On January 19, the Kentucky House of Representatives passed a controversial bill. bill 5, known as the “Kentucky Safety Act.” The bill understandably attracted significant local attention due to its breadth and enthusiasm. However, a short provision on the use of force to stop illegal “camps” also brought the reform to the national media stage.

Most of the breathless press coverage of the bill features Kentucky lawmakers announcing an open period in case Kentucky's homeless population wanders onto private property.

The bill is far from perfect, but claims that it would give homeowners blanket permission to kill are way off base.

What commentators are saying about this bill

The coverage of the proposed bill was terrible. For example, consider: Deputy's argument is that it would make it legal for 'property owners' to kill homeless people in Kentucky.' local news articles Declare the same.[t]Anti-homelessness provisions would allow property owners to use violence against people camping on their property. ” and the jimmy door show characterize The bill is “decriminalization”[ing] A homeowner used deadly force against homeless people who had camped on his property and refused to leave. ”

Other reports It claims the amendment would sanction “the murder of a homeless person without any criminal consequences.” newsweek Similarly, he said the bill would allow enforcement if “illegal camping is occurring on the property.”

What the law actually says

The bill covers a wide range of criminal justice topics, from distributing abandoned firearms and ammunition and carjacking to physical violence against service animals and involuntary civil actions. But what you can't do is let a homeowner or renter, let's call him a “property occupier,” pull out a gun and simply fire a shot at a homeless “camper” he finds in his backyard. It's about allowing.

This bill calls for changes; current law It governs the right to protect personal property and does not affect the state. existing Providing deadly force, requires fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Nor is it intended to change the status quo in the Bluegrass State. assert your position Law.

Instead, the bill aims to expand property owners' ability to use force to deter illegal camping (i.e., protect property). However, what is missing from most reports are her two important requirements before coercion can be granted.

First, there is no enforcement unless the property owner notifies the “camper” to leave (“cease and desist”). Second, the trespassing camper must have “used violence or threatened to use violence.” [possessor]” Deadly force may be used in certain circumstances, such as when a camper is attempting to evict an occupant of a dwelling, is committing or attempting to commit a robbery, or is committing or attempting to commit arson. Only allowed in

Kentucky law and reform proposals are not perfect.

Most reports ignore these important preconditions for the use of force. However, the draft bill requires some reconsideration. For example, what constitutes a threat of “force” is not defined (is a light push enough?). It also fails to explain when a threat must be made (for example, what if the threat was issued a week ago?).

Additionally, the Property Defense Act does not provide that an occupier's belief regarding trespass or threat of force must be objectively reasonable. Kentucky imposes these important restrictions. Self defence.

The proposed language also says nothing about the amount of force used needing to be proportionate to the threat posed to the property.

as I have argued elsewhere, furthermore, not requiring that the owner's beliefs be objectively reasonable would expose the public to unreasonable risk and unnecessarily encourage interpersonal violence. Kentucky's property defense law reduces the most feared, careless, and paranoid denominators to the bottom by imposing sanctions on those who make unwarranted mistakes.

Finally, the proposed law does not require a property owner to first call the police to remove the trespassing camper before resorting to the use of force (making the use of force unnecessary).

As you can see, there are many areas in this bill that could be subject to fair criticism. But commentators are completely off base when they claim trigger-happy Kentuckians could be attacked by unauthorized “campers” following their worst and most violent instincts.

Self-defense, the “first civil right,” continues to be one of the most controversial topics in criminal law. There's a lot of real debate about where to draw the line when it comes to self-defense. But what we don't need is an effort to invent issues that don't really exist to further fuel partisanship and create unnecessary divisiveness.

Marcus Funk is a former federal prosecutor (Chicago) who has taught criminal and comparative law at law schools including Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, the University of Colorado, and the University of Oxford (where he also earned his J.D.). . He is the author of Re Thinking Self-Defence: The 'Ancient Right's' Rationale Disentangled (Bloomsbury, 2021).