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.

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.

  • ArbitraryValueEnglish
    86·
    10 months ago

    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:

    © 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.

    • yarr@feddit.nlEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
      31·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • ArbitraryValueEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • ArbitraryValueEnglish
        21·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • krellor@kbin.social
      31·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
      23·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        2·
        10 months ago

        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.