Despite the satisfaction of applying swift and terrible justice (e.g., in the form of "poisoning" one's food to catch a thief), it is against the law here in Colorado to use booby traps or mantraps to protect property. I assume this is because it ultimately denies the suspect to a fair trial and proper punishment regarding his/her guilt.
Be that as it may, the Colorado Constitution provides:
----------
ARTICLE II
Bill of Rights
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
----------------
This would seem to render unconstitutional the mantrap and booby trap laws. Yes? No?
Worth kickin' around, but I have it on second-hand but quasi-reliable authority that a person whose business had been repeatedly burgled "got off" under that Constitutional provision after the shotgun he had rigged on his door killed the repeat offender.
The matter, I was told informally, was swept under the rug with a plea deal and some other legal maneuvering since the authorities did not want it to be generally known that there was an apparent conflict between "The Law" and the Constitution... a problem which seems to be general around the nation.
Now you understand that this information was gleaned by innocent conversation over coffee over twenty years ago with a person who was closely associated with the matter, so should not be considered definitive.
I just wonder if the "poisoners" in this thread, while sort of guilty of setting a "mantrap" (or "student-trap") might have been able to apply the right "of acquiring, possessing and protecting property" if it had occurred in Colorado.
Funny how Constitutions can be casually ignored by the whim of Legislators and authoritarian twits.
Me go now.
Terry, 230RN
