gpatt0n Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 <a href="http://adserv2.paulding.com/x1/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a917e73b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" target="_blank" rel=""><img border="0" alt="avw.php?zoneid=2&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER" src="http://adserv2.paulding.com/x1/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=2&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a917e73b"></a> Police Car chase on Macland this morning involved 17 year old New Airport Project to employ 35 Construction of a 40,000 square foot hanger at Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport apparently will serve as the "Eastern" home for a specialized air shuttle service employing 35 people and noted for its fleet management for companies like Intel, it was announced today. The company, Aerodynamics, Inc. of Waterford, Michigan and its subsideriary ADI Shuttle Group, LLC, was acquired by Scott Beale, who with Jeff Beale, is one of the principals of the Paulding Jet Center.Lynda Jo Moore of the Paulding Jet Center made the announcement to the commission during their Thursday morning work session. The initial operation at Paulding will feature two turbine-engined aircraft later this year that will offer shuttle services. That service is anticipated to expand to ten aircraft over the next three years.In 2012 ADI Atlanta will expand to incorporate a MRO - Maintinance, Repair and Overhaul operation that will include expansion of the workforce to 35 persons in the next three years.Ms. Moore said service will be available for locally based aircraft but the prime thrust of the operation is for transient aircraft which, she noted, will give the county exposure to key executives from around the nation who would fly in to oversee and approve the interior appointments made to corporate aircraft.Blake Swafford acknowledged and thanked the commission for being true to the need for confidentiality regarding this development saying now was the first time that it was appropriate to make the plans for the publicly funded facility known. The new hanger, which to most seemed like a speculative venture and was criticized as such, was part of a plan that has been germinating for some time, he said. Swafford did say had these plans not been afoot, the county would probably have developed a 12,000 square foot hanger facility instead of the much larger 40,000 square foot hanger expected to be complete sometime in the early spring of 2012. Click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS Link to post Share on other sites
CrabbyDaddy Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 What a dumba$$. To bad he didn't hit the sign post any harder. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Sixpack Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 I hope that was his daddy's car. Stupid people shouldn't breed . . . Link to post Share on other sites
michelay1000 Posted September 15, 2011 Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 That looks like it hurt. Link to post Share on other sites
gpatt0n Posted September 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2011 The youngster's name is Stanislav Nikolaev Kosev, 17, and he lists his address as Dallas. Here is his photo: I looked him up and currently he remains in the Paulding County Jail. Those intrigued by his name probably wonder from whence he comes. His jail record says he was born in STARA ZAGORA which is Bulgaria. If that doesn't ring a bell, STARA ZAGORA is about 200 miles west and just a little north of Istanbul, Turkey. pubby Link to post Share on other sites
CrabbyDaddy Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 The youngster's name is Stanislav Nikolaev Kosev, 17, and he lists his address as Dallas. Here is his photo: I looked him up and currently he remains in the Paulding County Jail. Those intrigued by his name probably wonder from whence he comes. His jail record says he was born in STARA ZAGORA which is Bulgaria. If that doesn't ring a bell, STARA ZAGORA is about 200 miles west and just a little north of Istanbul, Turkey. pubby LOL.... reminds me of the movie airplane and the line about being in a Turkish prison. Dang I have a weird sense of humor. Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
dana Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
BH87 Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Our son knows this kid and never thought he would do anything like this. It got around very quickly at school after the incident. There was a lot more than alcohol involved in this incident. He didn't take off because he didn't have a license. This just proves that kids this age do not have fully developed brains and they do things impulsively which leads to things like this. It is sad to me as this kid has ruined his life. He will pay for this a long time to come. I'm sure his parents are devastated. Scarlet Edited September 16, 2011 by bh67 Link to post Share on other sites
lucky64 Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 My son knows this kid and was shocked to hear that he did this. He was at school today but in ISS. Of course he was the talk of the school along with apple juice, but the administrators thought it would be better he go to ISS so he wouldn't disrupt classes. Link to post Share on other sites
