Undoubtedly the victim should not be charged with anything; I would never suggest such a thing. I was referring to to where the article states that the second kid, Veliz, will be charged with the murder of Gonzalez, his posthumous accomplice, under the rationale that the blood of a person committing a felony should be on the hands of his nearby friends (or so I've gathered). So, specifically, they will be blaming, and charging, Veliz for the death of the perp.
At risk of breaking up the party and being labeled as a bleeding heart, ruthless-criminal sympathizer, I'm saying that I'm not sure Veliz should be charged with more than armed robbery without further comprehension of the circumstances. Did Veliz coerce Gonzalez into being an accomplice? That would change things, but then it doesn't seem there would be any reliable way of obtaining that information. I don't know, but I remain unconvinced.