Woman Shoots Army Vet Over Walmart Parking Spot | Self Defense?
A deadly argument over a Walmart parking spot in North Lauderdale, Florida, ended with 62-year-old Army veteran Bart DiGuglielmo shot and killed. The woman who fired the shot claims self-defense, but video of the confrontation is now raising serious legal questions.
In this video, we break down what the footage appears to show, what witnesses are saying, and whether this could be justified self-defense or something more.
šļø New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! š https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5161843343491072
If you watch the entire video, it may be difficult for this woman to legitimately claim Justifiable Homicide (FL 776.012).
Before the man ever took one single step in the womanās direction, she already had her gun drawn/brandished. As mentioned in this video, her act is/was a misdemeanor. I would also argue that her drawing of the gun is the initial act of aggression.
Florida law does not allow a person to claim justifiable homicide (self-defense) if they are the aggressor.
Florida law might likely view the original drawing of the weapon (before the man ever stepped foot towards her) as the initial aggressive act (instigating the conflict).
Also, one point that Nate and another lawyer get wrong in this video is around the 21:00 mark. Florida law does not view the mere act of walking towards someone or following someone as an āattackā – with respect to 776.012. In other words, if an unarmed person is walking towards you and not making any threats of violence, this is not considered enough to justify the use of deadly force – no matter how threatened the person who uses deadly force felt (or claims to have felt).
It also does not matter that the woman took a few steps backwards – at least with respect to FL law.
That saidā¦
If an independent and disinterested party (witness) attests that they heard the man verbally threaten to seriously injure or kill the woman, then this woman would possibly regain the right to use deadly force under 776.012.
Two other things to considerā¦
ā¢ All it takes is one juror to hang a jury. Prosecutors may be hesitant to try a case, especially after so many people (but especially black people) are primed to exercise Jury Nullification after the Karmelo Anthony trial, because prosecutors are often political and self-interested (meaning that they may care more about the odds of obtaining a prosecution over concerns about Justice).
ā¢ The establishment media is pushing hard for a racially charged case that they can use to influence the 2026 mid-term election. It is possible that FL state prosecutors would refuse to prosecute in order to prevent this case from being used as a political cudgel. It is also possible that prosecutors are waiting until after the election to file charges.
#1 rule on stand your ground or lethal force self defense is if a situation is avoidable, you avoid it. She wouldāve been free and clear if they didnāt argue first, he went into Walmart, and then she got the gun and waited for him..choosing an armed confrontation over fleeing. If this happened in confrontation #1 she would probably be free and clear, but to re-engage is always a way to flip the law against you.
She exited her car with the gun when the video started she was already yelling down the parking lot with gun in hand. She was next to the front fender with it he advance walked then came again. At this point heās angry she shouted what itās not clear there was eye witnesses that would have seen it. She was wrong and I would have been annoyed and pissed if you pull a gun on me.
This is really a road rage case disguised as self-defense. She got out of the car in anger with the gun, not fear. This is going to be the primary motivation for charges.
I'm getting a vibe from her actions… That she's a lawful carrier (obviously) …knows the law. Was intent on shooting this man, but was gonna take all the necessary actions to cover her ass first. That's what this looks like
You can't continue to instigate an altercation, get out of your vehicle with gun in hand, and start yelling at the other party and claim you were in fear of a serious threat.
Under the FL law stand your ground doesnāt mean approach someone who is also standing their ground or exercising self defense. The mental gymnastics but the yahoo in the middle is laughable
1-just before he got shot he walked on by like he didnt see where she was,then came back. What was that all about? Visual impaired? 2 Mabe he couldnt see or hear well enough. That would change things enough 3 -Then she shot him from 12 ft away and he was maintaining his usual walk speed. I think she shot him when he was not within dangerous distance. Its contributory negligence as far as I see and the man may have been audibly and visually impaired which could change picture
If this were a white woman being walked up to by a black man, there would be NO assumption that the white woman would face any charges. Unconscious bias affects outcomes.
This is the mistake of having open carry laws. She should have had it holstered, but you have people feeling like a gun is the first resolution point, not the last.
Yall over think this shit! Remember George Zimmerman. You canāt shoot someone unless you are in reasonable fear for your life. This man never showed weapon. She goes to jail!
I would never live in a place where I have to wake up and hear someone breaking down my door and have to try to get up dressed and run to different door or jump out of a window to escape my own house nope I own a 40cal pistol for that and would hate to hurt someone but I would
I would say it was a murder. Man didnt touch her and he was unarmed. Both had right to be there. She had no right to shoot him. It seemed like woman was searching a conflict.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
she murdered the dude no iminant threat
wasn't nate on karmellos side too? he gets it wrong alot
If you watch the entire video, it may be difficult for this woman to legitimately claim Justifiable Homicide (FL 776.012).
