Republicans Push To Legalize ‘Property Owners’ Killing Homeless People in Kentucky

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 483 points – Republicans Push To Legalize ‘Property Owners’ Killing Homeless People in Kentucky
vice.com

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.

86

the party of jesus, folks.

It's a shame American Evangelicals can't read, or they'd realize they've been worshipping a filthy commie the whole time.

Wait until they find out he was a brown skinned middle easterner.

Hmmm, WWJD, What would Jesus do?

Set them on fire and send them to hell.

Jesus beating up merchants who set up shop outside a temple is canon. We have evidence Jesus has the will and capacity for violence and what he would do in an American state or federal legislative building would probably freak a lot of people out.

He didn't just flip tables and whip the moneychangers. He was so full of righteous fury that he left, and took hours to braid his own whip, came back, and then started flipping tables and whipping moneychangers.

In my head I like to envision him sitting on a rock, braiding the whip, and muttering to himself. Shit like:

"Mother fuckers, I swear to Dad, you don't even know what Monopoly is yet, and I'm gonna show you the proper ending to the Milton Bradley version of that game."

While the Apostles are just huddled around bewildered and scared since they have no clue what's about to happen, since they'd NEVER seen him even irritated before.

A "Safer Kentucky Act" that makes it extremely unsafe for one of our nation's most vulnerable groups.

Absolute ghouls.

These are the type of people who watch The Purge and think "hell yeah, can't wait brother!" As if their old dumbassas wouldn't be amongst the first purged.

I've known quite a few Doomers and Accerationists and each one has never served in the military, completely obsessed with guns, and seem to be scared of anyone different, if TEOTWAWKI went down I'd be pointing my crew in their direction for easy loot if there was a need.

It’s funny in a sick way that Tales from the Crypt had an episode about eating the homeless by an organization named G.H.O.U.L.S

Tales from the Crypt, man that takes me back.

Apparently you're talking about S03E10 Mournin' Mess.

Edit: Damn lol I remembered this as a kids' show, starts with fuck, shit, and titties!

Yep! That’s the one! Haha, it was on HBO, so that all tracks. There was also an actual kiddie cartoon version as well though!

It's a good episode! And a great show, I'm gonna have to download and binge the lot.

There’s almost all of them on YouTube if you want to go that route! Be warned however, one dude‘s playlist has these ads for his god awful band at the end of every episode haha

I know right? We need to do more to protect checks bill people who are trespassing and threaten you with or use force against you when you ask them to leave. Whatever will our most vulnerable do if they can't threaten to stab you when you ask them to respect your property?

"Safer Kentucky Act"

Orwellian is not a strong enough word. This shit is beyond parody.

Their plan to fight homelessness and mental illness is simple: Make them illegal! That should solve it.

Meanwhile, regulating firearms won’t work because then only criminals will have guns. These people are ducking evil.

This is the same crowd that wanted to fight COVID by just letting people die until it wasn't a problem anymore.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

...

so that I may hunt them for sport

Stay classy America!

These people can't have a shred of empathy. The homeless being treated like vermin. People at the lowest point of their lives, when they need help the most, are mistreated awfully by those in power.

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.

Great, so not only does it let them shoot homeless people, it lets them do it even if they "believe" it's happening. So you can just shoot someone on your property for no reason at all, and say "well, I though they were performing a robbery".

"They were scoping the place out to put up a tent, I had to shoot them officer."

"They didn't have anything with them"

"But I believed that was their purpose"

"Alright, checks out, have a nice day sir."

  • Somewhere in near future in Kentucky if this passes

The article doesn't adequately describe the bill. You need to insert the bit where you asked them to leave and they threatened you with force in response.

isn't gay panic a legal defense in the states? there are so many legal ways to murder someone over there what's one more going to do?

1 more...

Local police are reportedly opposed to the idea.

They say shooting random poor people is their job.

Then once passed, quietly reinterpret “property owners” as anyone with a right skin color. Just ask that Kenosha shooter how it’s done.

Maybe the NRA should distribute guns to the homeless in an outreach program to show that conservatives do care about the downtrodden. Everyone has a right to bear arms, right? Isn't that the conservative mantra? Well, except for the homeless poor, minorities, etc...

