Actually, none of them were armed. They could not have anticipated that they would be killing anybody. In fact, none of them fired a shot. The lawyer for Layman are right. This should not be felony murder, since none of them killed anybody in the process of the robbery. It is the wrong charge and a ridiculous sentence.
I have to disagree. Expecting a home owner to be armed is not a remote possibility when breaking into a house and it's also not unreasonable to assume the home owner would use that firearm. Indiana also has a castle doctrine statute which would further increase the likelihood of a violent outcome to a home invasion.
Yea, that's how murder works. Someone committing a serious criminal act should reasonably know that this could have been the outcome.
Actually, none of them were armed. They could not have anticipated that they would be killing anybody. In fact, none of them fired a shot. The lawyer for Layman are right. This should not be felony murder, since none of them killed anybody in the process of the robbery. It is the wrong charge and a ridiculous sentence.
I have to disagree. Expecting a home owner to be armed is not a remote possibility when breaking into a house and it's also not unreasonable to assume the home owner would use that firearm. Indiana also has a castle doctrine statute which would further increase the likelihood of a violent outcome to a home invasion.