GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[sonjay]

The question is who felt their lives were more in danger before the shooting started. So many things in the warrant indicate that EN is the one who feared for his life from the very start.

As soon as SpanishInquisition brought it to our attention that the Buick chased the Audi, it all fell into place. BM (along with mom and/or other Meyerses) set out that night with his gun to hunt down EN. EN saw the Buick and knew that "those kids" were "after him." The Buick found EN in the Audi and chased him. Gunfire and death followed.

It's been apparent for a while now that EN wasn't just being paranoid when he saw the Buick and thought it was after him.

And my opinion is that no driving lessons or road rage ever happened. That was all a cover story told by KM to hide the fact that it was her brother who set in motion the events that led to their mother's death.

Tragic all around, most particularly for TM.

 

[sonjay]

It could have started out as a driving lesson and BM still be at fault. The two things can be exclusive of each other. It's not necessary to disbelieve one to believe the other. TM didn't have to start out the evening with ill intent for BM to leave the house with ill intent later in the evening.

Nor is it necessary to believe there was a driving lesson or road rage.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet that KM recants her story before she's ever put on the stand.

 

[AngelaH]

As soon as SpanishInquisition brought it to our attention that the Buick chased the Audi, it all fell into place. BM (along with mom and/or other Meyerses) set out that night with his gun to hunt down EN. EN saw the Buick and knew that "those kids" were "after him." The Buick found EN in the Audi and chased him. Gunfire and death followed.

It's been apparent for a while now that EN wasn't just being paranoid when he saw the Buick and thought it was after him.

And my opinion is that no driving lessons or road rage ever happened. That was all a cover story told by KM to hide the fact that it was her brother who set in motion the events that led to their mother's death.

Tragic all around, most particularly for TM.

I think you have this right. I think more will be "revealed" as this goes to trial. I don't believe the driving lesson thing. JMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

If you believe the Audi only learned where the M's lived that night, you can't believe Audi & Co knew who was in town and who wasn't.

Regardless of whether the Audi crew knew where the Meyers lived, I don't see how the Audi crew would know who was in town and who wasn't - knowing where someone lives is different than known who is at the home at any specific moment. I just don't think anyone in the Meyers family would contemplate taking such a serious action, like if it was BM who first thought of it he'd talk with his parents; if it was TM, she'd talk with her husband; etc. I don't think RM would face a situation where he'd come home from business and TM would say that while he was out of town, she and their son decided to snuff out a cross-town rival.

I personally believe Audi & Co always knew where the M's lived. They weren't intending to shoot the M's until they thought the M's escalated things by what they perceived as intimidation against EN that night.

It certainly could be that way, which as SonjaY has said to me that RM could be lying about that part.

 

[jayme1133]

I think the defense is looking at footage from the school because he knows there was no driver training. Without the driver of the audi it's going to be a difficult case for 1st degree.
I'm all about justice but don't like anyone to be railroaded...good to see EN has representation that is questioning the "facts".

Yes, if LE had called me, I would have disagreed with the GJ, hehe!!

“The Meyers story has been a bit of a moving target,” Claus said.

Ya think??

 

[Miss Muffet]

I personally believe Audi & Co always knew where the M's lived. They weren't intending to shoot the M's until they thought the M's escalated things by what they perceived as intimidation against EN that night [and chasing the Audi at high speeds while brandishing a handgun]

It certainly could be that way, which as SonjaY has said to me that RM could be lying about that part.

It really doesn't matter when Audi & Co knew where they lived. Either way, M's escalated it that night and when Audi & Co learned where they lived doesn't justify the M's escalation.

Since it's being debated, I believe Audi & Co knew where BM lived all along because Audi and Co are associates of EN, and EN has known for years where BM lived. Plus, it's no secret where he lived. If Audi & Co wanted to find BM, all they'd have to do was ask around or follow him home from the head shop. Or they could not even focus on where BM lives and get him when he's leaving work. They didn't do that. Everything happened the night of the shooting because BM escalated the conflict that night.

 

[Miss Muffet]

A brand new 15yo "driver", without any legal permit, is taken about 11pm-ish to learn the finer skills of parallel parking. Gosh, something about the whole scenario sounds...fake.

I took my children out way past 11pm to teach parallel parking. We weren't the only family doing it around midnight. Nearby shopping centers have places set up to practice parallel parking. There are cars lined up to take turns, and the lines are always longer at night.

