The fact that it would even be considered to allow someone who stole something, broke into someone's house, etc to sue if they get hurt is something I've always found ridiculous.
Me too. I am not concerned about playing a prank on people that "deserved it" and were not injured and were filmed doing so, i am concerned about everybody else that was not thought of and question if the consequences in relation to the damage are still proportional and who defines who deserves what.
If somebody steals a package and it injures them, you can bet I won't be losing any sleep over it.
Sure... but in the moment the injury is premeditated, you define that a financial loss equates to injure someone. You´d be in bigger trouble then - locked up in psychatry or jail. Because the proportion of this is not to be defined by the perpetrator. How many dollars for an arm/leg/eye, whats the rate today? I am sure this looks cool on the big screen, but this is real life.
There is obviously a cultural gap when even on a forum with plenty of time to think of an answer people can not distance themselves from an initial, emotionally determined reaction of taking blind revenge. That alone is hard to discuss and ends strongly political. I´d personally rather leave the discussion then.
Some people seem to care more about the rights and well being of criminals that victimize innocent people without a second thought than about the people who are victimized.
Better read those posts again. They are secondary toward the INTENDED target, they question who else has a realistic chance to be hit, that someone simply did not have in his mind when taking these decisions and building such a trap device. If all your intentions work out the way you want... go play lottery, you would not need to take care of stolen packages.