Another Obamacare Victim. LOL.

Barack Obama Threatens To Withdraw All American Troops From Afghanistan.

Brandon Bradshaw's Widow Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit In Federal Court Over Road Rage Killing.

Brandon Bradshaw, who was shot a year ago today by former Warren County court security officer Tommy Brown, filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday against Brown and the top officials at three local law enforcement agencies.  
Heidi Bradshaw’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, claims her husband was killed without due process and that law enforcement at the scene exhibited a reckless disregard of and deliberate indifference to Brandon Bradshaw’s life through conduct that the suit claims was intentional, reckless, deliberate, wanton and/or malicious.

Specifically, Heidi Bradshaw claims a member of a responding agency reported that Bradshaw was “10-7” – police code for deceased – before EMS personnel approached Bradshaw and found he still had a strong pulse, causing at least a seven-minute delay of possibly life-saving medical treatment, and that law enforcement failed to preserve evidence that may have shed light on the events surrounding the shooting.
The lawsuit claims the conduct by law enforcement resulted from the failure of the heads at each department to train and supervise the officers below them and that Brown committed common law battery upon Bradshaw.

Bowling Green attorney Paul Lawless, representing Brown, was not immediately available for comment this morning.
Heidi Bradshaw requests an unspecified amount of damages for the earnings her husband would have accumulated had he lived, for funeral and burial expenses, medical expenses, for physical and mental pain and suffering Brandon Bradshaw experienced prior to his death and to compensate her and the couple’s three children for the loss of his love, affection, companionship and support.
“The family’s emotions have gone the entire gamut from despair to disbelief to depression, nothing good,” Bradshaw’s attorney, Gary Logsdon of Bowling Green, said this morning about the year that has passed since the shooting.
“The children haven’t handled it well, as one would understand,” Logsdon said. “The wife – her husband left home healthy as a horse and didn’t come home. That’s a wife’s worst nightmare.”

Brown shot Brandon Bradshaw three times Feb. 26, 2013, in the parking lot of Michelle’s Consignment on U.S. 31-W By-Pass at the end of a road rage incident between the since-resigned court security officer and the 27-year-old youth theater director and former Warren County constable.
Brandon Bradshaw was wounded in his arm, hand and at the base of his skull. He died from his wounds March 2 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

A grand jury considered evidence and heard testimony in the case but did not charge Brown with a crime. Brown, a part-time sheriff’s office employee who resigned from his court security post shortly after being cleared of criminal wrongdoing, has maintained he acted in self-defense.
“The essence of this is ... how many times do you shoot in self-defense,” Logsdon said. “Three times sounds a little odd, doesn’t it?”

Logsdon said he has provided information about the case to the FBI.
“We have cooperated fully with them in sharing our insight,” Logsdon said. “That investigation has apparently not been completed.”

The federal lawsuit names Brown; Warren County Sheriff Jerry “Peanuts” Gaines; WCSO Maj. Randy Hargis; Bowling Green Police Department Chief Doug Hawkins; BGPD Lt. Col. Kevin Wiles, who is deputy chief of field operations; former Kentucky State Police Post 3 commander Capt. Bobby Murray; unknown agents of all three law enforcement bodies; the city of Bowling Green; and Medical Center EMS as defendants.

Logsdon characterizes the road rage dispute in the lawsuit as an incident initiated by Brown after he perceived Brandon Bradshaw’s vehicle came close to striking Brown’s vehicle in traffic on the bypass.
“During the incident, Brown pulled alongside Brandon Bradshaw’s vehicle, asked if Bradshaw was ‘still a constable’ and then ordered Bradshaw to pull over,” the lawsuit states, citing a recording of a 911 call made by Brown’s wife, Mindy Brown, immediately after the shooting.
Bradshaw pulled into the Enterprise Rent-A-Car parking lot and circled to the neighboring consignment shop parking lot, where Brown was waiting.
Brown left his vehicle and approached Brandon Bradshaw’s truck. Brown would later tell the KSP, which investigated the incident, that he remained calm throughout the incident and did not lose his temper, though two witnesses would also tell police that Brown appeared “agitated” or “hostile.”
KSP records of the investigation also show a witness who reported seeing Brandon Bradshaw pull a gun from somewhere in his truck and point it in Brown’s direction.

Logsdon said this morning that it was “impossible” for that witness, Ashley Crowe, to have observed what she claimed, given her vantage point at the scene.
BGPD spokesman Officer Ronnie Ward said the department would not comment on pending litigation. Gaines was not immediately available for comment.
Trooper Jonathan Biven, spokesman at KSP Post 3, referred questions to KSP headquarters in Frankfort.
(h/t: BGDN)

Military Cuts!

U. S. Supreme Court Narrows Right To Object To A Police Search Of Suspect's Home When One Occupant Agrees And The Other Doesn't.

Supreme Court narrows right to object to a police search of suspect's home

Walter Fernandez objected to a police search of his home. His girlfriend, after his arrest, did not. US Supreme Court rules the search was constitutional. Three dissenting justices say it diminishes Fourth Amendment rights.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday made it significantly easier for police to conduct a warrantless search of a home when one of two occupants objects to a police search but the other does not.

The 6-to-3 decision came in a case from Los Angeles involving a suspect who loudly informed police at his front door that they were not welcome in his home.

“You don’t have any right to come in here,” Walter Fernandez told the police. “I know my rights.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

The officers were initially responding to a report of a gang-related robbery nearby, which they suspected may have been carried out by Mr. Fernandez.

By the time Fernandez told police to stay out, they were already interviewing his girlfriend, who also lived in the apartment. The girlfriend looked to police as if she had just been beaten up.

Based in part on evidence of possible domestic abuse, the officers placed Fernandez under arrest and drove him to the police station.

About an hour later, the officers returned to the apartment and asked the girlfriend for permission to search the home. She was reluctant, but eventually agreed.

During the search, the police found gang-related paraphernalia, a knife, clothing worn by the suspected robber, and a sawed-off shotgun.

Fernandez was charged with robbery, domestic abuse, and possession of guns and ammunition by a convicted felon.

Before his trial, Fernandez’s lawyer sought to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of the apartment. The lawyer argued that police needed to obtain a court-authorized warrant before entering his home and seizing evidence, since Fernandez had refused to consent to a warrantless search.

The question in the case, Fernandez v. California (12-7822), was whether the girlfriend’s agreement to allow the police to search the apartment overcame Fernandez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from such police intrusions without a warrant.

The majority justices ruled that because Fernandez had been lawfully arrested by police and taken to the police station for booking, his girlfriend’s subsequent agreement to allow a search superseded his earlier objection.

“We … hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision significantly narrows a 2006 high court decision in which the justices ruled that police could not search a residence when one of the two occupants objects to such a search. In that case, the suspect was refusing to allow police to conduct a search of the residence, while another occupant consented to such a search. The Supreme Court said that police had to honor the wishes of the objecting party when the objector was physically present at the location to be searched.

In the Fernandez case, he, too, was physically present at the location to be searched, at least until he was arrested and taken away. Once he was no longer physically present, police then approached his girlfriend for permission to search.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said police should be required to honor Fernandez’s objection. The dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, added that it would not have hindered the police investigation because police already had probable cause to justify a search warrant to a judge.

She warned that the high court decision might send a dangerous message to law enforcement officials. “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind [that there was] ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

She said the decision amounted to a “drastic reduction” of Fourth Amendment protections.

“Although the police have probable cause and could obtain a warrant with dispatch, if they can gain the consent of someone other than the suspect, why should the law insist on the formality of a warrant,” Ginsburg asked. She answered her own question: “Because the Framers saw the neutral magistrate as an essential part of the criminal process shielding all of us, good or bad, saint or sinner, from unchecked police activity.”

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito said a high court decision recognizing Fernandez’s earlier objection to the search would raise a number of practical problems.

How long would such an objection remain binding, Alito asked. A week? A month? A year? Ten years?

He said the better approach was to embrace a narrow reading of the 2006 decision. Such a narrow approach requires a suspect to be physically present and objecting to prevent another occupant of the same residence from granting the police authorization to conduct a warrantless search.

Alito also rejected the suggestion that police could have quickly and easily obtained a warrant from a judge or magistrate.

“This argument misunderstands the constitutional status of consent searches,” Alito wrote.

“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” he said. “Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search, the magistrate who must review the warrant application, and the party willing to give consent.”

When a warrantless search is justified, he added, obtaining a warrant anyway may unjustifiably interfere with legitimate law enforcement strategies, Alito said.

He went on to say that, under the circumstances of the Fernandez case, the physically abused girlfriend enjoyed her own independent right to invite the police to search the residence.

“Having beaten [his girlfriend], petitioner would bar her from controlling access to her own home until such time as he chose to relent,” Alito said. “The Fourth Amendment does not give him that power.”

In their dissent, the three women on the court – Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan – rejected the majority’s references to domestic abuse as a justification for its decision.

“If a person’s health and safety are threatened by a domestic abuser, exigent circumstances would justify immediate removal of the abuser from the premises, as happened here,” Ginsburg said.

“Domestic abuse is indeed a serious problem in the United States,” she wrote. But “the specter of domestic abuse hardly necessitates the diminution of the Fourth Amendment rights at stake here,” she added.

Fernandez was tried and convicted on the robbery and domestic abuse charges. He pleaded no contest to the firearms charges. He is currently serving a 14-year term in California state prison.