gpatt0n Posted September 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 I'm glad to hear he is out of jail and back in school, even if it is in ISS. BH67, I know that kids can be utterly stupid but the good news in this case is he wasn't soooo stupid as to have killed or injured himself or others in this obvious lapse of judgment. I don't predict this youngster will be like the two 38 year old also pictured on yesterday's front page whose 'histories' with the county started at about the same age as this youngster. He needs to keep his head down, go to a school with a dormitory so he doesn't need a car, work hard and graduate from high school and then college. If he were to do that I'd bet he'd be able to get the court to let him get a license for graduation. pubby pubby Link to post Share on other sites
BH87 Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 I'm glad to hear he is out of jail and back in school, even if it is in ISS. BH67, I know that kids can be utterly stupid but the good news in this case is he wasn't soooo stupid as to have killed or injured himself or others in this obvious lapse of judgment. I don't predict this youngster will be like the two 38 year old also pictured on yesterday's front page whose 'histories' with the county started at about the same age as this youngster. He needs to keep his head down, go to a school with a dormitory so he doesn't need a car, work hard and graduate from high school and then college. If he were to do that I'd bet he'd be able to get the court to let him get a license for graduation. pubby pubby Pubby, I completely agree! I am very thankful he wasn't killed himself or that someone else! I am so glad to hear that he is back in school today. Jail is not where he needs to be, ISS will give him time to really think and have some prospective. I'm sure he will do whatever he needs to in order to put it past him. I know that rumors among teens start at one thing and end up telling something else...been there done that with our oldest son. So we don't put much credit on rumors among teens. My brother has wrecked every car he has EVER had and he was lucky to be alive...doing stupid things as a teen...and an adult, and there is just no excuse. He just doesn't get it. I sincerely hope that this kid will decide to make a change in his life. I pray that he overcomes this quickly, so he can get on with his life and for his parents who have to get over the shock and support him all the way through it. Scarlet 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheDogs Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. Excellent question... Last time I checked, playing loud music was not against the law, unless is late at night... Link to post Share on other sites
LPPT Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. I think they consider a lot of factors when deciding to chase, weather and road conditions, heavy traffic ect. The kids radio was probably vibrating the bodies of all the cars around him, something I hate. He does not have a license, the officer does not no why, has he lost it DUI? The officer did not have much time to evaluate this kids condition,he had to ask himself if the kid was running because he was high on something. The speed at which the kid left the scene also had to be a factor. These are all split moment decisions the officer had to make. Should he have just let him go when he took off that fast? at the very least he was obligated to keep following the kid to make sure he did not hurt others. The officer seemed to have a pretty clear path as people had already moved or stopped for the kid doing over 100 mph during morning traffic. I think it is awful that we are finding officers ay fault for the chases, it is the runners that are clearly the guilty party, if they don't chase then more and more will run putting even more lives in danger. Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) I think they consider a lot of factors when deciding to chase, weather and road conditions, heavy traffic ect. The kids radio was probably vibrating the bodies of all the cars around him, something I hate. He does not have a license, the officer does not no why, has he lost it DUI? The officer did not have much time to evaluate this kids condition,he had to ask himself if the kid was running because he was high on something. The speed at which the kid left the scene also had to be a factor. These are all split moment decisions the officer had to make. Should he have just let him go when he took off that fast? at the very least he was obligated to keep following the kid to make sure he did not hurt others. The officer seemed to have a pretty clear path as people had already moved or stopped for the kid doing over 100 mph during morning traffic. I think it is awful that we are finding officers ay fault for the chases, it is the runners that are clearly the guilty party, if they don't chase then more and more will run putting even more lives in danger. So just because someone is guilty it eliminates the need for common sense on the part of law enforcement? Do you think an officer would try to shoot a criminal in the middle of a crowded mall just to stop them, knowing he was putting everyone else around in immediate danger? Heck no, he would evaluate and make a better solution. I am not saying the officer was wrong, I just wanted to know if there was a criteria or plan they followed when deciding to pursue or not. Sooo.... who exactly is finding fault, other than by your assumption? (You know what they say about assuming don't ya...) Seems like asking the question about when they do and don't pursue a high speed chase is a perfectly reasonable question and not in any way faulting the officer for his decision. Watch that assuming.... Oh and at least he let a dash cam do the videoing... Edited September 17, 2011 by All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah 1 Link to post Share on other sites
