A shooting in a Florida parking lot several weeks ago sparked considerable debate in the armed citizen community. Our friend who on the internet goes by Colion Noir explains, here:

Dr. Todd Grande weighs in here:

The prosecutor’s office has announced that since they cannot prove she acted wrongly, she will not be charged.
What’s y’all’s take on the matter?

36 COMMENTS

  1. As CN points out, she did in fact retreat repeatedly so I am not sure this is a stand your ground case, though the media hates the law and made it that. Prosecutors probably hate it too. There was a pretty clear disparity of force argument to be made. This is not to say that either of them exercised good judgment which would have been walking or driving away.

  2. She got out with the gun in her hand. I think that shows intent to use it out of anger. Of course this is Broward County Florida so if the races had been reversed she would have been charged.

  4. If the woman had not had a gun, and that guy while acting aggressively and pursuing her had been able to make contact, what do you suppose he would have done? While this whole thing was easily avoidable, under the circumstances I think she was reasonable in assuming great bodily harm and justified in defending herself.

  5. Well….

    In the video it looks like she was trying to back away and he kept coming at her.

    Even after she raised her gun. I clear indication that she was in fear for her well-being.

    Any normal person would have put his hands up and immediately started backing away. But the guy kept advancing.

    Of course, any normal person would have just parked somewhere else.

    This world is coming undone like a cheap suit. We have lost the ability to have civil discourse. The internet has emboldened people to be first rate A-holes, thinking they are above any sort of responsibility for action. Things that would have been shrugged off fifteen years ago now become self-defense actions.

    Good on Florida for not persecuting (yes, not slip of the tongue). If she were in Illinois, and a republican voter, she would probably be facing the death sentence, after which she would be voting democrat. But in Illinois the a-hole would have been safe because the woman would have only been armed with her striking good looks…….

  6. Chasing someone around a parking lot who is backing away from you while holding a gun is really, really bad idea. The only thing it proves is that you’re reckless, stupid and looking for a fight.

  7. Extremely poor judgement was exercised by both involved parties.
    I agree with Dr Grande’s words. Although she is technically unable to be charged, she is morally guiltyof killing a fellow human being, over ego. Mom taught me two wrongs don’t make one right. Whether raw-tsakh’ is interpreted kill or murder will be a matter for the original Author of this ancient of this law (Exodus 20:13) to determine.

  9. The drugs in his system adds a facet that I had not previously heard.

    That said, as noted, she had several opportunities to disengage from the obnoxious stranger who, per the videos, presented no deadly threat. Also as noted, she exited her vehicle unnecessarily _and_ introduced a deadly weapon in the situation.

    My amateur verdict: her fault.

  11. Probably not the best idea to start an argument over a parking spot on both sides. Violates one of John Farnham’s rules of stupid.

    That said, I was able to discern many of the elements of justified use of deadly force that I learned in my two times at the MAG 40 course.

    What is missing from the videos are the events preceding the woman introducing the gun into the situation. I cannot tell whether “preclusion” or “first aggressor” on the part of the woman played a role, but likely not given the Florida prosecutor’s decision not to charge.

    My inclination is that this looked like a justified and legal use of deadly defensive force.

  12. the one issue neither o our commters raised is this:

    the woman’s tiny baby grandch/d had remained in the car with her. The chi/d’s Mother had gone into the store. On a hot day, Mother comes out, has groceies, where is Mama’s car with my baby?

    Bac up, and start over with THIS in consideration.
    Now we have an idea why Mama wanted that space.

    Now move ahead again, this time pondering the tox pane/ the guy had medd/ing with his cognitive phunction.

    When I am in that situation, I never hesitate, I simp/y /et the other one get the space. even in the heat. I am certain I wi// never get shot by someone wanting my space in a store /ot.

  14. I just don’t understand why people in a busy parking lot insist on backing into the space. Had she just gone nose-in to the space there wouldn’t have been a dispute over who’s parking space it was. There’s a time and place to take your time and back in to the space and time just to put it nose in a get out of the way. That said the guy completely lost control.

