Not the question. The question is was he legally entitled to kill?
Certainly an argument can be made that he was justified in his use of force. Without assuming a lot of “facts” based on speculation, gossip, and testimony of a biased witness, the only evidence that we have, video from one angle without sound, does not clearly demonstrate that he broke the law. Which is why (and only why) he was not immediately charged.
We don’t know what was said between the woman illegally parked and the shooter. We don’t know what prompted the individual to leave his child in the store and run out to attack someone that was clearly not being violent. We don’t know what was said after the initial attack. What we do know, is that after all facts that could be ascertained by direct investigation is that the shooter was not charged.
I have little doubt that he will be charged, regardless of what the law says. It will be a circus, and they will do whatever they need to do to demonize him ala Zimmerman mostly to get the “stand your ground” laws overturned. Media has already started with the narrative and for some reason, people that should know better to believe a single word enemedia says, writes, or infers, have uncritically accepted the characterization of Drejka.