RE: [CH] Snuffin' the flames
Mary & Riley (uGuys@ChileGarden.com)
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:36:07 -0700
[mailto:owner-chile-heads@globalgarden.com]On Behalf Of Scott Thurston
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:17 PM
To: 'Parkhurst, Scott Contractor'; 'CH List'
Ah, not so fast, my good namesake.
>
> A person could conceivably get into a boatload of trouble, if it could be
> shown that the "thief" suffered and the "baiter" had good reason
> to suspect
> the thief would take the bait.
> Scott "not KCK" Thurston
>> If he actually eats them, no, it's not boobytrapping. Thieves get
>> what they deserve. Maybe they'll learn their lesson. If they do get
>> Scott... don't even *think* of horking my chiles... KCK
Scott T,
I'm not a lawyer (at least _something_ in my favor!), but I think Scott
(KCK) is right--as long as he actually eats them he's ok. In your example
the unfortunate airman was baited with what's really a poison. The baiter
didn't eat the stuff. On the other hand high concentrations of capsaicin
could be considered a poison, albeit not deadly. Look at the warnings on
some of those extract types. I think to be safe I'd _routinely_ eat those
cookies and just leave a few every now and then as a gesture of good will
for the night crew.
Riley