Everyone has the right to bear arms! *

~*Everyone~ ~defined~ ~exclusively~ ~as~ ~white~~,land~ ~owning,~ ~politically~ ~conservative~ ~male~ ~over~ ~the~ ~age~ ~of~ ~35~

I bet you could pull it of if you were a white conservative male living out of your pickup and had a gun to keep away those thieving (insert group conservatives love to hate on here).

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.)

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.

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.

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.

1 more...

Like, where else are they supposed to go? They refuse to build any kind of a shelter becuse nobody wants to have one around them. Ironically instead they spend all their money building billion dollar sports stadiums. They just want to criminalize being poor.

Such a difficult societal ill to solve. (Or maybe not?) On the one hand nobody wants, nor should be forced to deal with a homeless encampment in their backyard. On the other, where is one supposed to go? To the woods to survive off the land? Can't as it's mostly private property and it's illegal to camp, or stay longer than 2 weeks in any one spot on all government owned land (of which I am aware, including all those millions of acres of BLM land). So, we need an alternative and as you suggested, our priorities as a society seem to be askew. Then what about those who we simply can't house and feed and stabilize for myriad reasons (mental health being a big, if not the biggest one)? Some people will say we can't just continue "throwing money at xyz unsolvable problem." And I see validity in this. Others may perhaps argue that a professional sports stadium brings in revenue to the city beyond what is paid out of the tax coffers. (I'd like to see the math if stadiums ever end up providing a return on investment for a city--I have significant doubts.) Anyone out there have some legitimate ideas on solving the problem besides sending people to the woods to die or be arrested vs building huge encampments that I foresee quickly becoming superfund sites? Is there a model out there that could be applied to the US?

Man, bad week to be homeless! By Friday they'll be legalizing priests' ability to crucify homeless people who trespass.

They want the purge to be real so badly.

This is going to be a great example for all the 2a nuts that more than just homeowners have weapons.

Waiting to hear about the first time a would-be victim manages to outdraw the bloodthirsty landowner coming for them. Will they get a pass as an act of self defense or would they be charged under the old laws?

No because they will be trespassers and the homeowner would have been defending their property.

But if the trespassers claim manifest destiny before the bullet hits them and the bloodthirsty land owner doesn't perform a perfect parry by reciting the bill of rights in under 3 seconds the land gets turned into a wildlife refuge.

I have a coworker from Kentucky and he says that some of the sanctuary cities that the illegals were being bussed to threatened to bus them to the surrounding red states is why they’re passing laws like this. It’s a scare tactic to the left and the good ole boys in Kentucky are itching to shoot someone legally so the R’s get guaranteed reelection.

Hmm, Opens up The GOP playbook

Looks like the proper response is to arm the homeless, drug dealers, and mentally unstable.

So if the homeless guy shoots back in response, it's all fair game because it was in self-defence, right? Right?

“Safer Kentucky Act,”

FOR WHO?!

In the long term? The homeless. Who will likely not stay homeless for long.

I dunno about you, but I met quite a few homeless people, and they are all the resourceful kind. They organize, they don't hesitate to join forces, and they are damn resilient.

I was homeless for a few weeks in the summer about a decade ago, I slept in a park, during the day, and it was totally fine in the end, but if such law would have made me "legal to hunt", I would have likely hunted back. Or at least died trying.

Being homeless doesn't necessarily mean having no resource. For example, while I was in a crappy situation, and lost my rental overnight, I had savings. I had enough to buy a weapon and some ammo anyway, and in such situation, with nothing left to lose, I would have likely bitten the (metaphorical) bullet and found myself a new home. The confrontational way.

I'm guessing that this initiative will drive most homeless people into organized crime, and they will then have the capacity to eliminate entire small, remote, rural communities (of which there are plenty in Kentucky), including the tiny police forces, and establish a fortified settlement.

Pushing people around only works for as long as they are better off accepting it than fighting it. Push too much and you will have gangs and cartels on your hands.

Those people want the far west experience, and they should be weary of what they wish for. They might very well get it.

Edit: maybe I'm daydreaming. I dunno. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, I just wish for what I wrote to be true. Time will tell.

anyone remember when "hunting the homeless for sport" was an exaggeration of republican politics?

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.

Easy to say someone threatened you when you're alive and they are dead. It is flat out a license to murder homeless people on your property.

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.

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?

In what fucking world does housing status have to do with knowing your target?