I'm aware of the structure. My comments have said that it is a mistake -- not a logical impossibility, but a bad idea -- to use existing, interchangeable terms for crimes that are legally distinct. This mistake is usually avoided, but in the case of robbery, burglary, and theft, it hasn't been.

For example, imagine that someone gets really drunk, stumbles into your home, collapses on your couch, and soaks it in urine. Hours later, you come home and find him sleeping it off.

Under Texas law, whether this is "burglary" depends on the value of your couch.

Suppose you've got a very fancy couch. It was "burglary". Any local newspaper is free to refer to that guy as having been convicted of burglary (assuming he gets prosecuted). But this is clearly a miscarriage of justice; no one in the world would consider that "burglary", and coverage using that term should be defamatory.

In general, if you seek to define new terms, they should actually be new terms. Redefining terms people already know has downsides, but not upsides.