GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #7

[sonjay]

We cant assume something that never happened. But just speculating she may have followed the car and its occupants to their home and got out and talked with them like she supposedly did in the other case.

Neither Tammy nor Brandon have an record to show they use violence as a tool to resolve issues. That seems to be more ENs style.

Brandon didn't even load the gun until he had already been fired upon. I imagine he took the gun for the sole purpose of protection in case he needed it since he had no idea who the road rager was at the time.

BBM. Actually, the evidence suggests otherwise. There was an unfired round in the passenger seat of the Buick. BM's explanation was that when EN fired at them (on Villa Monterey) he probably racked the slide when there was already a round in the chamber. That means his gun was loaded and ready to fire before he was first fired upon.

 

[BellaVita]

We cant assume something that never happened. But just speculating she may have followed the car and its occupants to their home and got out and talked with them like she supposedly did in the other case.

Neither Tammy nor Brandon have an record to show they use violence as a tool to resolve issues. That seems to be more ENs style.

Brandon didn't even load the gun until he had already been fired upon. I imagine he took the gun for the sole purpose of protection in case he needed it since he had no idea who the road rager was at the time.

BBM: BM NEEDED to take the gun for protection. The M's were hunting for an allegedly anonymous road rager who allegedly threatened to kill TM and KM. He was smart to take the gun while engaging in such a foolhardy undertaking. The fact that BM neglected to load his gun before getting in the car is foolhardy in itself. He needed to be prepared for what could come and he was not. An unloaded weapon is not very useful.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No, that's what KM & BM told the police that night. I've linked to the police news release several times recently:

http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021415ReleasePO036a.pdf

"The two females then drove to their home on Mount Shasta Circle and summoned another family member, who was armed with a handgun, to help."

The two females then drove to their home on Mount Shasta Circle and summoned another family member, who was armed with a handgun, to help. The preliminary investigation indicates that some time later, the suspect vehicle appeared on the street, multiple shots were fired, and the victim was struck by one round.

I don't see anything that is contradictory. LE just gave a short summary and did not give all the details.

T&K did go to their home and seek Brandon's help and it was later that the shooter came to the home and killed Tammy.

 

[sonjay]

[/B]

BBM: BM NEEDED to take the gun for protection. The M's were hunting for an allegedly anonymous road rager who allegedly threatened to kill TM and KM. He was smart to take the gun while engaging in such a foolhardy undertaking. The fact that BM neglected to load his gun before getting in the car is foolhardy in itself. He needed to be prepared for what could come and he was not. An unloaded weapon is not very useful.

When you deliberately take a gun with you to go out searching for someone, IMO that's not protection or self-defense. That's an aggressive act.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

[/B]

BBM: BM NEEDED to take the gun for protection. The M's were hunting for an allegedly anonymous road rager who allegedly threatened to kill TM and KM. He was smart to take the gun while engaging in such a foolhardy undertaking. The fact that BM neglected to load his gun before getting in the car is foolhardy in itself. He needed to be prepared for what could come and he was not. An unloaded weapon is not very useful.

That is true. It shows he was not ready for any confrontation. I doubt he has ever had to pull a gun on anyone else. There again that seems to be more ENs MO than Brandon's.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

When you deliberately take a gun with you to go out searching for someone, IMO that's not protection or self-defense. That's an aggressive act.

No it isn't. The aggression would be if you used or fired the gun. Just taking the gun unloaded at the time he got in the car means nothing and certainly isn't aggressive.

 

[BellaVita]

No it isn't. The aggression would be if you used or fired the gun. Just taking the gun unloaded at the time he got in the car means nothing and certainly isn't aggressive.

When you leave the protection of your home to confront an alleged stranger, that is aggressive. It is NOT passive. Are you saying that aggression can only occur if a weapon is used? Anything up to and just short of using a weapon can't be considered aggression? By that metric, the alleged original road rager can't be considered as having been aggressive. After all, he never used nor displayed a weapon.

 

[BellaVita]

That is true. It shows he was not ready for any confrontation. I doubt he has ever had to pull a gun on anyone else. There again that seems to be more ENs MO than Brandon's.

