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.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      56·
      10 months ago

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

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        5·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          6·
          10 months ago

          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.

  • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    691·
    10 months ago

    A “Safer Kentucky Act” that makes it extremely unsafe for one of our nation’s most vulnerable groups.

    Absolute ghouls.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • wintermutehal@lemmy.world
      12·
      10 months ago

      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

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        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!

        • wintermutehal@lemmy.world
          2·
          10 months ago

          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!

          • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

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

            • wintermutehal@lemmy.world
              2·
              10 months ago

              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

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      15·
      10 months ago

      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?

  • Jomega@lemmy.world
    54·
    10 months ago

    “Safer Kentucky Act”

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

  • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
    32·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

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

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    29·
    10 months ago

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

    …

    so that I may hunt them for sport

    Stay classy America!

  • lazynooblet@lazysoci.alEnglish
    301·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • calabast@lemm.ee
    23·
    10 months ago

    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”.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      11·
      10 months ago

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

        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.

    • CodeName@infosec.pub
      6·
      10 months ago

      They’re basically extending Castle Doctrine out to the sidewalk. Next they’ll add you car to the list and you get to shoot anyone who cuts you off or makes eye contact with you while driving. After that you’ll get a personal exclusivity zone and can shoot anyone who comes within ten feet of you in public as long as they look “homeless” (ie are poor and/or black).

    • metaStatic@kbin.social
      76·
      10 months ago

      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?

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    231·
    10 months ago

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

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    19·
    10 months ago

    Local police are reportedly opposed to the idea.

    They say shooting random poor people is their job.

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    17·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
      7·
      10 months ago

      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.)

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        61·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comEnglish
          81·
          10 months ago

          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?

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            8·
            10 months ago

            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.

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

              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.

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      32·
      10 months ago

      Wooooow… That’s pretty egregious. Basically if you trespass you can get murdered within the constraints of the law.

      Welcome to fucking Liberia

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        1·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    15·
    10 months ago

    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…

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      Everyone has the right to bear arms! *

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

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        5·
        10 months ago

        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).

  • Wermhatswormhat@lemmy.world
    12·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
      4·
      10 months ago

      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?