LPPT Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 So just because someone is guilty it eliminates the need for common sense on the part of law enforcement? Do you think an officer would try to shoot a criminal in the middle of a crowded mall just to stop them at the risk of everyone else around knowing he would put them in immediate danger? Heck no, he would evaluate and make a better solution. I am not saying the officer was wrong, I just wanted to know if there was a criteria or plan they followed when deciding to pursue or not. Sooo.... who exactly is finding fault, other than by your assumption? (You know what they say about assuming don't ya...) Seems like asking the question about when they do and don't pursue a high speed chase is a perfectly reasonable question and not in any way faulting the officer for his decision. Watch that assuming.... Oh and at least he let a dash cam do the videoing... Thank you for straightening me out on my assuming, I am sure your post was not an invitation to criticize this officer for chasing the kid. Link to post Share on other sites
gpatt0n Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 From the video, what I saw was appropriate pursuit. This wasn't what you'd call a classic high speed chase ... The officer was barely keeping up ... thanks pubby Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Thank you for straightening me out on my assuming, I am sure your post was not an invitation to criticize this officer for chasing the kid. Don't be snide, you assumed something that was completely wrong. I didn't insinuate that in any shape form or fashion. It was a legitimate question. IF I had wanted to say that and blame the officer I would have absolutely no problem saying it just as I don't mind telling you that you are wrong for your assumption. Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 From the video, what I saw was appropriate pursuit. This wasn't what you'd call a classic high speed chase ... The officer was barely keeping up ... thanks pubby I noticed that too, but it just made me wonder if there was a particular policy/instruction on when they would or wouldn't pursue a high speed chase. Legitimate question... I think the officer did what he had to do, tough call to make. It's not like I am calling him out for doing something moronic like videoing the guy going down icy roads.... I was just asking a question, not about this officer but chases in general. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
LPPT Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Don't be snide, you assumed something that was completely wrong. I didn't insinuate that in any shape form or fashion. It was a legitimate question. IF I had wanted to say that and blame the officer I would have absolutely no problem saying it just as I don't mind telling you that you are wrong for your assumption. I just reread your post, you clearly state that chasing a kid with no license and a loud radio seems extreme to you. The entire county is now aware that I followed a fire truck going up hwy 61 while it was snowing while holding a camera up with might right hand videoing it when a truck pulled out in front of me. If they didn't know then they do now, I took my licks for it, but it is nice of you to bring up again. I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
michelay1000 Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I just reread your post, you clearly state that chasing a kid with no license and a loud radio seems extreme to you. If I were the officer, I personally would have pursued it. I think most people would assume that someone that would run over a radio issue would have bigger things they are hiding. Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) I just reread your post, you clearly state that chasing a kid with no license and a loud radio seems extreme to you. The entire county is now aware that I followed a fire truck going up hwy 61 while it was snowing while holding a camera up with might right hand videoing it when a truck pulled out in front of me. If they didn't know then they do now, I took my licks for it, but it is nice of you to bring up again. I have a question about the chase. I have heard a lot of police districts won't do high speed chases for situations where it could seriously danger citizens. Does Paulding have any rules regarding that? It seems that unless there was a bigger reason other than no license and a loud radio, the chase seemed extreme. I am glad that no one else was hurt by his lack of a brain. With that question posed, I have to say that guy is a complete idiot. It does sound extreme to "ME", I never once faulted the officer for his decision, I could have said that dumbass officer was an idiot for that pursuit, what a freaking moron. But I didn't do that, I simply stated my thoughts on the chase. And you can bet a LOT of people would have been saying the same thing had something tragic like kids at a bus stop being taken out. There is NOTHING wrong with questioning without blaming, which is what I did. You on the other hand.... Justify your statements to me however you want, you were wrong. Flat out wrong. Edited September 17, 2011 by All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah Link to post Share on other sites
LPPT Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 It does sound extreme to "ME", I never once faulted the officer for his decision, I could have said that dumbass officer was an idiot for that pursuit, what a freaking moron. But I didn't do that, I simply stated my thoughts on the chase. And you can bet a LOT of people would have been saying the same thing had something tragic like kids at a bus stop being taken out. There is NOTHING wrong with questioning without blaming, which is what I did. You on the other hand.... Justify your statements to me however you want, you were wrong. Flat out wrong. Whatever Link to post Share on other sites