    • Respectfully, and with a smile, I am compelled to address the Rabbit Trail: because it’s a whole lot safer for everyone to back into a parking space, than to back out. And despite common perceptions, no time is lost. Either the people around you are waiting while you back in, or they are waiting while you back out. So use the same amount of time, and keep everybody safer.
      Granted, in this particular context, that is ironic. Do I think this driver made the right decision when she parked there? No.
      I realize that we live in a world where almost nobody knows how to quickly, effectively, and safely back their vehicles anywhere. But my grandfather taught me that, in general, you always back into your parking space. I realize that people don’t understand this (which is sad considering that their front — not rear — wheels are turned by their steering wheel, making the physics of backing into a parking space much easier than trying to pull into it.) This is why I usually end up parking halfway down the lot, if it’s crazy busy. Lord willing, I have been trained well: I am going to carry, and therefore I do everything in my power to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

      • I do the same and try to avoid the rat race over spaces by parking a further away and walking a little bit. However I disagree with your position that it is safer to back in – at least in a situation like the one in the video. With all due respect to both of our grandfathers cars have changed a lot since those days. I can remember mine driving an Oldsmobile with a St. Christopher statue on the dashboard and a Chevy Chevette. In my case I know that my range of vision backing out of a parking space is much greater because of the wide angle lens on the back of the car. Pulling straight out I can’t see what’s on my left or my right until the hood of of vehicle has poked out enough to get a look. And that blind probing of the traffic lane has danger written all over it. In my driveway at home backing in make sense because there are no obstructions pulling out. But in the Walmart parking lot in question, there were vehicles on all sides at the time of the incident. If a person doesn’t have a backup camera then I might agree with you. But it’s pretty standard today.

      • RE comment below: Point taken. I have never owned a vehicle with a back-up camera. I simply won’t buy a new vehicle unless the visibility is excellent — b/c I don’t want to deal with the danger if the camera doesn’t work. That said, I’ve never encountered a person in my parking spot when I was backing into it. (I’m not saying it couldn’t happen — that’s why I anticipate the possibility.) All the people I’ve ever seen were right in front of me as I left. That’s my “trade” to your blind probing point — which, I admit, is valid. Have a good day; thanks for the exchange 🙂

  15. The automatic response to an armed person shooting an unarmed one, is that it is unfair and unnecessary.
    But a woman facing a man, when both are unarmed is unfair in itself.
    Men are just so much stronger and bare hands can kill.
    When I practiced the martial arts we had to pretend the womens holds worked. The reality was we could simply pull out of them if we wanted to.
    njk

  16. This is great “ammunition” for anti-gunners. They can point out that the gun escalated this incident to the point where one participant lost his life. So, in 1881 there was the Gunfight Near the OK Corral. In 2026, there was the Gunfight Over the Parking Space. Looks like de-evolution to me. I nominate Bart DiGuglielmo for a Darwin Award. How did he survive 62 years of life on this planet? I can hear the Europeans saying, “Look at those Americans shooting each other over a parking space.”

    Now imagine how some Americans will act if we ever experience a famine.

    Bart was a veteran, and he lived in Florida. Was he a gun owner? I looked it up. He was not carrying a gun, and was probably not a gun owner.

  17. I feel a twinge of guilt because I was tough on Bart. As an emergency room nurse for 30 years, he obviously did a lot of good. I believe people can be really smart in some areas of life, and really stupid in others. This is definitely true for me. That day, Bart just made a really bad decision.

  18. Analysis of Florida law is, of course, far beyond the knowledge of Noir and Grande. I agree with the conclusion of the Broward SAO closeout memorandum, although I take issue with some of it.

    Florida law could actually be applied to support a decision the other way – manslaughter. There certainly was probable cause to arrest for the homicide, and also the required probable cause under the immunity statute to show her use of deadly force was not justifiable. The SAO simply decided the pretrial hearing burden of proof (disprove justifiable force by clear and convincing evidence) could not be met. Nothing bars a SAO from applying that paradigm to make its charging decision. Most do now.

    Notably, the Broward SAO has made some dubious force justification determinations in the past five years or so. Some were rejected by the appellate court over its circuit. Also of note, the State Attorney revealed his lack of understanding of the law in a lengthy TV interview several years ago.

