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.
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”:
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
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?