I'm less suspicious of TM teaching KM to park and drive in a parking lot without a permit than I am of TM letting KM go on the roads without a permit. KM being out on the roads without a permit is what raises my eyebrows, not the parking lot and not the time of night.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I think the defense is looking at footage from the school because he knows there was no driver training. Without the driver of the audi it's going to be a difficult case for 1st degree.
I'm all about justice but don't like anyone to be railroaded...good to see EN has representation that is questioning the "facts"

Depending on the true circumstances, it may be difficult for any type of murder or manslaughter conviction against EN. What is conspicuously absent is EN talking about any shots fired at him, but we know there were shots fired at him. This is extremely critical in that EN's defense can argue that there's no proof EN fired first on Mt Shasta other than a compromised witness who has been shown to lie about the events of that night. RM has not helped the situation by saying it didn't matter who fired first. If you do not have any credible eyewitnesses where there was an exchange of gunfire, it would be very difficult prove any homicide charge. However, if BM was charged under Felony Murder, it wouldn't matter who fired first in the exchange where TM died as all that would matter is TM died as the result of a violent criminal conspiracy. It's possible but I don't think it's necessarily probable that the reason the complaint is silent about EN being shot at is because EN told A and K that, but that part was intentionally left off the complaint.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Everything happened the night of the shooting because BM escalated the conflict that night.

Yes, that's ultimately what it comes down to. EN certainly didn't want this as by all accounts he was at least initially acting defensively and trying to get away from the aggressors.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, that's ultimately what it comes down to. EN certainly didn't want this as by all accounts he was at least initially acting defensively and trying to get away from the aggressors.

Agreed. I don't feel I need to discuss the details further. Others might, but I've made my decision on what happened, and I feel no need to persuade others. I'll continue checking the thread for any new developments or evidence that might surface. But based on what we know right now, the night of the shooting no longer feels like a mystery to me. I'm satisfied at this point. I appreciate the posts from everyone in this thread because it helped me figure this all out.

 

[sonjay]

Depending on the true circumstances, it may be difficult for any type of murder or manslaughter conviction against EN. What is conspicuously absent is EN talking about any shots fired at him, but we know there were shots fired at him. This is extremely critical in that EN's defense can argue that there's no proof EN fired first on Mt Shasta other than a compromised witness who has been shown to lie about the events of that night. RM has not helped the situation by saying it didn't matter who fired first. If you do not have any credible eyewitnesses where there was an exchange of gunfire, it would be very difficult prove any homicide charge. However, if BM was charged under Felony Murder, it wouldn't matter who fired first in the exchange where TM died as all that would matter is TM died as the result of a violent criminal conspiracy. It's possible but I don't think it's necessarily probable that the reason the complaint is silent about EN being shot at is because EN told A and K that, but that part was intentionally left off the complaint.

Actually, arrest affidavit isn't silent about it. It contains another discrepancy in exactly what the two friends remember.

Altergott: Nowsch never told him the people in the green car ever shot at him.

Krisztian: Nowsch told Krisztian no one fired shots at him.

If these two friends are allowed to testify at trial about this conversation (under an exception to the hearsay rule), I'm sure they'll be grilled hard about this important detail.

If the Audi driver is ever found, his testimony on this point will also be crucial.

 

[PaperDoll]

Depending on the true circumstances, it may be difficult for any type of murder or manslaughter conviction against EN. What is conspicuously absent is EN talking about any shots fired at him, but we know there were shots fired at him. This is extremely critical in that EN's defense can argue that there's no proof EN fired first on Mt Shasta other than a compromised witness who has been shown to lie about the events of that night. RM has not helped the situation by saying it didn't matter who fired first. If you do not have any credible eyewitnesses where there was an exchange of gunfire, it would be very difficult prove any homicide charge. However, if BM was charged under Felony Murder, it wouldn't matter who fired first in the exchange where TM died as all that would matter is TM died as the result of a violent criminal conspiracy. It's possible but I don't think it's necessarily probable that the reason the complaint is silent about EN being shot at is because EN told A and K that, but that part was intentionally left off the complaint.

IMO BM had a right to shoot at the 2nd shooting scene since EN fired the 1st shot at the 1st shooting scene. So, BM, like EN felt threatened knowing someone with a gun was after them.

 

[sonjay]

The Meyers story has been a bit of a moving target,” Claus said.

Claus seems to be a master of understatement. "A bit of a moving target" LMAO!

And "If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said 'it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible.'"

I bet he gives really good opening and closing arguments.

 

[BellaVita]

Regardless of whether the Audi crew knew where the Meyers lived, I don't see how the Audi crew would know who was in town and who wasn't - knowing where someone lives is different than known who is at the home at any specific moment. I just don't think anyone in the Meyers family would contemplate taking such a serious action, like if it was BM who first thought of it he'd talk with his parents; if it was TM, she'd talk with her husband; etc. I don't think RM would face a situation where he'd come home from business and TM would say that while he was out of town, she and their son decided to snuff out a cross-town rival.



It certainly could be that way, which as SonjaY has said to me that RM could be lying about that part.

