The Third Law, as described on p. 238, only concerns itself with reading thoughts. No other forms of magical interaction are contemplated in that description.
If a warden wants to kill you, the warden will try to kill you. (I say only "try" because PCs are anomalous badasses and may be tougher than a warden-irritant has any right to be.) The issue is one of power, not justice. The law will mean what the powers that be want it to mean, so if you have an issue with them, you need political power, not justice or understanding.
As for the actual Laws (which I don't think are natural forces at all -- but I digress), the easiest way to settle arguments for us has been to consider intent. It's enthrallment if you intended enthrallment, it's stealing knowledge if you intended to steal knowledge -- this is why a willing subject negates the mens rea of the "Law." The parallel to real life: if a doctor gives you a drug that impairs you but you take it willingly, there is no coercion and therefore no crime. If a policeman arrests you on false charges but sincerely believes that taking you in will be good for you in the long run, that intent would make him criminal. Good intentions do not negate bad intentions, but a complete absence of bad intentions prevents lawbreaking.
To make a completely unexpected analogy that would only be appreciated by a small group of people, it's easiest to handle the issue in games in a way that's similar to Falling in In Nomine. You can slip up from time to time, getting you close, but in the end it takes a conscious act of will to switch teams. And that fulfills my obscure analogy quota for the day.