In isolation, the bringing of weapons might seem less menacing if not for the fact that they first realized that somebody was at home -- which would cause a normal thief to flee -- and then were threatened with a weapon yet still didn't flee. That strongly implies something more sinister.
Possible, I suppose. Either way, it's difficult to say with certainty that they intended violence.
Cacciato posted...
Why is that the dumbest shit you've ever heard of
Because it equates being a driver for a robbery - a non-violent, relatively low-level offence that probably would not have netted her more than five years in prison had the robbery been successful - with being a serial mass-murderer, something that's has the potential to leave her in prison (and taxpayers paying for her) for the rest of her life which, given her age, could be 70+ years. That's patently ridiculous.
The driver didn't intend for anyone to get killed (does NOT matter)
and had no way of reasonably anticipating that a killing would take place (they brought knives, clearly something could have been anticipated)
; her moral culpability is low and there's nothing suggesting she would be difficult to rehabilitate. Even if you wanted to suggest she bears some blame for the deaths, I fail to see how this is first degree murder (which requires malice aforethought) as opposed to negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter (a charge that's more typically laid when death occurs in a situation where the killer didn't intend for it to happen but bore responsibility for it). Suggesting she should go to prison for the rest of her life for being a getaway driver is an extreme overreaction and a waste of both her life and taxpayer dollars.