You'd need to ask a lawyer.What about an armed bank robber who soots and kills someone but did not 'intend' to do it?
I would suspect that the mere fact that a bank robber took a firearm loaded with live bullets with him/her might be taken as an indication that they 'intended' ('if necessary') to do serious harm to someone (if the intention were merely to 'frighten', without firing the weapon, it would not need to be loaded), and that view would be reinforced if they actually discharged the weapon in the presence of people.
I suppose they could try arguing that their intention had been to 'miss' (and frighten) but they were such a bad shot that they actually hit someone '#by mistake', but I don't see how they could try to 'prove' that.
Don't forget that, in our days of capital punishment, killing someone in the course of a bank robbery was not only automatically murder, but actually 'capital murder'.
Kind Regards, John