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.
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.