Not a tough call at all. Don’t know why anyone thinks that.
Fredenberg was on Harper’s land, acting in a threatening fashion towards him. It was Harper’s land and he had no duty to retreat. Further, the woman might have needed Harper’s help if Fredenberg turned violent towards her.
It was a good shoot all the way.
Doesn’t matter if the jerk was banging Fredenberg’s wife. You don’t get attack a man (or errant wife), or threaten to do so, on his land for any reason.
That's exactly the question at hand. He was unarmed and there were no signs of a struggle - the two survivors of the incident are highly motivated to make that claim. But they cannot prove it.
The wife and her boyfriend say that they were followed, and say that he trespassed and say that he threatened them. But there is zero proof that he was not instead invited and then ambushed.
There is no physical evidence to support their version of events, just the word of two people who have a strong incentive to lie.
The prosecutor thought that and he knows more of the facts and the law than you or I do.
Fredenberg was on Harper’s land
So was his wife and his kids. When your wife and kids are there in a house with a nutcase with a gun diddling their mother you have a right to be there.
he had no duty to retreat.
He had no duty to shoot either.
You don’t get attack a man (or errant wife), or threaten to do so, on his land for any reason.
That works both ways. There was no evidence of an attack, only the evidence of a shooting.