I'd prefer the third option -  the one where there wasn't a robbery. It's really, really easy to sit back and play armchair quarterback in these situations. Hindsight's 20/20, you know. The only people responsible for all of the injured and dead are the robbers. This wasn't theft, this was robbery.

When the second person intervened, the robbers had already shot and killed a man. The gunfight was on, and someone had died.

This smacks as the same sort of arrogance that our illustrious Minister of Women used to decry the motion that women should have the option of carrying pepper spray to drive off attackers because "it puts the onus on the woman"

Reactionary situations do not play out like Hollywood, sometimes they go sour.