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

[PaperDoll]

Oh, yes I believe it's all one string of events..

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

What bothers me about this case is broadly speaking the Meyers and the Audi both acted the same way in chasing someone with a gun because they say they were scared, yet the only group that is facing known charges is the group that didn't premeditate the chase. Almost anything the prosecution says about the Meyers that they were acting lawfully and their activities were self-defense in order prove EN's guilt would actually show EN's being innocent under that prosecution logic. All Claus would have to do is a point to all the different statements the prosecution made how the Meyers are victims who were scared and defending themselves with their actions and then show how EN was doing the same. It can't be OK for the Meyers armed with a gun to hunt and chase the Audi from the school as the poor victims rightfully protecting themselves, but not be OK for the armed Audi to chase the Meyers to Mt Shasta as the villainous perps. EN is condemned and not acting in self-defense for shooting first when he was chased, yet EN is condemned yet again when the situation is reversed with the Meyers' own admission they might have fired on EN first when the Audi was chasing them at Mt Shasta.

Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed. Of course charging someone for the death of the mother when they didn't fire the shot could look bad, so the way you get around that by offering BM to plea to some minor charge with a wrist slap or alternatively with the unique circumstances of this case is that you don't charge anyone where you condemn everyone via press conference but say that you thought no criminal case could be brought that would meet the standards of proof necessary to get a conviction.

 

[katydid23]

JMO, BBM--He phrases this so well. 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.

EXACTLY. How is she learning to parallel park before she even gets a permit and learns to drive?

 

[sonjay]

What bothers me about this case is broadly speaking the Meyers and the Audi both acted the same way in chasing someone with a gun because they say they were scared, yet the only group that is facing known charges is the group that didn't premeditate the chase. Almost anything the prosecution says about the Meyers that they were acting lawfully and their activities were self-defense in order prove EN's guilt would actually show EN's being innocent under that prosecution logic. All Claus would have to do is a point to all the different statements the prosecution made how the Meyers are victims who were scared and defending themselves with their actions and then show how EN was doing the same. It can't be OK for the Meyers armed with a gun to hunt and chase the Audi from the school as the poor victims rightfully protecting themselves, but not be OK for the armed Audi to chase the Meyers to Mt Shasta as the villainous perps. EN is condemned and not acting in self-defense for shooting first when he was chased, yet EN is condemned yet again when the situation is reversed with the Meyers' own admission they might have fired on EN first when the Audi was chasing them at Mt Shasta.

Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed. Of course charging someone for the death of the mother when they didn't fire the shot could look bad, so the way you get around that by offering BM to plea to some minor charge with a wrist slap or alternatively with the unique circumstances of this case is that you don't charge anyone where you condemn everyone via press conference but say that you thought no criminal case could be brought that would meet the standards of proof necessary to get a conviction.

Thank you for this. As it's become ever more clear that BM (in conjunction with mom or sis) instigated the encounter, it's been bothering me more and more and I couldn't really put my finger on exactly why.

Yes, EN pulled the trigger. Okay, we've got that.

But if we've got it right that EN was sitting there minding his own business, and BM set out with gun to find him and chase him down..... There's disparate treatment here. Big time.

EN reacted to a threat, and took his response too far. He shot in self-defense, then counter-attacked. But BM started it. Without BM's actions that night, TM would be alive today.

I've gotta think on this further. There are so many implications here.

 

[jayme1133]

What bothers me about this case is broadly speaking the Meyers and the Audi both acted the same way in chasing someone with a gun because they say they were scared, yet the only group that is facing known charges is the group that didn't premeditate the chase. Almost anything the prosecution says about the Meyers that they were acting lawfully and their activities were self-defense in order prove EN's guilt would actually show EN's being innocent under that prosecution logic. All Claus would have to do is a point to all the different statements the prosecution made how the Meyers are victims who were scared and defending themselves with their actions and then show how EN was doing the same. It can't be OK for the Meyers armed with a gun to hunt and chase the Audi from the school as the poor victims rightfully protecting themselves, but not be OK for the armed Audi to chase the Meyers to Mt Shasta as the villainous perps. EN is condemned and not acting in self-defense for shooting first when he was chased, yet EN is condemned yet again when the situation is reversed with the Meyers' own admission they might have fired on EN first when the Audi was chasing them at Mt Shasta.

Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed. Of course charging someone for the death of the mother when they didn't fire the shot could look bad, so the way you get around that by offering BM to plea to some minor charge with a wrist slap or alternatively with the unique circumstances of this case is that you don't charge anyone where you condemn everyone via press conference but say that you thought no criminal case could be brought that would meet the standards of proof necessary to get a conviction.

I don't think LE expected this outcome. It's sad the way the investigation and so - called "road rage" has been portrayed. Most social networks just repeat current stories regardless if they are true or updated. Unless you are a true crime junkie it's hard to understand that EN didn't kill a mother of 4, being a punk etc. I'm not sure the DA didn't bite off more than he can chew with over charging and under investigating all parties involved. WHY I KEEP saying I am so glad Claus is representing EN. No one thought this "nobody" would have council so therefore I think they went w/ the charges against EN. Everyone should have had gun residue testing, drug tests, cars impounded etc. It's how the justice system is set up...and glad Claus is holding their feet to the fire.

This story didn't seem right from the first media story. I trusted my gut and came here to dig a little deeper with all of you.
IF TM death was a 'road rage' and EN killed her like it was reported I would be feeling just as strong about his punishment. Hopefully, the truth will come out eventually for us to discuss further. The trial would be a great one to watch and get some answers....BUT I don't think it will ever get that far.

I am oldullhair:, but miss the good ol days when reporters having to investigate. It's hard for me to read between the lines sometimes.
Thanks for all the info, ideas and passion...you guys are the best:gathering:!!

 

[sonjay]

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?

I'm not at all sure BM had a right to shoot at the second shooting scene. If it unfolded the way it sounds -- 1st shooting scene, flee to cul de sac, and within seconds Audi arrives at second shooting scene -- then it may have been "part and parcel of one continuous action." Good and sincere folk can probably disagree about whether it was part and parcel of one continuous action; that's what juries are for.

Let's assume for the moment that we all agree that it was "one continuous action." (just for the sake of argument, whether or not we all agree on that)

If BM himself was the instigator of that "one continuous action" then it would seem that he committed felony murder -- in the course of committing a felony of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder on EN.

Also, if it was "one continuous action," one could plausibly argue that EN was indeed committing self defense at the second shooting scene.

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that we all agree that it was not "one continuous action." There was a first shooting scene -- in which EN committed self defense -- and then a second shooting a very short while later, in a "separate" action. In that case, EN did not commit self defense at the second shooting scene; rather, he was the aggressor. BM would be justified in shooting at that second shooting scene. And EN would be guilty of some level of non-justified homicide.

Hmmmm..... It seems to me that it's theoretically possible that both of them could be found guilty in this killing.

One jury could find that it was all one continuous action instigated by BM and that BM was guilty of felony murder. Another jury could find that it was two separate actions and that EN was guilty of homicide at the second shooting scene.

 

[sonjay]

Also what bothers me politically is the effective condoning of the Meyers' vigilantism, which they got someone killed.

I don't think LE expected this outcome.

I tend to think jayme is right, that LE did not expect this outcome, and now they're locked into the narrative that EN was the aggressor. By sticking to that story, they are indeed effectively condoning BM's vigilantism.

At any rate, I think EN might well have a strong case for self defense. I'm starting to hope so.

And I'm beginning to think that a grave injustice is being committed by the legal system.

 

[sonjay]

On further reading, I'm not at all sure that BM could be prosecuted for felony murder, even if he was the original aggressor and did set in motion the entire chain of events that led to his mother's death.

Nevada's felony murder rule consists of an enumerated list of specific felonies that quality a homicide to be charged as felony.

Murder which is:
Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary, invasion of the home, sexual abuse of a child, sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14 years, child abuse or abuse of an older person or vulnerable person.

NRS 200.030, 1(b)
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec030

Setting out to assault EN, or to kill him, would not fall under Nevada's felony murder rule.

