Plead guilty? Still not convicted.
Unfortunately for Mr. Hillis, a guilty plea is a conviction. The only way it would not be is if the charges were reduced to a violation, not a misdemeanor or felony. NOTE: The sentencing has apparently been delayed until November 16th.
Meanwhile, there is the following article on the way the deceased's family behaved in court when Hillis was released on bail. The proclivity to violence apparently runs in the family as the deceased's father stated, "I feel that we all should take out guns and start killing out here.” Gee, what a surprise. The father of a home invasion robber with a criminal record as long as your arm thinks wonton violence is a good idea. Knock me over with a feather.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/shouting-match-erupts-between-families-after-plea-in-fatal-shooting-that-followed-robbery-attempt-1.705322Look for more rioting uh, (non-peaceful protesting, as the president refers to it) after a sentence which does not include prison time (I'm betting on probation with maybe a month in jail maximum).
To the issue of law, clearly the law is concerned with evidence of intention in all actions. The strongest evidence is that the dominant intention of the robber at the time he was shot was to flee (albeit with a bunch of ill-gotten loot, after committing numerous violent felonies) - he did not pose any more immediate threat to the resident from seventy yards distant, speeding away from him. The law observes that the resident could himself have fled at that point. If the robber had chased him or brought a weapon to bear on him from seventy yards away (even if he pointed a gun over his shoulder without looking as he drove away) he could have been killed legally.
Had I been the resident, when the cops showed up I would have told them; "Hey, I shouted 'STOP!' and saw the barrel of a gun appear over his shoulder - that's why I shot him", then arguably he was still a threat and could have been legally shot and the resident might not have been convicted.
Clearly to the law, life is a more series of discrete scenes than a confluence of strongly-linked events. Each separate scene has a configuration of factors which establish legality.
Bottom line is that whether people are evil or not, our laws will not allow them to be shot just for being evil - you may legally shoot evil people ONLY if they are an IMMEDIATE THREAT! Is that just? Clearly not in this case, but there it is. The law is even under the best of circumstances, a GUIDELINE for justice, never a guarantee. The law isn't concerned with moral appraisals generally - it doesn't add or subtract points for bravery or cowardice.
We'll see what sort of sentence the resident gets - the surviving robber was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (even though he didn't directly contribute to the death of the other, because he was part of the original crime) and got a minuscule sentence of 1 year of probation - but he also got a ton of other convictions for crimes not related to the death of his partner and will be in prison for a long time.