the first one, and she could do a lot of damage. She wouldn't start it, but when she was no longer willing to take it, she was ready, willing and able to finish it.

Thing is, I never blamed the second one for being ready to finish it. The first one, the one that started it, was to blame.

The Meyerses are the first dog here. EN is the second. He didn't start it, but he was the one that finished it.

Very well said.
I'm reminded of the saying, "Don't want none, won't be none."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in front of a jury, should it get that far.

:moo:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

Do we know anything about the trajectory of the bullet that hit TM? Do we know exactly where BM was and what he was doing when the fatal shot was fired? I haven't pored over the documents as thoroughly as others have, but is there definitive proof that EN was aiming directly for the back of TM's head as she fled? Or is it possible that EN was aiming at someone who had a gun pointed at him, and the bullet ricocheted and hit TM?

I am usually a very pro-LE, pro-prosecution type person, but I find it very troubling that the Meyers were the initial aggressors.
JMO

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Many eons ago, from about 6th grade through about my second year of college, I wanted to be a lawyer. A prosecutor, to be specific. My mother-in-law was a prosecutor (in Miami-Dade, during the height of the Miami Vice drug-running days). I too am usually pro-LE, pro-prosecution.

But I have a lot of trouble with how the Meyerses have behaved. From their original aggression to their numerous lies and deceptions. It just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[sonjay]

So, do tell, you who seem to have so many of the answers,

Where is the silver Audi?

They have the suspected shooter, the suspected "getaway driver, and both of their cellphone records, so where is this legendary silver sedan - with or without tinted windows?

For that matter, it would be helpful if LE bothered to locate road rager #1 (or road rager #2 or higher if we are to go by Brandon's story) so that he could testify as to Tammy's demeanor and actions. I doubt he would be charged with any crime. It was national news for the 1st week or so. Surely he realized that was the same car and woman and daughter who honked at him and all.

Wait. Who was the one who said "I'm going to kill you & your daughter?" The 1st silver car or the 2nd silver car? I thought that info came from KM originally. Said the driver knew KM was TM's daughter because she was screaming "Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!" the whole time they had their face-to-face encounter with Road Rage Dude.

Good questions all.

But wait, there's more...

When RM said that the family knew the road rager was EN and that he knew where they lived and that was why TM took BM and his gun back out that night..... What was that about? The road rager (if there even was one) wasn't EN. And wasn't DA.

They had no reason to think that the spiky-haired dude was EN.

And if the spiky-haired road-rager dude wasn't EN, why would they have been worried that he knew where they lived?

 

[PaperDoll]

When you turn the corner solely as a function of getting where you want to go next, it is not a deliberate decision to follow someone.

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

The Audi was already in the process of turning around and leaving when the Buick was spotted. IMO.

How do you know the Audi was in the process of turning around to leave? Where does EN say he was leaving? What I read is he "his vehicle kind of turns sideways..he sees the victims vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac" after that he is leaning out the window/door firing away. In order to get a good shot, he most likely would have to turn the car sideways because he is the passenger and the Meyers house isn't on the passengers side, it's on the drivers side. Again, JMO!

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

How do you know the Audi was in the process of turning around to leave? Where does EN say he was leaving? What I read is he "his vehicle kind of turns sideways..he sees the victims vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac" after that he is leaning out the window/door firing away. In order to get a good shot, he most likely would have to turn the car sideways because he is the passenger and the Meyers house isn't on the passengers side, it's on the drivers side. Again, JMO!

If the car turned in the cul-de-sac like a normal car would, EN would have been on the M's side as they were LEAVING. Which would have also meant his side of the vehicle was exposed to any attack coming from the direction their property. This is why I said that if TM were exiting the vehicle at that same time, it could have been perceived as a threat.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Good questions all.

But wait, there's more...
When RM said that the family knew the road rager was EN and that he knew where they lived and that was why TM took BM and his gun back out that night..... What was that about? The road rager (if there even was one) wasn't EN. And wasn't DA.
They had no reason to think that the spiky-haired dude was EN.
And if the spiky-haired road-rager dude wasn't EN, why would they have been worried that he knew where they lived?

The initial story with BM leaving the house was because KM thought she saw the silver car drive by when they arrived on Mt Shasta per the complaint and then afterwards they said they knew it was EN, but I don't remember - which doesn't mean it didn't happen - them saying they went out because they knew the driver. There also had been different version as to why they went out, like one of the versions was that it wasn't to look for the car but rather to park the car away from their home.

 

[PaperDoll]

If the car turned in the cul-de-sac like a normal car would, EN would have been on the M's side as they were LEAVING. Which would have also meant his side of the vehicle was exposed to any attack coming from the direction their property. This is why I said that if TM were exiting the vehicle at that same time, it could have been perceived as a threat.

