You left something out ...... further what you describe as a "shove" many see as a SLAM ........ perception in the mind of the shooter is the key here, from what I can see it's reasonable to believe that in the shooter's mind he was in "FEAR" of great bodily harm after having just been violently assaulted.
Very true, once things take a physical turn it is hard to jump inside the mind of the shooter and for all we know he truly was in fear for his life.
As many have posted there were dumb decisions made by all parties it seems.
The shooter should not have started a verbal altercation with someone, man or woman, over a parking spot while exercising his right to carry. Is it illegal? No, but responsible and implied. If you start an argument there is always the potential of escalation to the point of physical violence. If you are too old to roll around anymore that's understandable and self protection by any means is your God given right, but while carrying a gun, that guy should probably not have been picking a fight over a parking space.
The assaulter appears to be a big guy that should have easily known that he could he could have pulped the shooter no problem, so why shove or slam a guy that you know you can beat anyway? He could have just brushed it off and got in his car and been on his way. For "reasons" he felt the need to shove a guy weaker than him and he paid a hefty price.
As to perception in the mind of the shooter. That is where we have to be careful as responsible gun owners and set a good example so as to not be scrutinized by gun grabbers.
Example
A vet recently returns from the war and is riding the bus alongside an arab looking man with turban, beard and rubbing prayer beads. The middle eastern man is heard mumbling to himself "Ala Akbar" is he praying or getting ready to detonate a bomb? The vet remembers a similar looking individual saying Ala Akbar right before blowing himself up and taking his buddy with him. So the firearm packing vet is truly in fear now for his life, draws and blows the arab guy away. Turns out he was just praying to himself, no bomb, no gun, nada. Should we set that legal precedent and rule it a good shooting?
Another example
A CCW carrying mother used to walk her neighborhood streets with her toddler son. Years ago and a drunk in a purple SUV traveling 50 in a 25 hits her child and kills him. Fast forward and she is walking her newborn son and sees a purple SUV speeding down the street. She draws and kills the driver because in her mind she was truly in fear of her kids life. Yes the guy was speeding, but not drunk, and not close to her or her kid. Good shooting?
I guess what I am trying to say in all my rambling is that when it can be such as having video etc, deadly force should be quantifiable to an extent. Otherwise we would all be shooting each other and telling cops that we are in fear for our lives. It is just a slippery slope. I am grateful the stand your ground law exists specifically if a shooting were to happen with no witnesses or cameras. We just should not abuse the law in light of clear evidence that a loss of life did not need to take place.
Again just my opinion, and as stated it seems everyone involved made some poor decisions and unfortunately it cost a man his life.