Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[The Professor]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

She was WAAAAYY too trigger happy. He was unarmed and thus she had no reason to shoot him. Had she taken even 30 seconds to figure out WTF was going on she could have realized she was in the wrong apartment and been like holy shit I'm sorry and life would go on. I mean how many intruders would sit down and eat ice cream while watching a football game if they were going to rob the place?

But instead she double tapped that nigah and is paying for it but not nearly long enough.

You said, “I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.” You are correct of course and to me that was the most disturbing thing of all. The funniest things were whose who thought they knew the law and were completely ignorant. I am a 79-year old man with an MBA and a JD (Juris Doctorate or doctorate in law) and could not believe how little people knew about the laws which govern them.

You also asked, “I mean how many intruders would sit down and eat ice cream while watching a football game if they were going to rob the place?” I would add, how many people, especially trained police officers would “accidentally”enter an apartment that had a big red mat in front of the door knowing their own apartment did not?

In a nut shell, Amber Guyger is a liar and is guilty as hell. Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and I explained why. I'll be back in a few days to make my final comments on this case.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and and I explained why

So did I. The jury determined the outcome before it even started.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Its irrelevant because it didn't play any role in the charges she faced. If she trespassed, if she didn't, she intentionally killed the man either way.

True in that sense. Also true that presuming of criminal trespass in such cases allows Texas to sensibly differentiate Murder without premeditation from Manslaughter while doing away with Murder 2 altogether. Pretty impressive, imho.

Criminal Trespass just didn't come into it. The differentiation between murder and manslaughter in Texas is intentionality. Did you mean to kill someone or was it accidental. And she openly admitted to intentionally shooting the man twice in the chest.

So per Texas law, it was murder.

Texas doesn't really differentiate murder into Murder 1, Murder 2 and the like. They draw a line between Murder, Capital Murder, Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide......the last one is kind of a lost sock drawer for anything that doesn't fall into the first three, but still involves one person killing another.

Criminal Trespass isn't a factor in any of them. It isn't mentioned in any capacity. Here's the Statute:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

 

[The Professor]

Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and and I explained why

So did I. The jury determined the outcome before it even started.

Good, now we will find which one of us had the right reasons. This is a very easy case.

 

[Skylar]

Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and and I explained why

So did I. The jury determined the outcome before it even started.

Nah, it was definitely the evidence.

You can tell by the way that Amber Guyver's lawyers shifted tactics dramatically during the trial. They originally argued that it was self defense. But as more and more evidence was presented demonstrating the opportunities she had to de-escalate, her claim that she 'had no choice' just fell apart.

So they desperately switched, fairly late in the trial, to a 'Castle Doctrine' argument. Where even though she had opportunties to de-escalate or retreat, she supposedly didn't have any obligation to do so.

Alas, shooting an unarmed man to death in his OWN home isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

And the jury saw right through that pseudo-legal horseshit.

 

[Skylar]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

She was WAAAAYY too trigger happy. He was unarmed and thus she had no reason to shoot him. Had she taken even 30 seconds to figure out WTF was going on she could have realized she was in the wrong apartment and been like holy shit I'm sorry and life would go on. I mean how many intruders would sit down and eat ice cream while watching a football game if they were going to rob the place?

But instead she double tapped that nigah and is paying for it but not nearly long enough.

You said, “I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.” You are correct of course and to me that was the most disturbing thing of all. The funniest things were whose who thought they knew the law and were completely ignorant. I am a 79-year old man with an MBA and a JD (Juris Doctorate or doctorate in law) and could not believe how little people knew about the laws which govern them.

You also asked, “I mean how many intruders would sit down and eat ice cream while watching a football game if they were going to rob the place?” I would add, how many people, especially trained police officers would “accidentally”enter an apartment that had a big red mat in front of the door knowing their own apartment did not?

In a nut shell, Amber Guyger is a liar and is guilty as hell. Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and I explained why. I'll be back in a few days to make my final comments on this case.

I'm an amateur dabbler in Law who studies it as a hobby.

How did I do?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

Thus we see by law the importance of the state of mind of the defendant.

