No, because it isn’t proportional.

A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there’s a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I’d say not really.

If you’re racing and your buddy hits a tree, it’s not really murder either yet he wouldn’t of been racing alone. It’s a two player sport so I’d tend to say guilty.

Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren’t there to help him, it’s hard to say but I’d tend to go not guilty.

It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.