Later filings accuse the 49-year-old of approaching officers with a knife after an alleged attack on his mother.
LEHIGH TOWNSHIP, Pa. — What began as a criminal case accusing Sean Deibert of choking his mother and threatening a neighbor has expanded into a broader prosecution that includes three felony aggravated-assault counts stemming from the police encounter in which an officer shot him.
The progression of charges provides the clearest timeline of how authorities’ understanding of the July 29 incident developed after the first emergency response. Deibert, 49, initially faced strangulation, simple assault and terroristic threats. State police later accused him of confronting Lehigh Township officers with a knife and added three aggravated-assault counts, possession of an instrument of crime and another terroristic-threats allegation. Local police said those aggravated-assault charges were added Aug. 7, and by Aug. 13 Deibert was being held at Northampton County Prison in lieu of $100,000 cash bail.
The first set of accusations concerns Deibert’s 71-year-old mother. Police said she reported that he entered her room at a residence on the 4100 block of Heritage Lane and forced her to the ground. Investigators said she accused him of choking her, striking her in the head and threatening her life. An earlier account also described Deibert getting on top of her after throwing her down. Those allegations formed the basis for the strangulation and assault portions of the original criminal case.
The mother’s relationship to Deibert is legally relevant to the strangulation charge. Pennsylvania law defines strangulation as knowingly or intentionally interfering with a person’s breathing or blood circulation through specified conduct involving the throat, neck, nose or mouth. Unlike some offenses centered on bodily injury, the statute expressly says that an actual physical injury is not an element and that the absence of visible injury is not a defense. It also elevates the grading in certain cases involving family or household members.
The allegations then shifted from the mother to people outside the room. Authorities said Deibert went outdoors and threatened a neighbor during the disturbance. His mother was able to leave while he was outside and reached another home, where she called 911. The alleged threat to the neighbor supported another component of the initial prosecution and also helps explain how police were summoned after what authorities describe as an assault occurring inside a private residence.
Lehigh Township officers arrived at about 3:51 p.m. Early state police statements said only that officers entered the house, became involved in a confrontation with the 49-year-old man, deployed a Taser and shot him. That limited description left unanswered what officers encountered or why the gunfire occurred. Later investigative details became important because they supplied the factual allegations behind the new charges involving law enforcement.
According to that later account, officers saw Deibert outside and noticed what police described as nunchucks in his pants. He then went back inside. After officers spoke with his mother, they asked him to leave the residence, but police say he did not comply. Investigators said the officers eventually entered and saw Deibert come from a room carrying a knife. Police allege he approached the officers despite commands to drop the weapon.
An officer fired two shots, striking Deibert in the chest and arm, while another officer deployed a stun gun, according to state police. Investigators said Deibert then dropped the knife and went to his knees. Officers rendered medical aid as they took him into custody, and he was transported to Lehigh Valley Hospital-Muhlenberg. Authorities later alleged that Deibert threatened an officer after he had been shot, adding another claimed act to the sequence prosecutors may seek to establish in court.
The three aggravated-assault counts represent the most serious expansion publicly reported after the shooting. Pennsylvania’s aggravated-assault statute contains several provisions governing alleged attacks on police officers in the performance of their duties. Depending on the subsection charged and facts alleged, the law can address attempts to cause serious bodily injury, certain attempts or acts causing bodily injury to officers, and physical menace intended to place an officer in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. The public reports reviewed do not replace the charging documents, which control the precise legal theory for each count.
The possession-of-an-instrument-of-crime allegation adds another legal question. Pennsylvania law generally makes it an offense to possess an instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally and separately addresses possession of certain weapons under specified circumstances. Police reports identifying a knife during the encounter describe the object authorities say Deibert held, but prosecutors must still prove the elements of the charge rather than relying simply on the fact that an object was present inside the home.
The terroristic-threats accusations likewise require more than proof that an argument occurred. Pennsylvania law addresses direct or indirect threats to commit crimes of violence when accompanied by the intent or reckless disregard identified by the statute. Authorities have alleged threats involving more than one person during the Heritage Lane episode, including a neighbor and an officer. Whether the prosecution can establish the required mental state and the circumstances of those statements is a matter for the criminal proceedings.
Running beside the prosecution is a second inquiry that does not depend solely on whether Deibert is convicted. Because a Lehigh Township officer fired the shots that wounded him, the Pennsylvania State Police Troop M Major Case Team took responsibility for investigating the officer-involved shooting, with the Northampton County District Attorney’s Office involved. Lehigh Township police later said the participating officers were on administrative leave under standard procedure and stressed that the leave itself was not evidence of wrongdoing.
That division of responsibility is one reason the later charges should not be treated as a final ruling on the officer’s conduct. A person can face criminal allegations for conduct toward police while investigators separately examine whether the force used in response complied with the law. The reports reviewed for this story provide state police’s allegation that Deibert advanced with a knife despite commands, but they do not identify a final public determination from the district attorney or state police resolving the shooting review.
The case has therefore moved well beyond the initial report of a domestic disturbance. Prosecutors now have allegations involving the mother, a neighbor and responding officers, while investigators have a separate use-of-force question to complete. Deibert has not been convicted of the charges described in the reviewed reports, and his legal defenses are not established by the public material available for this article.
Deibert remains subject to the expanded criminal case and had been committed to Northampton County Prison on $100,000 cash bail. The officer-involved-shooting review had been referred to state police and the county district attorney’s office. No later verified public report located for this update provided a final disposition of either the prosecution or the shooting investigation.
Author note: Last updated September 9, 2026.