Florida woman shoots and kills a man in Wal Mart parking lot. Self defense or not?

[arthurdawg]

As I posted earlier, I agree with this, even if she stupidly put herself in that situation.

Have you read the book that is the source of that quote?

I did like early Heinlein, although it has been ages since I read anything by him.

The whole situation is just sad. When an incident occurs your #1 plan should be to disengage quickly and leave the area.

If Zimmerman hadn't been out looking for Martin with a gun, the whole incident never would have happened, and I felt that the stand your ground law gave him coverage for something that never should have happened. The same with this lady if she went looking for the man after an incident.

As Pink Floyd tells us... "Run like heck."

 

[tusks_n_raider]

There were quite likely better options than shooting the threatening man. Driving away or sitting in your locked car and waiting on the police are more sensible behaviors. Her actions and the accessibility of the gun contributed to the worst possible solution.

Living in Florida, I would never get into an argument like this with a stranger, male or female. Our gun policies increase the possibility of a firearm being a first rather than last resort.

This is my problem with the whole of ordeal which is asinine stupid to begin with.

There has never been a Wal-Mart in existence where it was difficult to find a parking space except for maybe on a Black Friday.

I agree the guy was an overly aggressive and emotional idiot for not knowing when to walk away but being an emotional idiot in public isn’t worthy of a death sentence either.

Did the woman (who also had the opportunity to walk away or call the police etc) just shoot him in the head or dead center mass and kill him or did she shoot him in the shoulder or something to try and disable him?

To me that also makes a difference.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I did like early Heinlein, although it has been ages since I read anything by him.

The whole situation is just sad. When an incident occurs your #1 plan should be to disengage quickly and leave the area.

If Zimmerman hadn't been out looking for Martin with a gun, the whole incident never would have happened, and I felt that the stand your ground law gave him coverage for something that never should have happened. The same with this lady if she went looking for the man after an incident.

As Pink Floyd tells us... "Run like heck."

I saw an interview with a former SEAL team member a while back where he was asked what he would do if someone bumped into him in a bar or started pushing him on the street. His response was (paraphrased) “I’d apologize and offer to buy the guy a drink, or if I’m out in the street, I run away. Little good can come from physical confrontation, even if I’m certain I’ll win - if I hit the guy once, he falls and hits his head on the curb and dies, I’m going to jail. Why not run away?”

I believe stand-your-ground laws need to exist as there’s no perfect answer and firearms are great equalizers wrt physical discrepancies. But I also think the woman in question needs to be charged with brandishing and face the full extent of the law. Selective enforcement isn’t helpful and brandishing laws serve an important purpose.

Ultimately, the numbers seem to indicate that crimes are deterred by firearms at quite high rates (low estimates are 50k+ annually, high estimates in the millions) and I don’t think it’s coincidence that the US homicide rates have dropped as firearm laws have loosened over the last couple of decades:

Homicide Rates in US by Year 2026 | Facts About Homicide Rates by Year

Yearly Homicide Rates in US 2026 The landscape of homicide rates in the United States continues to evolve in 2026, marking a significant period of decline following the historic peaks witnessed during the pandemic years. Current data from multiple federal…

www.theglobalstatistics.com

 

[JDCrimson]

It would seem the appropriate doctrine and safest social response would be escape first, if escape is not viable then stand your ground.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

It would seem the appropriate doctrine and safest social response would be escape first, if escape is not viable then stand your ground.

Yes and preferably by non lethal means if possible.

What happened to good old fashioned mace/pepper spray to the face?

I know I’ve seen ICE use it a lot (maybe not the best example since they kill people too).

Maybe it would a good requirement for gun owners to be required to learn how to attempt a non lethal shot if possible.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

This is my problem with the whole of ordeal which is asinine stupid to begin with.

There has never been a Wal-Mart in existence where it was difficult to find a parking space except for maybe on a Black Friday.

I agree the guy was an overly aggressive and emotional idiot for not knowing when to walk away but being an emotional idiot in public isn’t worthy of a death sentence either.