He NEEDED to be ready. When you hunt people down, you should be aware that not everyone will like that tactic.

 

[PaperDoll]

Since we all have different theories on what happened that night, how do you think EN should be charged? Do you think the Meyers should serve a sentence because their stories changed? I wish I could start my own thread on this, making a poll

 

[PaperDoll]

I've still seen no satisfactory explanation for why the Meyerses took a gun and went to chase EN in the silver car. Why take a gun and go chase somebody? The only way you could not expect to get into a gun battle when you do that is if you think the guy you're going to chase isn't armed.

I still wonder how that night would have ended if EN had not had a gun with him. The Meyerses took a gun and went looking for him, and chased him! And then lied to police about it! The Meyerses do not have clean hands. The Meyerses were the original-original aggressors. EN was able to turn the tables on them because he also had a gun, but he's not the one who set out from his home that night with the intention of stalking and then chasing somebody.

EN brought a gun with him because he feared someone was out to get him and his family, but did he ever say who these people were? So, yes, EN was out to kill since he, too, had a gun on him.

 

[PaperDoll]

I'm curious.... Picture this: The green car was chasing the silver car on Villa Monterey. The silver car stopped, the green car stopped, and EN fired at the green car. What do you think would have happened if EN hadn't fired?

The Meyerses cannot claim they were innocently on their way home and that they weren't actually following or chasing the silver car; if they were on their home, they would have turned west on Cherry River, but instead they continued south on Villa Monterey past Cherry River, and they only stopped when the silver car stopped.

What would have happened if EN hadn't had a gun and fired it to make the green car stop chasing him?

I don't know what would have happened had EN not fired, we can all assume but no one knows because EN did fire. EN could have called the police, too but he didn't. EN could have went home instead of hanging out in the very area he felt threatened in, but he didn't. The Meyers could have called 911 but they didn't, NO ONE CALLED 911, NO ONE! But we do know that someone was killed and we know who that person is.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Since we all have different theories on what happened that night, how do you think EN should be charged? Do you think the Meyers should serve a sentence because their stories changed? I wish I could start my own thread on this, making a poll

Ask Bessie if you can create one in the Jury Room.

 

[PaperDoll]

Ask Bessie if you can create one in the Jury Room.

I wish we had our own thread so we can create different topics :crazy:

 

[al66pine]

I'm sure you're right — there will be no clarity in the initial police report. It will be interesting, I'm sure. I can't wait to see the full police report and learn exactly what lies the Meyerses told police, but I'm sure it won't shed any light on what actually happened.

Here's what the police released on Feb. 14:

At the conclusion of the lesson, the adult female was driving home when she had a near-collision with another vehicle. There was a verbal confrontation between the victim and the other male driver.

The two females then drove to their home on Mount Shasta Circle and summoned another family member, who was armed with a handgun, to help. The preliminary investigation indicates that some time later, the suspect vehicle appeared on the street, multiple shots were fired, and the victim was struck by one round.

As of this release, no suspect or suspects have been identified and there is no definitive description of the suspect vehicle. At this juncture, this is an active, open investigation. The release of any further information may jeopardize detectives’ ability to solve the case and arrest those involved.

Detectives with the LVMPD Violent Crimes Section are seeking the public’s assistance in identifying and locating the vehicle and occupants involved in this incident. The vehicle can only be described as a four-door grey or silver sedan and may possibly have damage to the front driver’s side of the vehicle. It is also possible the car may have impact rounds from gunfire.

One of the occupants of the vehicle is described as a white male adult approximately 25 years of age. He is further described as being about 6 feet tall and weighting approximately 180 pounds. This male has dirty blonde hair worn in a spiked style and has hazel or blue eyes.

http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021415ReleasePO036a.pdf

bbm

Regardless of who tells whichever version w countless conflicting details, I keep circling back to ^bbm^
about summoning another family member w a handgun to help.

Help what? How can BrM & gun help do anything lawful re a near-collision and/or a verbal altercation -
whether BrM & gun were in car from min. 1 of Buick excursion, or Buick returned to M home to pick up him & gun?*

Locate the near-collision car and/or car w occupant participating in verbal altercation - then what -
Talk calmly w driver and/or passenger(s)? IDTS.

