The point of contention is WHERE the fight occurred
Not really. That was disputed, and that simply led to an issue of credibility.
... it does not appear (at least in Arizona) that an attacker (or three) represent in themselves a threat of severe bodily harm.
Well, it depends on what they were doing and from what distance.
Whether the disparity of force justifies shooting is always up to the jury. In Hickey's case, none of the juries would agree that it was.
However if you enter the fight and it escalates are you likely to find yourself in the same position Mr. Hickey was in (who according to the article did everything right). If you stand your ground and fight back (or use pepper spray) and are forced to go for your gun as the fight gets out of hand are you, from a legal stand point, helping yourself?
Complicated and fact-sensitive.
Pepper spray would not make things worse unless it was used to attack an innocent.
If you could avoid shooting and the evidence indicates you did not do so, you are in a heap of trouble.
And then there is the question of innocence. Who provoked it? Who actually started it? Did the one who provoked it attempt to withdraw? Would that make a difference in the jurisdiction at hand? Did the one who started it attempt to withdraw?
Read Branca's book. Everything that has come up so far in this discussion is covered quite well.
Some people may be surprised to learn that, if someone uses deadly force to defend against unlawful non-deadly force, the person using
non-deadly force may then be justified in resorting to
deadly force .