489

Republicans Push To Legalize ‘Property Owners’ Killing Homeless People in Kentucky (www.vice.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In Kentucky, politicians are preparing to vote on a law that would authorize the use of force against unhoused people who are found to be camping on private property.

Republican politicians in Kentucky are rallying behind a new bill that would authorize the use of force—and potentially deadly force—against unhoused people who are found to be camping on private property. The bill would also criminalize unsanctioned homeless encampments and restrict cities and towns from preempting state laws.

The bill, known as the “Safer Kentucky Act,” or HB5, would target homelessness, drug possession and mental illness by drastically increasing criminal penalties for a range of offenses. Introduced last week by Republican state representative Jared Bauman, it already has 52 sponsors in Kentucky’s House of Representatives. A vote is scheduled for this week.

Advocates are most alarmed by one aspect of the “Safer Kentucky Act” in particular: an anti-homeless provision that would authorize violence by property owners on people camping on their property. The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
4 (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
5 involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
6 KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his or her
7 possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he or
8 she acts;[ or]
9 (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
10 property in his or her possession or in the possession of another person for
11 whose protection he or she acts; or
12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

I haven't been through all the amendments yet, and I'm not a lawyer, but the author of the article may have mischaracterized a portion of the bill.

[-] BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm not commenting on the particulars of this proposed bill one way or the other, but I was going to say that I wish these articles would at least link to the actual language of the proposed statute so I can decide whether I agree with the article writer's interpretation or if it's clickbait. (The same with court opinions. And heck, quotes are taken out of context all the time as well. Link me the original source in case I don't want trust the spoon feeding.)

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 months ago

but I was going to say that I wish these articles would at least link to the actual language of the proposed statute

Link to bill: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb5.html

It's kind of a pet peeve of mine too.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago

How?

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago

The article says:

The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.

The bill says:

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
... 12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago

A dead person can't defend themselves. All the aggressor has to do is say, "They threatened to kick my ass, so I shot them in theirs." How do you dispute that the defendant is lying?

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

You don't and that's why cops have told me in plain words if you ever have to shoot someone, its better for you if they don't survive.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago

Barring cases where they basically hand you your self defense argument, such as Gaige Grosskreutz. I remember watching the Rittenhouse trial and the exact moment I knew he was going to be found not guilty on that count during Grosskreutz's testimony.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago

Prosecutors have to conduct a court-observed seance in order to convict you.

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago

The same way you dispute the truth of any statement in a court of law.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

In what way?

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The article says:
The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.

The law says:

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
...
12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

Not mentioning that force is not authorized unless the person camping unlawfully has either used force or threatened to use force already is a glaring omission.

[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Wooooow... That's pretty egregious. Basically if you trespass you can get murdered within the constraints of the law.

Welcome to fucking Liberia

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

Basically if you trespass you can get murdered within the constraints of the law.

More accurately if you're if you're trespassing, have been asked to leave, and in turn responded by using force or threatening force then the person you are trespassing against can use force against you. They don't have to just let you do as you please until you pose an immediate risk of death or serious injury to them.

So, for example, under this bill: If an unhoused person sets up camp in your front yard and makes a godawful mess of it, you can't shoot him. If you ask him to leave, and he does, you can't shoot him. If you ask him to leave and he just ignores you, or tells you to fuck off, you can't shoot him. If you ask him to leave and he threatens to stab you to death if you try to make him leave, then you can shoot him.

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024

489 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19102 readers

3526 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News