There’s no issue with the video so I think he intentionally missed them with the first few shots in efforts to scare them off, then the woman starts inching forward with her phone out is when in a split second he committed to shooting them.
Actually, all parties have to give consent to recordings if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It’s potentially risky to record audio because it could conceivably pick up audio of a conversation between two people who might reasonably assume that their conversation is private.
There’s nothing about that particular incident that’s private. Courts have ruled that public places are generally exempt from wiretapping laws. Legality is potentially less clear if two people are having a sensitive conversation that gets somehow picked up by the audio recording. The real danger is that it potentially picks up a conversation between two neighbors with an open window or on their back patio, thinking they’re private.
Most legal advice I’ve read on the subject suggests that just having the audio in and of itself isn’t necessarily going to land you in court; it’s what you intend to do with it that matters more. So in other words, if they realize "Oh shit, I picked up my neighbor’s private conversation by accident," that’s not a legal problem. But “Hey YouTubers, I picked up my neighbor talking to his doctor about his impotence, lolz!” would be.
Ok. Given that everyone involved is shouting at the top of their lungs on the street they can’t have any expectation of privacy.
This has been brought up before. It’s not at all clear to me that shoveling snow onto another’s property makes one “the aggressor.” Particularly if it’s onto the lawn (which is probably going to have snow on it for a while longer), as opposed to into the street (where cars drive and which should preferably be kept clear to the extent possible).
You and others seem to be bending over backwards to conclude that the victims necessarily provoked this incident. Not having access to the full range of facts surrounding this interaction or all the preceding interactions, I am not comfortable in coming to that conclusion. It seems roughly on par with accusing the victims of a school shooting of bullying the murderer.
I shovel snow onto my neighbor’s property. Not a lot of it, if it can be helped, and only onto his lawn, where it’s next to my driveway, and not blocking his ability to clear his own driveway.
The Goys, if I have this right, carried snow across the street to dump it in Spaide’s parking spot.
No, merely believing the witness accounts of how the altercation started, and the behavior of the Goys subsequently. You keep claiming there is “no evidence” on which to base a conclusion, when in fact there is. Even if Goy cursed them out, the Goys physically threatened him (Goy raising his fist at one point) and they both literally chased him. Both of them were physically bigger than Spaide and were two to one. That makes them the initial aggressors. Spaide cursing them out doesn’t justify how they responded.
And you seem to be hung up on who “provoked” the issue. However it started, the Goys escalated the confrontation to a physical one when it seems to have started verbally.
I will be pleased to arrive at the conclusions you all have when I have sufficient evidence to do so. At present, as to who was “the aggressor,” the evidence available to me seems inconclusive. That’s not “no” evidence, I’ll grant, but not enough in my book. It may never be more than that. I’m okay with walking away from this without being able to come to a conclusion as to who started things, who made the first wrong move.
I am fine with arriving at tentative conclusions with a dearth of evidence when I need to, but here I don’t need to. I do think it’s important, though, to call to question how others can feel justified in arriving at conclusions off apparently the same evidence. Maybe I’m being unreasonable, but I don’t think I am.
I am very confident there was an argument, the Goys may have committed verbal assault (it would probably depend on the imminence of the threats–I haven’t gone back and constructed a transcript of the exchange, it’s possible there was an imminent threat, but I’ll note that things like “If you come over here, I’ll beat your ass” are not likely to constitute assault due to being conditional and lacking imminence), but beyond the only thing I’m reasonably certain of–certain enough to draw a conclusion–is that Spaide murdered (not just killed, murdered) two people.
