1. it is not murder. it is self defense. just because it is hard to prove in the court of law does not change that.
Semantics ("murder" in the legal sense versus the literal). My point is that Sterling killing Hunter so early on is
extremely "preemptive self defense", which is like a weird blend of "Minority Report" and "The Bush Doctrine". Think about what the characters know, and
when they know it. Stop thinking about it from the omniscient perspective of the audience having played through the story.
Here you posit that if they don't accept hunter's deal, they will become homeless.
This is several steps beyond merely criticizing him for murder and into the realm of creating a false dichotomy between acquiescing to hunter's demands and becoming homeless
Connect the dots: Sterling kills Hunter on day 1, Sterling goes to prison, no one pays the mortgage, the family loses the house (whether the sell it or it's foreclosed is irrelevant). In hindsight, perhaps saying they'd be
homeless is exaggerating, they'd most likely find
somewhere to live. With Hunter dead and Sterling in jail, the obvious solution would be for the girls to use their natural charms to find new men who can provide for them. That might be cynical but it's literally a central theme of this story. The irony is that killing Hunter immediately would lead to an even
less desirable outcome for Sterling than merely thwarting Hunter's schemes, as the girls get railed by strangers and (then-puny) Sterling gets railed by inmates.
Now, before you sperg out, I am
not saying that Sterling has no choice but to accept Hunter. There are multiple solutions and Sterling is gradually arriving at one.