Yes, I am stretching my analogies -- on purpose. You kind of have to stretch analogies in order to illustrate the ultimate result of the slippery slope that some people want to impose. These punks engaged in a vile criminal activity and should be punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law for the specific crimes they committed. BUT, to then try to tack on additional crimes because their victim then committed suicide should be extremely offensive to anyone who believes in such conservative principles as personal responsibility, rule of law, and judicial restraint. The crime these punks committed resulted in humiliation and shame for the victim, but how he responded to that humiliation and shame was his choice. Had he responded by committing murder instead of suicide, he alone would have been responsible for the murder. These punks would not have been conspirators or accomplices.
As for stretching analogies, my jihadi imam analogy is actually probably closer than your liquor store owner heart attack analogy for one simple reason: personal choice. If a liquor store owner has a heart attack while being robbed, it may or may not be directly caused by the robbery but either way it was not an action chosen by the liquor store owner. The suicide by the bullying victim, just like the shooting rampage of my hypothetical jihadi imam, was an action entirely of that person's choice in response to the respective instigating incident.