Before the man ever took one single step in the womanās direction, she already had her gun drawn/brandished. As mentioned in this video, her act is/was a misdemeanor. I would also argue that her drawing of the gun is the initial act of aggression.
Florida law does not allow a person to claim justifiable homicide (self-defense) if they are the aggressor.
Florida law might likely view the original drawing of the weapon (before the man ever stepped foot towards her) as the initial aggressive act (instigating the conflict).
Also, one point that Nate and another lawyer get wrong in this video is around the 21:00 mark. Florida law does not view the mere act of walking towards someone or following someone as an āattackā – with respect to 776.012. In other words, if an unarmed person is walking towards you and not making any threats of violence, this is not considered enough to justify the use of deadly force – no matter how threatened the person who uses deadly force felt (or claims to have felt).
It also does not matter that the woman took a few steps backwards – at least with respect to FL law.
That saidā¦
If an independent and disinterested party (witness) attests that they heard the man verbally threaten to seriously injure or kill the woman, then this woman would possibly regain the right to use deadly force under 776.012.
Two other things to considerā¦
ā¢ All it takes is one juror to hang a jury. Prosecutors may be hesitant to try a case, especially after so many people (but especially black people) are primed to exercise Jury Nullification after the Karmelo Anthony trial, because prosecutors are often political and self-interested (meaning that they may care more about the odds of obtaining a prosecution over concerns about Justice).
ā¢ The establishment media is pushing hard for a racially charged case that they can use to influence the 2026 mid-term election. It is possible that FL state prosecutors would refuse to prosecute in order to prevent this case from being used as a political cudgel. It is also possible that prosecutors are waiting until after the election to file charges.
Justified move on
#1 rule on stand your ground or lethal force self defense is if a situation is avoidable, you avoid it. She wouldāve been free and clear if they didnāt argue first, he went into Walmart, and then she got the gun and waited for him..choosing an armed confrontation over fleeing. If this happened in confrontation #1 she would probably be free and clear, but to re-engage is always a way to flip the law against you.
She's going to trial for manslaughter and also a civil lawsuit that going to cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Her life ruined also.
She exited her car with the gun when the video started she was already yelling down the parking lot with gun in hand. She was next to the front fender with it he advance walked then came again. At this point heās angry she shouted what itās not clear there was eye witnesses that would have seen it. She was wrong and I would have been annoyed and pissed if you pull a gun on me.
For her walking back near the white car it looks like she is making sure to keep proper repositioning and not to fire randomly.
This is really a road rage case disguised as self-defense. She got out of the car in anger with the gun, not fear. This is going to be the primary motivation for charges.
De-escalation or retreating wasn't on her mind. She was goading him into keeping the conflict going
I'm getting a vibe from her actions… That she's a lawful carrier (obviously) …knows the law. Was intent on shooting this man, but was gonna take all the necessary actions to cover her ass first. That's what this looks like
You can't continue to instigate an altercation, get out of your vehicle with gun in hand, and start yelling at the other party and claim you were in fear of a serious threat.
It's definitely brandishing. She got out of her vehicle with it in hand and began yelling at him. That is absolutely brandishing.
Under the FL law stand your ground doesnāt mean approach someone who is also standing their ground or exercising self defense. The mental gymnastics but the yahoo in the middle is laughable
1-just before he got shot he walked on by like he didnt see where she was,then came back. What was that all about? Visual impaired?
2 Mabe he couldnt see or hear well enough. That would change things enough
3 -Then she shot him from 12 ft away and he was maintaining his usual walk speed. I think she shot him when he was not within dangerous distance. Its contributory negligence as far as I see and the man may have been audibly and visually impaired which could change picture
If this were a white woman being walked up to by a black man, there would be NO assumption that the white woman would face any charges. Unconscious bias affects outcomes.
This is the mistake of having open carry laws. She should have had it holstered, but you have people feeling like a gun is the first resolution point, not the last.
I don't care who's innocent if someone has raised gun and he started in her direction he might not be smart
If you are arguing with someone and show them the weapon before there is enough reason it's brandishing
Yall over think this shit! Remember George Zimmerman. You canāt shoot someone unless you are in reasonable fear for your life. This man never showed weapon. She goes to jail!
I would never live in a place where I have to wake up and hear someone breaking down my door and have to try to get up dressed and run to different door or jump out of a window to escape my own house nope I own a 40cal pistol for that and would hate to hurt someone but I would
Yes if I shoot you a week later that's premeditated murder hands down
But we must understand that the cops nation wide don't go to one day of law school so I wouldn't ask them
Florida has in my opinion decent gun laws if you are camping hunting and fishing then you can be armed to the teeth
I would say it was a murder. Man didnt touch her and he was unarmed. Both had right to be there. She had no right to shoot him. It seemed like woman was searching a conflict.