 

[jayme1133]

I'm not at all sure BM had a right to shoot at the second shooting scene. If it unfolded the way it sounds -- 1st shooting scene, flee to cul de sac, and within seconds Audi arrives at second shooting scene -- then it may have been "part and parcel of one continuous action."

Maybe because of SYG thinking. If they lure someone to their private property, it's all fair game. This philosophy is something RM has preached many times.

Just a thought

 

[SpanishInquisition]

On further reading, I'm not at all sure that BM could be prosecuted for felony murder, even if he was the original aggressor and did set in motion the entire chain of events that led to his mother's death.

Nevada's felony murder rule consists of an enumerated list of specific felonies that quality a homicide to be charged as felony.

Murder which is:
Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, robbery, burglary, invasion of the home, sexual abuse of a child, sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14 years, child abuse or abuse of an older person or vulnerable person.

NRS 200.030, 1(b)
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec030

Setting out to assault EN, or to kill him, would not fall under Nevada's felony murder rule.

There's both Second Degree Murder and Common Law Felony Second Degree Murder in Nevada. BM could be charged with straight Second Degree Murder. State v Contreras seems very similar to this one in that there was an altercation where those involved came back and beat someone up with a bat who subsequently died (it wasn't alleged that Contreras personally delivered the mortal blow, so it was charged under Felony Murder with him as a participant):
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1373707.html
The court ruled that it wasn't First Degree but would qualify for Second Degree. I am seeing cases in Nevada where Assault With A Deadly Weapon is excluded from Common Law Second Degree Felony Murder, but that's when the person who is charged with Assault of the deceased is the one who was involved assaulting the deceased before they died, which it makes sense that those are blocked because the Assault and the homicide are part of the same act upon a victim, but in this case the BM as assaulter isn't the killer, but his recklessness is what caused TM's death. The court wants to be sure that prosecutors aren't over-charging or doing things to avoid having to provide proof, but they want to discourage activities that result in needless deaths. To me this seems the very thing within the spirit of the law - which the Nevada Supreme Court looks to in deciding if a charge is appropriate - to qualify as TM would be alive today if not for BM going out on a reckless road trip. For this same reason I'd say that BM could be charged with Second Degree if what had happened during the chase was that they ran over and killed a pedestrian, which their assault on someone else shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free for it causing the death of a pedestrian who wasn't the target of their assault. I just don't think it is either morally or legally right to hold the Audi passengers as solely responsible for this or even the most responsible for this.

Also separately thinking about BM self-defense and the Audi, for all the Audi knows the passengers are going home to now take two cars and have even more weapons and people after them. By the Meyers own admission they went home and armed up after a prior encounter with the Audi because they said they were scared as the basis for their armed pursuit escalation, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't escalate things even farther with even more guns and more cars as what then happened on Vila Monterey shouldn't have made them any less scared than the first time they armed up and pursued. We don't actually know what they planned on doing once they were home as it can't be assumed that going home meant hostilities were subsiding for the Meyers, but instead the Meyers going home has been shown to mean the opposite.

EDIT: What makes think the Meyers may have kept on escalating things indefinitely is that I don't think they started calling LE after the first shooting, but instead didn't call LE until after the Buick already arrived home and TM had subsequently been shot. Given how that KM was allegedly home and could have called the police what TM supposedly said to BM to get his gun and ride instead, it looks like there was specific orders not to call the police even by those not in the Buick. The only thing that caused the Meyers to eventually call the police was because they ended up on the receiving side of a bullet instead of trying to dish it out and if EN hadn't shot back, KM would have been out there with a shotgun as well after getting into the Buick or in another car.

 

[jjenny]

EN isn't exactly sitting there minding his own business if he is involved in the alleged drug selling activity.
This defense of him is getting absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Wow, still haven't caught the driver uh.. I would have thought they would by now.. Then again the driver had time to flee the State..

May even be in Mexico...

 

[bessie]

Please continue at Thread #5:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ally-shot-at-her-Las-Vegas-home-12-Feb-2015-5