Smart Gun.

"Moocher"!

Tonya Harding Them!

LOL.

Mike Luckovich Thinks He Knows A Real Snake Handler! LOL

Bill Restoring Felons' Voting Rights Passes Kentucky Senate With Five-Year Waiting Period.

                                          (Rand Paul testifies in favor of bill)

Bill restoring felons' voting rights passes Senate with five-year waiting period

Kentucky Senate appears poised to approve constitutional amendment on felon voting rights
FRANKFORT — Despite misgivings from Democrats, a state constitutional amendment that would restore most felons' voting rights after a five-year waiting period passed the state Senate Wednesday with overwhelming support.

A bipartisan vote of 34-4 approved the measure, which was a Republican substitute for legislation that would create automatic restoration, and the legislature is now tasked with finding a compromise between the House and Senate versions.

Democrats argued that the five-year waiting period, which Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, added to win Republican votes, was tantamount to another punitive measure for felons who had already paid their debt to society.

Thayer, noting a 37 percent recidivism rate for felons within the first few years of their release, said he and other Republicans could not agree to the measure without a waiting period.

Thayer urged senators to "not give up the good for the sake of the perfect."

Rep. Jesse Crenshaw, D-Lexington, and the Democratic House of Representatives have repeatedly passed similar measures only to see them die in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Behind a push from U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, who testified at a state Senate hearing on the proposed amendment earlier Wednesday, Republicans were largely unified in their support.

But Crenshaw, who testified alongside Paul, said he could not support the amendment with a five-year waiting period included.

Sen. Reggie Thomas, D-Lexington, voted in favor of the amendment in committee but with reservations, saying he thought the waiting period is "punitive and oppressive."

"Hopefully reason will prevail in [conference] committee," Thomas said.

Sen. Joe Bowen, R-Owensboro, chairman of the State and Local Government Committee that heard testimony, urged Crenshaw and other unhappy Democrats to remember that "politics is the art of compromise."

After the amendment passed out of committee unanimously, Paul, who has championed the issue nationally and in the state, said he thinks a conference committee made up of lawmakers from the House and Senate will reach an agreement.

"I think they'll achieve a compromise," Paul said. "But I would say that we've gone a long way from a bill that was never voted on in the Senate, never had a hearing on, to getting a hearing and getting a vote today, I think it's a huge step forward."

If the two sides can agree, voters would decide the constitutional amendment's fate at the ballot box in November. Crenshaw's measure passed the House in January 82-12.

The bill would affect about 180,000 felons who have completed their sentences, but it would not apply to those who have committed intentional murder, rape, sodomy or a sexual offense with a minor.

Under current law, felons must petition the governor for a partial pardon to restore their voting rights.

Because "Stand Your Ground" Belongs In A War Zone, Such As In Syria!

Declare Where You Stand!

Sinkhole "Eats" Corvetes!

Words To Live By, Words Of Wisdom, And Words To Ponder.

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. -- Galatians 6:9-10, The Bible, KJV

Mitt Romney Emerges On The Scene And Joins Rand Paul In Resurrecting Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Affair. Watch Video.

Political Olympics!

A Nation Of Addicts.

Sinkhole Swallows 8 Classic Corvettes At Corvette Musuem In Bowling Green, Kentucky. Watch Video.

Interview With Bob Marley, The Best Known Rastafarian. Watch.

"60 Minutes" On Rastafarianism.

This is Funny!

You Can Tell Joel Pett Loves Rand Paul!

I Must Admit, This Cartoon Is Funny!

This Cartoon Is So True!

Words To Live By, Words Of Wisdom, And Words To Ponder.

in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

An American Politician And CVS!

Yes, Women Need More Guns. All Sane People Do!

AT&T Never Does Anything That Doesn't Put Money In It's Pockets!

Dog Fight In Race Between Mitch McConnell And Allison Lundergan Grimes. Watch News.

And More Winter!

We Congratulate Seattle Seahawks For Embarrassing Denver Broncos In 43 TO 8 SuperBowl XLVIII Win.

CONGRATS.

YES, I PREDICTED A 5 POINT WIN, BUT THIS WAS WAY TOO EMBARRASSING!

Watch The SuperBowl Ads Here. My Favorite Is The General Motors'Ad Featuring A Bull Licking His Chops At The Cows, While Errol Brown And Hot Chocolate Sang "You Sexy Thing" In The Background. It Made Me Laugh Out Laugh (LOL)!

Words To Live By, Words Of Wisdom, And Words To Ponder.

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

-- 1 John 2:15, The Bible, KJV

Ok, Joel Pett Continues To Be Funny!

Governor Of Georgia Issues Apology For Weather Fiasco.