My own personal impression is that RM is extremely lightly regarded in that family. I base this on no known facts, only impressions and what I have learned in life as far as reading people and relationships. I think they may have been glad when he's out of town. RM seems like kind of a dork to me. Not very cool and the drag racing thing doesn't impress me. I know a lot of very mild-mannered, non-descript men who do daring things in an attempt to raise their status as men. Once they get through with their sky diving, mountain climbing, drag racing, or whatever, they go home to a humdrum existence, nobody at home has any respect for them, and they have no say in anything. If anyone was patriarch, it was probably Brandon.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Actually, arrest affidavit isn't silent about it. It contains another discrepancy in exactly what the two friends remember.
Altergott: Nowsch never told him the people in the green car ever shot at him.
Krisztian: Nowsch told Krisztian no one fired shots at him.
If these two friends are allowed to testify at trial about this conversation (under an exception to the hearsay rule), I'm sure they'll be grilled hard about this important detail.
If the Audi driver is ever found, his testimony on this point will also be crucial.

Yes, you're absolutely right. EN's defense in that case could say they forgot or misunderstood him. EN's hearsay witnesses getting a known fact wrong could undermine their credibility in a sense that they didn't really understand what went on there, even if the witnesses are being completely honest, which I think they are.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

IMO BM had a right to shoot at the 2nd shooting scene since EN fired the 1st shot at the 1st shooting scene. So, BM, like EN felt threatened knowing someone with a gun was after them.

However, if BM was tried under Felony Murder it wouldn't matter. The way felony murder works is that lets say you're the getaway driver for an armed bank robbery and never set foot in the bank. One your accomplices in this violent criminal conspiracy accidentally scares a bank teller to death. You as the getaway driver can be charged with First Degree Felony Murder even though none of the conspirators intended to kill the bank teller and none of the conspirators even laid a finger on the teller. All that matters is that someone died as a result of you taking part in the violent criminal conspiracy. A defense that BM would have to this would be to argue that the Audi chasing the Buick back to their home and shooting was not connected to the criminal conspiracy, which arguments could be made both ways.

For anyone who is interested there's detailed law review article from Nevada Law Journal discussing the statutes and case law of Felony Murder in Nevada:
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=nlj

 

[sonjay]

However, if BM was tried under Felony Murder it wouldn't matter. The way felony murder works is that lets say you're the getaway driver for an armed bank robbery and never set foot in the bank. One your accomplices in this violent criminal conspiracy accidentally scares a bank teller to death. You as the getaway driver can be charged with First Degree Felony Murder even though none of the conspirators intended to kill the bank teller and none of the conspirators even laid a finger on the teller. All that matters is that someone died as a result of you taking part in the violent criminal conspiracy. A defense that BM would have to this would be to argue that the Audi chasing the Buick back to their home and shooting was not connected to the criminal conspiracy, which arguments could be made both ways.

For anyone who is interested there's detailed law review article from Nevada Law Journal discussing the statutes and case law of Felony Murder in Nevada:
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=nlj

The legal standard (per the linked article) is that the felony and the murder have to be "part and parcel of one continuous action."

If the chase, the 1st shooting, the reverse chase, and the second shooting all happened in the compressed time period that I think they did, I would think BM could be charged with felony murder. That is, assuming that we're correct that he was the initial instigator.

In their press conferences, LE hasn't sounded as if they're contemplating any charges against BM. That could change, of course.

If events that night unfolded the way I think they did, then I think BM bears a lot -- perhaps the majority -- of responsibility for what happened. But prosecuting a son for the killing of his mother by someone else would be a politically difficult choice, I would think.

 

[al66pine]

IMO BM had a right to shoot at the 2nd shooting scene
since EN fired the 1st shot at the 1st shooting scene. So, BM, like EN felt threatened knowing someone with a gun was after them.

Does BM's right to shoot at 2nd scene depend on these events being one string of events,
w no lapse of time between shooting scenes?

 

[SStarr33]

I haven't seen that video. Do you have a link, please?

I posted it a week or 10 days ago. Check my old posts on this thread or check the media thread.

 

[PaperDoll]

Does BM's right to shoot at 2nd scene depend on these events being one string of events,
w no lapse of time between shooting scenes?

BM said he saw headlights coming into his cul-de-sac and said he tried to push his mom back in the car. Then the Audi starts shooting half way up the street (which is a very small street) and shoots at a person RUNNING towards the house (not shooting) and then shoots at the car where he knew he hit someone. So, BM knew the Audi had a gun because of the 1st shooting incident and now sees the same car coming after them at their home. Self defense? I would say it was. EN fired 22 rounds, per his statement to friends, and there were 3 or 4 from BM's gun IIRC... Why would the Audi follow the Buick after the 1st shooting once the Buick fled? To kiss and make up? NO, to finish what they wanted to do..