Not sure how this fits into EN's crim charges, because AFAWK, EN shot & killed TM.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
* If evd shows BrM carried 24/7 or all the time whenever not in home, that might change the equation somewhat.

 

[Deleted member 50844]

I don't even see where the Myers statement could be classified as a lie.

Snipped by me.

A lie of omission is still a lie.
'A lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception.'

Do you dispute that the M family left out a HUGE set of facts when they 'omitted' the entire portion of the story concerning them (after alleged road rage incident) going back to the house, dropping a person off, picking up another person with a gun and ammo, to go chase down supposed road rager vehicle? I am also leaning toward it being a lie that there were 2 black people and a spiky-haired individual in this vehicle, as they seem to have disappeared from the story completely.
I know that some here want to feel that no lies were told. Wanting that to be true doesn't make it so.

 

[sonjay]

Snipped by me.

A lie of omission is still a lie.
'A lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception.'

Do you dispute that the M family left out a HUGE set of facts when they 'omitted' the entire portion of the story concerning them (after alleged road rage incident) going back to the house, dropping a person off, picking up another person with a gun and ammo, to go chase down supposed road rager vehicle? I am also leaning toward it being a lie that there were 2 black people and a spiky-haired individual in this vehicle, as they seem to have disappeared from the story completely.
I know that some here want to feel that no lies were told. Wanting that to be true doesn't make it so.

BBM. Boy, ain't that the truth!

"I went to the bank and got $50,000."
vs.
"I went to the bank, pulled a gun, showed it to the teller, and told her to give me everything in her cash drawer. Terrified and frightened for her life, she gave me $50,000."

Yeah, sure, the first sentence is "true," strictly speaking. But it's also a lie. As was the story the Meyerses originally told police.

 

[sonjay]

EN brought a gun with him because he feared someone was out to get him and his family, but did he ever say who these people were? So, yes, EN was out to kill since he, too, had a gun on him.

EN had a gun on him, yes, but he didn't go look for, stalk, or threaten anybody. He was just sitting in the park minding his own business. Having a gun on you for defense in case someone threatens, chases or attacks you is self-defense.

The Meyerses, on the other hand, deliberately set out with a gun to hunt for, stalk, threaten and chase EN. That's not self-defense. That's aggression.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The CCTV video has now entered into the court record with presumably Mogg testifying that it is Andrews' car in the CCTV video, BBM:

But she also testified that her son owned the silver Audi prosecutors said followed Meyers to her home that night, and a police detective told the same grand jury that Andrews’ vehicle was captured on surveillance video from one of Meyers’ neighbors.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...-mom-he-wasn-t-involved-tammy-meyers-shooting
So now that LE is validating the video and the DA is entering it into evidence, that would mean that EN went by his home rather than going north on Carmel Peak - or the LE/DA are going to have serious egg on their faces for saying so in GJ testimony when they've got the wrong car at the wrong time with the wrong person.

 

[sonjay]

The CCTV video has now entered into the court record with presumably Mogg testifying that it is Andrews' car in the CCTV video, BBM:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...-mom-he-wasn-t-involved-tammy-meyers-shooting
So now that LE is validating the video and the DA is entering it into evidence, that would mean that EN went by his home rather than going north on Carmel Peak - or the LE/DA are going to have serious egg on their faces for saying so in GJ testimony when they've got the wrong car at the wrong time with the wrong person.

From the article:
"But she also testified that her son owned the silver Audi prosecutors said followed Meyers to her home that night, and a police detective told the same grand jury that Andrews’ vehicle was captured on surveillance video from one of Meyers’ neighbors."

I wonder how DA's mother can positively state that it is her son's car that followed the Meyers. Certainly she could testify that her son owns a silver Audi. She could even testify that her son's Audi has a bullet hole where it didn't before. She could even testify that she saw her son leave that night in his Audi. But how can she positively testify that it is her son's Audi that followed the Meyerses? Was she there in the cul de sac to see it happen?

 

[sonjay]

The article says the GJ transcripts were made public Friday. That's today. If you run across the full transcripts, please rush right over here and post the link immediately!