    As to the woman’s early firearm display and gun pointing, that could, under Florida law, result in her loss of the defense of justification, or the imposition of the “duty to retreat” before discharging it. The “duty to retreat” is more complex and demanding than most realize. It is arguable that simply moving and backing up are insufficient. A case presently on appeal from Key West includes related issues. I wrote about the case for lawyers and judges here, on p. 4:https://www.8jcba.org/resources/Documents/NEWSLETTERS/2025-26/June%202026%20Newsletter.pdf

    • FYI to webmaster, there is something about this post which makes the format only half readable. Many words from the right hand side of each line are cut off.

    • Does anyone know what preceded the lady’s act of drawing the weapon? I agree that displaying the weapon over parking lot dispute could result in a claim of “first aggressor”. It also raises the question of proportionality. Was the threat of deadly force necessary to the force used or purportedly used by the man?

  19. An avoidable tragedy in my opinion. Having been in several unpleasant parking spot disputes with reckless hotheads, my response has always been, and will remain, “Fine, the spot is yours.” Then I’m free to walk away, attend to my business, and not have a possible murder indictment, a bad community reputation, and bankrupting criminal and civil legal costs hanging over my head.

  20. After watching both videos, this certainly validates my decades old practice of parking at some distance from stores. I don’t mind walking and it avoids the idiots who fight over parking spots-and those with limited abilities to fit a vehicle into a parking spot. It also can eliminate the ability to get inside my reactionary gap. The size of many parking spaces doesn’t match the size of many vehicles.

    People-like me-who back into parking spaces are trying to avoid having to back out blindly as you do if you pull in forward. You’re a hoping and a praying no idiot is going to run into you.

    As Sgt Major Roberts used to frequently note: “Proper Prior Planning Prevents P**s Poor Performance. Or, situations better avoided.

  21. I put this in the “2 dumbasses category.” When 2 dumbasses collide the result is never good. She should have just stayed in her car and left. He should have known better than to chase someone around that’s holding a gun on you. I wonder if his family will file a civil suit?

    I like to use the “tomorrow morning” rule. If I woke up tomorrow morning facing the consequences of my actions, which course of action would I choose? I think she would have preferred to be a bit miffed about the jerk and the parking space. I would hope that he would prefer to be breathing.

  22. In my view, the female was totally justified in her actions. While it is true that it would have been more mature to abandon the parking space (at the very start) since the male was acting irrationally, once he left his vehicle and entered the store, it was reasonable to assume that he had abandoned his claim to the space and she was justified in parking in it. After he returned and drove somewhere else to park, it was again reasonable, on her part, to assume that the incident was over. This is confirmed by her niece going into the store. The female remained behind to guard the young child and secure her vehicle.

    The man (from the point-of-view of the Law) began a second confrontation when he approached her vehicle again. Given the disparity of force between a male and a female, it was (again) reasonable for her to exit her vehicle (to gain room for defensive action) and for her to be armed in an effort to warn off further threats.

    The male stalked her as she retreated around her vehicle. The male, foolishly and under the influence of drugs, tried to close on her. He was well withing striking range when she fired defensively and hit him. Once he was down, she put aside her firearm and waited for the police/medical response.

    I see nothing, at all, wrong with her behavior. It could be argued that she should have immediately abandoned the space (at the very beginning) but I am not sure that she knew, at that early stage, that she was dealing with an irrational male under the influence of drugs. Certainly, once she was parked, her niece was in the store, and she had a child to protect, it was too late to retreat. Instead, it was time to go into “Mommy Bear” mode and protect her family and herself.

    I don’t even understand why this case is controversial. Florida got it right. Self-defense. Case closed.

    • I’m on the same page and paragraph. The only sentence you wrote that I disagree with is that she could reasonably conclude that the incident was over or settled. But maybe I only say that because I am a female who has wargamed parking lot scenarios where a man approaches me, and I feel threatened (i.e. no incident to precipitate conflict; I just happen to be the one he approaches.) And in those wargames, I always assume the possibility that he could follow me after I leave the parking lot.

      Thus, in this case, the moment he acted irrationally and just left his car in the middle of a driving lane, I think her wisest course of action would have been to take the opportunity of his abandoned vehicle to leave the premises and go shop someplace else, w/o a follow risk.

