There's already the precedent from Katko v. Briney[1] that establishes a person can't use deadly force to defend property. Since courts prioritize the avoidanc

There's already the precedent from Katko v. Briney[1] that establishes a person can't use deadly force to defend property. Since courts prioritize the avoidance of bodily injury over property it's definitely not much of a leap for a lawyer to argue that a thief who suffered any bodily injury at all from a boobytrapped package has a case. Whether a prosecutor and/or a jury would be interested in that argument is another story. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney