Republicans Push To Legalize ‘Property Owners’ Killing Homeless People in Kentucky
Republicans Push To Legalize ‘Property Owners’ Killing Homeless People in Kentucky
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.)
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.
How?
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.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?
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.
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.
Prosecutors have to conduct a court-observed seance in order to convict you.
The same way you dispute the truth of any statement in a court of law.
Wooooow... That's pretty egregious. Basically if you trespass you can get murdered within the constraints of the law.
Welcome to fucking Liberia
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.
In what way?
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.