No one I think is saying that the Goy’s behavior justified Spaide killing them. It doesn’t really matter exactly who made the first move. But it’s clear that both parties escalated things in turn until the tragic result. The Goys shovel snow on Spaide’s property > Spaide curses them out > The Goys verbally and physically threaten him (it doesn’t matter if their words satisfy the legal definition of assault if Spaide felt threatened) > Spaide in turn threatens the Goys with a gun > The Goys continue to provoke him > Spaide shoots and kills them. At what point you decide which party is the “aggressor” could be debatable, but it was possible for the Goys or Spaide to have de-escalated at any point. Spaide is responsible for the deaths, but I don’t think it’s “blaming the victim” to say that the Goys showed very bad judgement.
Well alright, then. All of those things are statements I agree with.
It’s also worth considering that if these folks had bumped fenders in a parking lot but had otherwise never met before they would be in a very different place than if these folks had been having an escalating war of words and threats and petty vandalism going on for years.
We have a real nice video of the last couple of minutes of their “relationship”. We don’t know if that’s the whole story, or simply the last line of a long and sordid essay of mutual verbal, psychological, and perhaps physical violence.
That would be a trespass on his property, so they’re on the wrong side of the law right from the start.
Doesn’t justify killing, of course, but it is a factor to consider in trying to assess what happened and why.
Slight hi-jack I suppose, but does every one get along with their neighbours ?
For myself, I think all my neighbors have the same mindset, we’re all civil to one another but not overly friendly where we’re hanging out in each others backyard. We say hello, know each others names but that’s about it.
Whew! 
Look at the google photos posted above. The Goys shoveled snow across the street into his parking spot, which is on his property, not the public street. He purposely cut a parking spot into his property and they were shoveling snow into it. This plus the fact that Goy apparently threw whatever he was using to clean the snow off his car with at Spaide and their actions on camera says to me the Goys were asshole and proud of it.
Also, let’s put a stop to this “guns are a tool” crap. Guns are weapons. They were designed as weapons, they were built as weapons and their use is as a weapon. The fact that you go to the range to shoot your over expensive M4 ripoff so you can laugh about how you’d blow someone away, or sit on your trailer porch and shoot empty beer bottles does not mean your gun is not a weapon. You are not issued a concealed carry tool license. If you prop open your back door with a rifle, that does not make it a door stop. Guns are weapons, full stop.
Unfortunately, a violent gun happy interior culture is going to happen when you have a violent gun happy empire enforcing global hegemony with the barrel of a gun, jet and missile.
The historical precedent is there to learn from but there is no political will within the USA empire to connect the way people solve their problems day to day with the way the USA solves its problems.
Its there in the mind off all USA people but not the apparatus with which to discuss it.
Madness results.
Arming everyone to the teeth is the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine applied to individual members of society. If the Goys had drones overhead and missile subs patrolling the sewers for failsafe retaliation this would never have happened.
I’m not arguing about what the definition of fighting is. I was responding to the wonderment upthread about why she was still just standing there when he came out and approached them with a gun, and even after he started shooting in their general direction. It was suggested that her “fight or flight” response had caused her to freeze up, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think she was just so contemptuous of Spaide that she believed he couldn’t possibly have the balls to shoot her - in part because she believed her recording of his behavior would deter him from committing a crime. IOW, she didn’t perceive a lethal threat until she had actual been shot the first time (after which she was physically unable to retreat).
As pointed out upthread, she didn’t “freeze up.” Even as Spaide started shooting, she was walking toward him taking video, and said “I’ve got a video” after six shots had been fired. Her husband stayed where he was and appeared more confused than frightened. But neither displayed “fight or flight” behavior as the shooting started.
I think the Goys might have been so used to bullying Spaide that they simply couldn’t conceive of him as a threat to them even when he had a gun in his hand.
This.
As my grandfather used to say, “another great theory ruined by the facts.”
The U.S.A. has been intervening forcefully around the world for eons now, but the change in the nature of gun culture from one of hunting deer and plunking tin cans, to one of owning weapons of mass slaughter, is something that happened somewhere around or since the end of the Cold War.
Josh Marshall published a good letter about this several years back from a reader who grew up in that earlier gun culture; it’s worth a read.