You know something, I may put my foot in mouth here for a moment.... Maybe I like to believe the good in people. Because a crime was commited I know we mainly jump into the victims being up to "no good" and why could they have been retaliated against. As a sleuther I understand we do need to throw anything and everthing out there. But in my heart of hearts I am not feeling it on the case. Money does evil things to people. I am not bringing politics into this but isn't this the same as socialism? Socialist believe the wealth should share their money with them because they are not as wealthy...okay, so that is the political spectrum avenue...now let's go down the alley of the same mindset in a criminal world. People become resentful of others with money ie: class warfare and feel they deserve that kind of money or money to be shared with them to possibly promote what they would consider a better cause in one owns life. Maybe one of these suspects knew of the victim, knew he had money etc.. Maybe had some business tie that hasn't been tracked down yet, maybe he worked for cash for a few days for the victim so he isn't as easily traceable. Then we have this entire "underworld" of low lifes that might each have their own motive. One person can touch a lot of people, such as the theory of 6 degress of seperation. Therefore, the Billings being so prominent in their community, having business interests etc.. The DEGREES are endless as to how these people became involved with wanting to commit a crime against the Billings and they may just be what they are. Victims, Good People, and Innocent of all wrong doing except working hard and making a extrodonary living!! *Takes Foot Out of Mouth Now* All IMO, but subject to change at anytime - just what I am feeling today.
Well, I really doubt that any political theorist would equate socialism with condoning cold-blooded murder. Socialist theory doesn't say anything at all about "give some to me because you're more wealthy." What it says is, "Each according to ability and each according to need." Families, for example, are the ultimate in socialist units: if one kid needs braces and the other doesn't, then one kid gets more of the family's dental fund spent on him. The baby still gets to eat, even though he doesn't bring in money from a paper route like the 12 yr-old does--both of them need to eat, even though one produces wealth and the other just lays there and sponges off the rest of the family in a cute and drooly fashion.
That's what socialism is, at least in its purest theoretical form.
I imagine any Socialist with a true understanding of political theory would look at the perpetrators--who have the resources to have a ginormous 15-passenger van in running order, and look at the Billings--who have a large family with huge medical needs--and say that the Billings were, in fact, in greater need, and that therefore the greater distribution was just. A socialist would NOT say, give some to the criminal, nor would a socialist even recognize the steps that it took to equate one to the other. Robin Hood is a myth, and it's doubtful that any criminal who tries to use that as an excuse actually has any real understanding of
Das Kapital.
I understand (I think) what you're trying to say about the criminal underworld and its justifications, but anyone who knows anything about socialism would likely place the criminal justification mindset and roots of class warfare (at least in the US) at the feet of Capitalism and its predecessor, the Puritan Work Ethic and the history of Calvinism--at least as much as they would socialism or any other political theory.
Of course, like any theory, socialism in it's "purest" theoretical form, and what big-S Socialism mutates into when practiced as a form of government, are two different things. Because whenever you bring humans and human self-interest into any theory or system, it all turns into one big Lord of the Flies. So I suppose in that sense, you're correct.
(Sorry to go off on a tangent there, but my particular pet peeve is when terms with a long and particular history get thrown around completely devoid of accurate context. Spent too many years correcting shallow grasps of theory on essays, I suppose.)
I also understand what you're saying about the danger of seeming to blame the victim. But the first thing any profiler or investigator will do is look for lifestyle and character clues, because that helps narrow down who has access and motive. That's not the same thing as saying that a victim "had it coming." It's just common sense: a meth addicted prostitute probably, in an average day, runs into more dangerous situations and people who have demonstrated a willingness to commit violence, than does my church-going grandma. Doesn't mean that the meth ho had it coming, or that my grandma is inherently a better person, or somehow immune to crime. Just that if it looks like my grandma was killed by someone who had a key to the house, that the seamy world of meth labs is probably not the first place you need to look. Likewise, if a meth-addicted prostitute is murdered by someone who had easy access to her house, "long-running feud over who gets to play the organ at Mass next Sunday" is probably not where you need to concentrate most of your police resources. It's like any diagnostic procedure: if the patient is coughing, the first thing you ask is, "Do you smoke?" Doesn't mean you're saying, "OMG, I can't believe you smoke! That's so trashy! You're a sinner!" It just means that certain things are statistically more likely to cause coughing in a smoker vs. a non-smoker. Same thing here.
And....it looks like I'm jumping all over you, and I honestly didn't mean to. Just too much time on my hands (and too weary from grading a long stack of essays) today, maybe. Putting my own foot in my mouth, I guess--
Not going to respond about the socialism as I don't want this thread to get off track 