If the Meyers wanted to shoot and kill, they would have also shot at the driver and not just the passenger no matter what angle the car was in. They would, IMO, fired shots when they saw the Audi coming into the cul-de-sac but I believe they didn't have time to. EN said no one fired shots at him which tells me he is the first person to shoot at both locations. Was there really a threat to the Audi on Mt. Shasta if no shots were fired at the 1st location. I would think if the Buick really wanted to take shots, they would have not fled the 1st location but would have went after the Audi but they didn't; they went home.

 

[sonjay]

If the Meyers wanted to shoot and kill, they would have also shot at the driver and not just the passenger no matter what angle the car was in. They would, IMO, fired shots when they saw the Audi coming into the cul-de-sac but I believe they didn't have time to. EN said no one fired shots at him which tells me he is the first person to shoot at both locations. Was there really a threat to the Audi on Mt. Shasta if no shots were fired at the 1st location. I would think if the Buick really wanted to take shots, they would have not fled the 1st location but would have went after the Audi but they didn't; they went home.

BM deliberately took his gun and went out with his mother hunting for ...... whatever the story du jour is. I'm pretty sure they weren't intending to bring tea and scones to the Audi. It's a very reasonable assumption that they had some sort of malicious intent when they set out that night.

I don't think BM was necessarily reluctant to shoot; rather, I think he was surprised that the guy in the Audi also had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. When EN fired at the first shooting, the Meyerses panicked, because they thought they were the only ones who brought a gun to the fight that night. No evidence, no link, JMO. IMO, JMO, MOO and all that jazz.

BM learned this lesson: Don't bring a 9mm to a .45 shootout.

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

If the Meyers wanted to shoot and kill, they would have also shot at the driver and not just the passenger no matter what angle the car was in. They would, IMO, fired shots when they saw the Audi coming into the cul-de-sac but I believe they didn't have time to. EN said no one fired shots at him which tells me he is the first person to shoot at both locations. Was there really a threat to the Audi on Mt. Shasta if no shots were fired at the 1st location. I would think if the Buick really wanted to take shots, they would have not fled the 1st location but would have went after the Audi but they didn't; they went home.

Depends on how long it was before they realized what vehicle it was (I understand it is a short street) and where they were...one cannot shoot very well behind yourself while seated in a car.

Also, waving a gun at all is considered threatening, and I do believe BM was the first to do that. Who is to say EN didn't think someone was aiming at him from somewhere? Did TM or BM have anything in their hands at the time he fired his weapon. These details make all the difference in what a jury may think. they certainly do for me.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BM deliberately took his gun and went out with his mother hunting for ...... whatever the story du jour is. I'm pretty sure they weren't intending to bring tea and scones to the Audi. It's a very reasonable assumption that they had some sort of malicious intent when they set out that night.

I don't think BM was necessarily reluctant to shoot; rather, I think he was surprised that the guy in the Audi also had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. When EN fired at the first shooting, the Meyerses panicked, because they thought they were the only ones who brought a gun to the fight that night. No evidence, no link, JMO. IMO, JMO, MOO and all that jazz.

BM learned this lesson: Don't bring a 9mm to a .45 shootout.

Yes, what exactly did BM think was going to happen when they confronted someone who just gave them a death threat. This kind of explains things and it doesn't:

"The reason I didn’t know this story is, for one, it wasn’t explained to me," Robert Meyers said. "It was explained to me one way. And that’s how I told it. Until we started getting all the information and all the facts came out, that’s how I have knowledge of all this. My son was very hurt, thinking I was going to blame him for his mom going down, and he didn’t come forward with all the things."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/road-rage-husband-details-story-shifted/story?id=29172065
Also the stories told LE and RM would have taken coordination by at least BM and KM. If RM travels a lot for work, there may be a whole bunch of things he hasn't been told...and still hasn't been told. If they'll deliberately lie about Brandon running outside with his gun and let their dad lie to the media (including costing them at least $6K), they could deliberately lie about a any number of other things and seeing how they'll let their dad repeatedly lie to media their stated reason for the lies might itself not be true.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Depends on how long it was before they realized what vehicle it was (I understand it is a short street) and where they were...one cannot shoot very well behind yourself while seated in a car.

Also, waving a gun at all is considered threatening, and I do believe BM was the first to do that. Who is to say EN didn't think someone was aiming at him from somewhere? Did TM or BM have anything in their hands at the time he fired his weapon. These details make all the difference in what a jury may think. they certainly do for me.

As far as acquittal goes, it wouldn't matter what the Meyers were doing unless he somehow got there by accident or the scene is significantly different than as described by the Meyers. Outside acquittal it matters what he was doing beforehand and what his state of mind was as to how clear-headed he was and what the process was that he arrived on Mt Shasta (did he plan to go there immediately after the first shooting or did he end up there as part of looking for an armed car near his house that he happened to find on Mt Shasta). At the time EN arrived BM was outside with his gun in his hand in some fashion.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

As an FYI to others - I just saw that one of my posts had a ******* over a website name I gave in reference to this case, so I've gone back and edited my post that had it in it. I didn't give a URL, but just mentioned its name without even giving a dot com at the end or in any way trying to get around the link ban and apparently if you put up blocked names in a post and don't fix your post you can get in trouble, so I'm warning others not to a mention a name of a website that is connected to this case or else you might get in trouble for a post you didn't even know was a problem and you didn't even provide a URL. Just FYI as it caught me by surprise when I looked back and saw the blanking of the name in my post.