If a person is insane....does not live in reality but in some deluded state and kills someone not understanding that what he did was wrong and if his attorney can convince the state or a jury that is the case then under law he cannot be charged with murder.

Under Texas law, the insanity defense requires a defendant to provide evidence of a “mental disease or defect” that rendered them incapable of “know[ing] that [their] conduct was wrong. Tex. Pen. Code § 8.01

Though Amber was not nor is insane she definitely and clearly was in a state of mind that prevented her from recognizing that shooting a person she considered a intruder was wrong.....thus the jury erred.

On appeal I think she has a good chance of this verdict inflicted by a incompetent jury will be reversed.

 

[Skylar]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands....thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

I do commend you for pointing out that in most states 'malice' is required for murder.

Texas is a very weird state.

 

[Skylar]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But it was fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

Here is the gist of the case ....a man in texas met a hooker on craigs list....paid her $150 to have sex but she refused, balked at returning the money and said she had to give the cash to her driver.

She ran out got in the car and took offf.....the defendant chased them down and shot and killed the hooker.

The defense said Gilbert’s actions were justified because he was trying to retrieve stolen property and the driver was part of the theft scheme.

Prosecutors say Gilbert got mad and shot Frago when she refused to have sex with him.

O.K. what do you or anyone else think happened when he went to trial in Texas?

 

[airplanemechanic]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Even before she was arrested, I predicted she would be convicted and and I explained why

So did I. The jury determined the outcome before it even started.

The big question I have is why did the defense team allow so many negroes on that jury....recognizing that this trial took place in a big city in texas and even in texas big cities are pretty much like all big cities....controlled by democrats....thus I think the jury selection or jury pool was somehow rigged.

I cannot imagine any honest defense team allowing that many negroes on the jury...maybe they were paid off or somehow forced to go along with it.

The trial should have been moved out of Dallas...the defense did try to do that but it was not allowed.

 

[Skylar]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

 

[airplanemechanic]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

Her "state of mind" is irrelevant. She's a LEO and expected to follow the law. As I said before, I don't care if she thought she was on planet Zelda she walked into someone elses home and shot them in cold blood.

 

[Skylar]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

Alas, the Castle Doctrine isn't based on what you BELIEVE. But what actually is. And shooting someone to death in their own apartment isn't the Castle Doctrine.

If you shoot someone to death in Texas, you better be damn sure that the home is your own.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

From your link on Texas law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offe'nse if he:

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch and the odor of majrijuana in the air should certainly be considered to be in a state of fear of her life and or of getting raped. Thus Amber was justified to use lethal force.

'Sudden Passion'--Amber was definitely provoked by the presence of what she considered an intruder, burglar or possible rapist in her home.

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

What I expect is that if the State of Texas aka their supreme court refuses to do the right thing and reverse the jurys decision....it will go to a federal appelate court and they will do what is right.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

Her "state of mind" is irrelevant. She's a LEO and expected to follow the law. As I said before, I don't care if she thought she was on planet Zelda she walked into someone elses home and shot them in cold blood.

I showed how the state of mind works in self defense by the insanity plea....too complicated for you I guess ....though it is very simple.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, so in terms of this silly intent dispute, the previously pathetic benefit of hindsight argument does not appear completely vacuous.

Criminal Trespass just didn't come into it. The differentiation between murder and manslaughter in Texas is intentionality. Did you mean to kill someone or was it accidental.

Again, certainly appears that way but no. It's not that simple.
Continuing.. From your link.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits {this} offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Homicide.. granted not being called "murder" here, but also not being called "manslaughter".. in Texas.. No mention of "intent" nor "accident." My State includes this within Murder 2 so I call it murder. So shoot me.

Now consider:
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits {this} offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or {etc} {felony}

Amber clearly committed felony burglary prior to the homicide. Due to committing (not attempting to commit) this felony in conjunction with criminally negligent homicide, the charge is automatically elevated to murder. Again, consideration of intent is not required to charge murder here. Amber admitting to shooting Jean is unnecessary, so irrelevant. She'd be charged the same and equally guilty regardless. Back to your link:

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
{...}
(b) A person commits {this} offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; {Your point}

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter {burglary!}, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. {My point}