Did the woman (who also had the opportunity to walk away or call the police etc) just shoot him in the head or dead center mass and kill him or did she shoot him in the shoulder or something to try and disable him?

To me that also makes a difference.

I've watched the videos several times and it appears she wasn't really aiming at one particular spot, but just shooting "at him" and appeared to hit him in the lower right (his left) part of the stomach. She didn't have the body language of someone who was skilled at shooting a pistol. That's why I don't think she was aiming at a specific spot.

Though there are a lot of instances in this situation that both parties should have just walked away. She should have just cranked her car and driven off when she got back in her car, and the guy had walked off. But for some reason, she didn't, and decided to exit the car with a gun and re-engage in the altercation. But the same can be said for him as well. Just two very, very bad decisions by both parties.

 

[JDCrimson]

I've watched the videos several times and it appears she wasn't really aiming at one particular spot, but just shooting "at him" and appeared to hit him in the lower right (his left) part of the stomach. She didn't have the body language of someone who was skilled at shooting a pistol. That's why I don't think she was aiming at a specific spot.

Though there are a lot of instances in this situation that both parties should have just walked away. She should have just cranked her car and driven off when she got back in her car, and the guy had walked off. But for some reason, she didn't, and decided to exit the car with a gun and re-engage in the altercation. But the same can be said for him as well. Just two very, very bad decisions by both parties.

Who re-engaged who first? If she re-engsged him first while brandishing a gun, I think she loses the defense of self defense even if she was backing away when she shot him. On the jury, I would convict her of manslaughter. I have not seen it but he could have been walking toward while asking her to lower her weapon. You certainly dont want to turn your back on someone pointing a gun at you.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Who re-engaged who first? If she re-engsged him first while brandishing a gun, I think she loses the defense of self defense even if she was backing away when she shot him. On the jury, I would convict her of manslaughter. I have not seen it but he could have been walking toward while asking her to lower her weapon. You certainly dont want to turn your back on someone pointing a gun at you.

That's what I can't figure out. The videos I've watched aren't in one continuous sequence. It is almost like they are piece-milled together. But I would like to know as well.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

That's what I can't figure out. The videos I've watched aren't in one continuous sequence. It is almost like they are piece-milled together. But I would like to know as well.

They never are.

That’s why even video makes me suspicious nowadays. When those Georgia crackers killed Ahmoud Arbery, a black female coworker of mine showed me the video and asked what I thought.

I said, “If this is all there is to the story, these guys committed at least second-degree of not first-degree murder. The one question I have is whether this tells the entire relevant portion of the story.”

In that case it largely did. But in too many cases, videos are edited to elicit instinctive reactions rather than inform. Or if not edited are often very unclear.

 

[Elefantman]

All I know is I would hate to spend eternity in heaven or hell having to explain to everyone how I died over a Walmart parking space.

 

[arthurdawg]

I saw an interview with a former SEAL team member a while back where he was asked what he would do if someone bumped into him in a bar or started pushing him on the street. His response was (paraphrased) “I’d apologize and offer to buy the guy a drink, or if I’m out in the street, I run away. Little good can come from physical confrontation, even if I’m certain I’ll win - if I hit the guy once, he falls and hits his head on the curb and dies, I’m going to jail. Why not run away?”

I believe stand-your-ground laws need to exist as there’s no perfect answer and firearms are great equalizers wrt physical discrepancies. But I also think the woman in question needs to be charged with brandishing and face the full extent of the law. Selective enforcement isn’t helpful and brandishing laws serve an important purpose.

Ultimately, the numbers seem to indicate that crimes are deterred by firearms at quite high rates (low estimates are 50k+ annually, high estimates in the millions) and I don’t think it’s coincidence that the US homicide rates have dropped as firearm laws have loosened over the last couple of decades:

Homicide Rates in US by Year 2026 | Facts About Homicide Rates by Year

Yearly Homicide Rates in US 2026 The landscape of homicide rates in the United States continues to evolve in 2026, marking a significant period of decline following the historic peaks witnessed during the pandemic years. Current data from multiple federal…

www.theglobalstatistics.com

Smart SEAL indeed!

