489
The "Stop Hitting Yourself Act"
Sure would be a shame if the homeless learnee how to make improvised claymore mines.
Great idea. Now if one of the senators homes burn down does that mean it's open season?
Unless I'm missing something, this article is wrong and the the bill isn't legalizing the use of force against homeless people simply for trespassing. The actual text of the bill, regarding the use of force against "unlawful camping":
The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act, when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant, the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force against the defendant.
Note that the use of force is only authorized against "unlawful campers" who are themselves getting violent.
That's my read as well. So why do we need a new law?
You aren't missing shit. This is the correct interpretation of the law. Most of the posters here assume this legislation is the equivalent of a hunting license for homeless, which couldn't be further from the truth. This affects only violent trespassers who have already been advised of their trespassing and displayed violence. Anyone randomly gunning down people who step on their property will have to convince a jury it was in compliance with this regulation.
In that context it reads like the bill is more intended to shield people from charges who end up in altercations after telling people to leave.
how do they define camping
A person is guilty of unlawful camping when he or she knowingly enters or remains on a public or private street, sidewalk, area under a bridge or underpass, path, park, or other area designated for use by pedestrians or vehicles, including areas used for ingress or egress to businesses, homes, or public buildings, with the intent to sleep or camp in that area, when the area has not been designated for the purpose of sleeping or camping or the individual lacks authorization to sleep or camp in the area.
Note that the use of force is authorized when the person killing another person "believes" it's necessary and claims that the person they killed was warned or made threats.
The more common legal standard for self-defense is "reasonably believes", but I'm not familiar enough with Kentucky law to say whether or not "reasonable" is presumed as part of the definition of "belief" here, or whether or not the standard here is lower than Kentucky's general standard for self-defense.
Thank you for providing some direct language from the proposed statute. I do not know Kentucky state law but I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that there are already laws on the books that deal with all situations this proposed law purports to handle. Trespassing, vagrancy, camping, stand your ground/castle doctrines, assault/battery, etc. Can anyone more familiar confirm or negate my admittedly unstudied guess?
Trespassing, vagrancy, camping, Doesn't have anything special about justifying use of force when the trespasser threatens violence after being asked to leave, that's what this bill does.
stand your ground/ Stand your ground literally just means you aren't required to try to run away if you are attacked. In places without stand your ground use of force is not justifiable if you reasonably could have fled the scene.
castle doctrines, Stops at your front door. No dice for the tent springing up in your backyard.
assault/battery, Not until they've put you in immediate danger of death or serious injury. Depending on the state (ie whether or not the state has stand your ground) you may also have to take any means available to run away from the situation before use of force is justified.
load more comments
(1 replies)
In what fucking world does housing status have to do with knowing your target?
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
489 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4513 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS