Quote Originally Posted by knight0334 View Post
That and, was the force upon Shellhammer of the level that was immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury? If not, he had a duty to flee, especially since he was in the "victim's" home.

From all news reports I was able to find, whether or not certain info was left out, it is very easy to paint him guilty.

And even with the now info of him being attacked, he could still be guilty if the acts upon Shellhammer were not sufficient to warrant deadly force.

What will likely determine things is whether or not Shellhammer was in deed attacked, whether or not there was disparity of force, and whether or not the force employed upon Shellhammer created justification.

Then factor in, if Shellhammer was invited, what was the pretext of the invitation? Was it for a mere social visit? Was it to buy drugs? Was it for some other legal or illegal act? That could play a part as well.
These are all very valid points.

All mainstream news reports were stenographic -- they merely took down what the police told them. Police can put grass is blue and the sky is green in a report, and news media can and would repeat that report. That does not make grass blue or the sky green. In fact, instead of the perfunctory 'No comment; it is still under investigation.' The police made prejudicial statements to the local media right off the bat.

As to disparity of force, Shellhammer also had to consider the possibility of his firearm falling into his attackers' hands.

Actually, I think the pretext of the invitation in the texts may have had a sexual component.

Under Pennsylvania law, engaging in an illegal act (facts which are not in evidence in the case) precludes the presumption of the immediate use of deadly force, not the total elimination of the use of deadly force against death or serious bodily injury.