I have no issue with someone using firearms to protect themselves... But you can't go looking for trouble, opt out at multiple points where you could step away and disengage, and then claim self defense or standing your ground. I mean, if it is your house and someone is forcing their way in or threatening to kill you, that is absolutely justifiable. Or if you have tried your best to get away and the assaulting party simply won't disengage... They forfeit a right to not be shot at!

 

[Bodhisattva]

I've never entered into an argument over a parking spot. Not worth the trouble. Just park a little bit further down and stretch my legs a little more. And the other contender for the spot was a woman. Be a gentleman and let her have it.

 

[JDCrimson]

All I know is I would hate to spend eternity in heaven or hell having to explain to everyone how I died over a Walmart parking space.

You would have to explain it in hell. In heaven it would never be brought up.

 

[JDCrimson]

Smart SEAL indeed!

I have no issue with someone using firearms to protect themselves... But you can't go looking for trouble, opt out at multiple points where you could step away and disengage, and then claim self defense or standing your ground. I mean, if it is your house and someone is forcing their way in or threatening to kill you, that is absolutely justifiable. Or if you have tried your best to get away and the assaulting party simply won't disengage... They forfeit a right to not be shot at!

Unless you're a Cobra Kai isn't that what they teach in martial arts, avoid confrontation whenever possible?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Smart SEAL indeed!

I have no issue with someone using firearms to protect themselves... But you can't go looking for trouble, opt out at multiple points where you could step away and disengage, and then claim self defense or standing your ground. I mean, if it is your house and someone is forcing their way in or threatening to kill you, that is absolutely justifiable. Or if you have tried your best to get away and the assaulting party simply won't disengage... They forfeit a right to not be shot at!

That was the old law...

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Unless you're a Cobra Kai isn't that what they teach in martial arts, avoid confrontation whenever possible?

STRIKE FIRST, STRIKE HARD, NO MERCY SIR!!!

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I did like early Heinlein, although it has been ages since I read anything by him.

The whole situation is just sad. When an incident occurs your #1 plan should be to disengage quickly and leave the area.

If Zimmerman hadn't been out looking for Martin with a gun, the whole incident never would have happened, and I felt that the stand your ground law gave him coverage for something that never should have happened. The same with this lady if she went looking for the man after an incident.

As Pink Floyd tells us... "Run like heck."

Agree totally with your opening statement...

 

[Ledsteplin]

If neither of them had a gun, I would argue that neither of them would have died. Guns cause way more problems than they prevent. What a pointless way to die. Both parties were in the wrong here, but it was self defense.

But he didn't have a weapon. And he stayed a distance from while talking to her. When she moved, so did he. It didn't appear he got any closer than about 8 feet away. But I have no idea what he was telling her. Both should have got in their cars and left.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

But he didn't have a weapon. And he stayed a distance from while talking to her. When she moved, so did he. It didn't appear he got any closer than about 8 feet away. But I have no idea what he was telling her. Both should have got in their cars and left.

My problem with his actions is he finds himself standing in front of an angry and apparently scared woman pointing a gun at him. What on earth did he think was so important to say that he continues to walk toward the woman (still pointing hte gun at him) when she's repeatedly telling him to stop? At what point does the guy just "read the room" and stop?

Personally, I think the guy was using a form of passive aggression in continuing to walk toward her even after she's telling him to stop. What if she hadn't of kept backing up? Was he going to continue to walk toward her? He wrote his own death certificate by his actions. It doesn't mean she's completely in the right, but his actions just begged to get shot....and he did.

 

[crimsonaudio]

But he didn't have a weapon. And he stayed a distance from while talking to her. When she moved, so did he. It didn't appear he got any closer than about 8 feet away. But I have no idea what he was telling her. Both should have got in their cars and left.

I mean, he followed her around her car before moving towards her while she had a gun pointed at him. Does anyone really believe he was just going to give her a hug and walk away were she unarmed?

He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.