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

As far as acquittal goes, it wouldn't matter what the Meyers were doing unless he somehow got there by accident or the scene is significantly different than as described by the Meyers. Outside acquittal it matters what he was doing beforehand and what his state of mind was as to how clear-headed he was and what the process was that he arrived on Mt Shasta (did he plan to go there immediately after the first shooting or did he end up there as part of looking for an armed car near his house that he happened to find on Mt Shasta). At the time EN arrived BM was outside with his gun in his hand in some fashion.

Exactly. And without definitive proof, we may never know the truth about what REALLY happened. For all we know, there could still be surprise evidence and testimony that totally alters things yet again. I wouldn't discount any outcome just yet.

 

[SStarr33]

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.

With a Ruger .45-caliber handgun.

There's your evidence.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Defense attorneys love analytical people vs those who are swayed by emotion and extraneous details, so you are in esteemed company, SpanishInquisition.

JMO

I don't think anyone that is swayed by emotion should ever be on the jury. During the five times I was picked as a juror I was picked two times by the defense attorney on the case.

I think emotions should be set aside for the victim and the defendant. The jury should weigh the facts in evidence that comes from the witness stand only to come to their determination.

I haven't seen anyone's emotions here cloud their vision when it comes to discussing this case. I have seen some who seem to get pretty uptight about trivial things sometimes when really none of us knows the full weight of the evidence they have against EN nor DA.

IMO

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

With a Ruger .45-caliber handgun.

There's your evidence.

You were the one who based the comment on a photo and not the gun. Apparently, he needed more than a silly face and a wad of paper to "take care of himself". He felt he needed some protection and from his DOCUMENTED history, he may very well have. Just WHOM he needed protection from would be an interesting thing to know. IMO, he may very well have needed it from the M's based on the testimony given about them chasing the car he was in - as per BM. I do not think that anything about motivation has been established beyond a reasonable doubt yet and I am not prone to easy or shallow acceptance of "fault" or conclusions because I've seen too many cases where that route turns out to be the wrong one - especially when the stakes are so high. I prefer the biggest picture possible before I decide I am sure about something like this.

For the record, I am a fan of NO ONE in this entire case (IMO, NONE of the parties here are the kind of people I would be "fanatic" about and I take umbrage at the idea.) so you can cool it with the "Fan Club" junk, please. This isn't a football game with bleacher sides.

I am here to see where this goes because it is a fascinating and unique case. I have no skin in this game other than simple curiosity. If you will take note of my phrasing ("could", "possible", "might have", "if", etc.) you should be able to discern that I am merely attempting to cover bases of thought and not choosing sides; and that I am not attempting to claim a concrete outcome without provable facts. Nor am I incapable of changing my opinion and theories as more information comes to light. I was originally shocked and horrified at the initial news reports (I've followed this case since day one.) and was sucked in and have had my opinions change several times as more data has been made available and I have had civil and meaningful discussions with others. I wish other people were able to do the same.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

With a Ruger .45-caliber handgun.

There's your evidence.

That is certainly true, and in this case we already know in general terms what EN confessed to police ....as well as to his close friend. Since it seems he have ditched the gun, iirc, I am glad that he showed it off to his friends the night he went over after shooting Tammy. I was quite surprised that Khatelyn (?) even knew the caliber of weapon she had seen him display.

A lot of times this early in we don't even have that much to go by.

 

[SStarr33]

Do we know anything about the trajectory of the bullet that hit TM? Do we know exactly where BM was and what he was doing when the fatal shot was fired? I haven't pored over the documents as thoroughly as others have, but is there definitive proof that EN was aiming directly for the back of TM's head as she fled? Or is it possible that EN was aiming at someone who had a gun pointed at him, and the bullet ricocheted and hit TM?

I am usually a very pro-LE, pro-prosecution type person, but I find it very troubling that the Meyers were the initial aggressors.
JMO

If someone was pointing a gun at him, he didn't see it.

 

[SStarr33]

When you turn the corner solely as a function of getting where you want to go next, it is not a deliberate decision to follow someone.

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

The Audi was already in the process of turning around and leaving when the Buick was spotted. IMO.

Incorrect. As I have repeatedly stated, Erich started his murderous rampage when he was halfway down the street. Additionally, he told his friends they followed the Meyers down the street and loaded another clip so they could finish them off.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/0...5F02612X-declaration-&-complaint_Redacted.pdf

This is murder 1 period

 

[SStarr33]

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.

You can't claim self defense when you try to blow them away, then have your buddy chase them while you are reloading your gun and then actually do blow them away. If you could, then no one would ever get convicted of M1, lol.

Not gonna happen.