      But, at that point, another question arises. Someone is so irrational that they leave their vehicle in the middle of a driving lane. My gut reaction is that it is appropriate to call 911 at that point. In part because of the race to the telephone rule. But even if there had not been a conflict, it seems that this is a level of irrational behavior that justifies the call. Either the driver is high (as it turned out), or demented, or sick. Either way, there is a safety issue that probably justifies professional intervention. Of course, my husband being retired LEO, I fully appreciate that there is a limit to what can be done in that circumstance, if anything, and the suspect is likely to be gone anyway. But if nothing else, having the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle on a 911 call is not a bad idea.

  23. The prosecutor’s office has announced that since they cannot prove she acted wrongly, she will not be charged.

    IANAL, but I see mistakes on both sides. That said, I see far more mistakes — for far stupider reasons — on the man’s.

    But the quote above is basically what Mr. Colion Noir said in his video: There’s a HUGE difference between, “She was in the right,” and, “We can’t prove she was in the wrong.” The prosecutors don’t even have the confidence they can prevail in the initial SYG hearing, where the burden of proof is (IIRC) “preponderance of evidence”; IOW, “more likely than not.” If they can’t overcome THAT burden of proof, then “beyond a reasonable doubt” is likely impossible, and the whole exercise becomes a waste of time.

    In other states, they might try anyway, and force the defendant to spend time and money — of which the state has nearly unlimited resources to spend — mounting the defense; the process becomes the punishment. And so I applaud these prosecutors for not making her go through it. It’s the right call, not for the least of reasons that they’ll probably never find 12 people willing to convict after he continued chasing her around multiple cars.

    And even if this happened in a “duty to retreat” state, the law only requires retreat IF it can be done “in complete safety.” At some point, yes, she CAN continue stepping backward, but if it’s not safe to do so — either because the aggressor is too close or because the environment is not safe … and remember this is a parking lot, with moving vehicles — she is justified in using force. She shouldn’t have to step into vehicular traffic — endanger herself to a different hazard — to avoid shooting in self-defense.

  24. In my prior comment, I said that I did not see why this case is controversial. In thinking about it some more, I think that the (par-for-the-course) flawed news reporting is the reason. Consider the titles of the videos linked above:

    1) “She shot him over a Walmart Parking Spot…Then Florida Said” – Totally misleading title. A title designed to grab the attention of the public while misleading the viewer as to what actually happened. She did not shoot him over a parking spot. The dispute over the parking spot was already settled. Instead, she shot him because (a) the man was the aggressor in a second dispute which he initiated, (b) he stalked her after being warned off several times, and (c) he final closed within striking range which (given the disparity of force between male and female) put the female in jeopardy of death or serious bodily harm.

    2) “Woman Walks Free After Shooting Man Dead in Ridiculous Walmart Parking Space Battle” – another misleading headline designed to trivialize the very real threat that the woman was facing at the time she pulled the trigger.

    These titles show how easily the media can create controversy out of thin air in order to push sensational headlines. They know that so many of the people looking at their headlines are “Low Information” readers (as Rush used to say) who will not read past the blaring headline. This allows the media to lead their readers to false conclusions like a cow being led on a nose ring.

    I wonder how many people are in prison today, not because of the facts of their case, but (rather) because the media put them there in their quest for sensational headlines or to push their preferred narratives? I bet a true count would general impressive numbers!

    They were trying to put this woman in prison so as to push the anti-stand-your-ground narrative so beloved by the media. I expect that, if the man had been black and the woman had been white (so that the media could layer their racism on top of the case), then they would have probably succeeded in at least forcing the case to trial with a 50/50 chance of prison time for a woman who was forced to defend herself.

    One cannot despise the media too much nowadays. They deserved less regard then we give to slime molds!

  26. Oh sorry sir. I didn’t realize I took your spot. Let me back out, and I’ll move. I wasn’t paying attention.

    Then back out, and leave. Come back later, or go to another Walmart.

    If I did this in Massachusetts where I live, I’d be in jail with a whopping huge bond, a suspected LTC, and a pending seven figure legal bill.

    Both parties acted stupidly.

  28. Stay in the car.
    Drive away if need be.
    Solves all the legal issues ($) and drama.
    Being legally justified does not measure up to peacefully sleeping for the next year without court cases and costs pending.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here