How do you know they were willing to kill? If you rob someone you need to threaten them regardless if you are going to follow through.
Whoever, while committing a robbery, is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily harm upon another, is guilty of aggravated robbery in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both.
Or is your stance that a person committing robbery with a weapon and threatening to use it should instead be considered a hapless person that has not chosen to act in a way that is highly likely to cause great injury or death? Like a gun is "ok" and should not be considered as evidence of intent to commit harm during the act of robbery unless they shoot it?
"Or is your stance that a person committing robbery..."
Consider the crime of attempted murder.(IMAL) that's when a person attempted to commit murder but failed. So they had intent and action, they just failed
Armed robbery is someone whose intent is to rob someone and they are successful at the act of robbery.
The reason the robber is armed is not to harm the person but as a threat. If their intent is to harm the person that's an additional crime (assault, murder, attempted murder)
"that is highly likely to cause great injury or death?"
Highly likely for the robbery or if they carry out the threat. I believe the vast majority of robberies where violence was threatened don't end in violence. I don't have data for this so if you contest it I'll recind that claim.
If they simply rob without a weapon, there are generally robbery charges with lessor penalties.
There is a clear uplift of risk/jeopardy of death or harm when using a weapon while committing robbery -- the person committing the crime is only partially in control of the outcome: the victim, witnesses, law enforcement interruption or an infinite number of random events can all trigger the harm (which is attached to the original crime). But this is well known and a decision the assailant made before committing the act -- they inherently are willing to kill or harm the second they chose to use the weapon in the act even if their intent walking into it was not to kill specifically.
I guess we just disagree, but I am very happy the laws and punishments are written to align with my POV.
Because they brought a gun. I’m not sure how you truly know someone’s intention. But getting a gun, loading it, and threatening someone with it is perhaps the closest to knowing they are willing to use it.
I think that people can’t even know themselves as many who claim they didn’t mean to, still “accidentally” shot someone.
But in the case of sentencing guidelines, you don’t need to know whether they will or not. If they use lethal force that’s a multiplier in prison time.
And I’m ok with that. I don’t care to get into nuance with people who threaten innocent people with death.
Note, there are exceptions when the gun isn’t loaded and the sentence is not the same as a loaded gun.