its mr sarcastic to you Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Whatever Link to post Share on other sites
Ugadawgs98 Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Excellent question... Last time I checked, playing loud music was not against the law, unless is late at night... 100% wrong. Loud music from a vehicle has always been against the law. OCGA 40-6-14. ( a ) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical sound-making device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle. ( e ) A violation of this Code section shall be a misdemeanor. Edited September 17, 2011 by Ugadawgs98 Link to post Share on other sites
TheDogs Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) 100% wrong. Loud music from a vehicle has always been against the law. Let's look at the whole thing... 40-6-14. (a) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical sound-making device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle. ( The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to any law enforcement motor vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of law enforcement duties or to any emergency vehicle equipped with any communication device necessary in the performance of any emergency procedures. © The provisions of this Code section do not apply to motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use sound-making devices. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power, from regulating the time and manner in which such business may be operated. (d) The provisions of this Code section do not apply to the noise made by a horn or other warning device required or permitted by Code Section 40-8-70. The Department of Public Safety shall promulgate rules defining "plainly audible" and establish standards regarding the measurement of sound by law enforcement personnel. (e) A violation of this Code section shall be a misdemeanor. My interpretation of this law is Joe Six pack with a loud speaker/horn amplifying the music/voice from an internal device/person, not just a loud car stereo... I wonder what a Mustang car radio sounds from 100 feet away? How close was the officer at first contact, possibly closer than 100 feet? I wonder what others think? I also wonder if anyone here has been charge with a misdemeanor for driving around with a loud car stereo? Edited September 17, 2011 by TheDogs Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Sixpack Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 My interpretation of this law is Joe Six pack with a loud speaker/horn amplifying the music/voice from an internal device/person, not just a loud car stereo... I wonder what a Mustang car radio sounds from 100 feet away? How close was the officer at first contact, possibly closer than 100 feet? Why is everybody always picking on me? Link to post Share on other sites
TheDogs Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Why is everybody always picking on me? Sorry, didn't mean to... Link to post Share on other sites
Ugadawgs98 Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Let's look at the whole thing... My interpretation of this law is Joe Six pack with a loud speaker/horn amplifying the music/voice from an internal device/person, not just a loud car stereo... I wonder what a Mustang car radio sounds from 100 feet away? How close was the officer at first contact, possibly closer than 100 feet? I wonder what others think? I also wonder if anyone here has been charge with a misdemeanor for driving around with a loud car stereo? Huh? It is plain as day.....and all criminal charges are misdemeanors unless otherwise noted with felony status. 40-6-14. (a) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical sound-making device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle. Link to post Share on other sites
ricketgt Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) How close was the officer at first contact, possibly closer than 100 feet? If the officer was closer than 100 feet, this raises suspicion on whether this was a lawful traffic stop or not. Regardless of what happened afterwards, if the premise is that it was an unlawful stop, then anything that occurs as a result of that stop can be suppressed as evidence (e.g. the video). If a police officer illegally enters your home and finds a marijuana farm, none of the evidence collected will be admissible in court and no charges will stick. My first line of questioning would be whether the officer remembered what song was on the radio when he pulled up behind him. What genre of music was it? So on and so on. If the officer does not recall any of the info about the kind/type of music that was playing while he was sitting immediately in front of him, then I would question whether it could have been loud enough to initiate a lawful stop as the radio must be "plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle" per OCGA for a violation to be taking place and for a legal traffic stop to be initiated. If an officer makes an unlawful stop, anything that occurred after that fact will be questionable in court. Edited September 18, 2011 by Ricket Link to post Share on other sites
Ugadawgs98 Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 If the officer was closer than 100 feet, this raises suspicion on whether this was a lawful traffic stop or not. Regardless of what happened afterwards, if the premise is that it was an unlawful stop, then anything that occurs as a result of that stop can be suppressed as evidence (e.g. the video). Not necessarily. A stop found not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion could get recovered evidence thrown out but it would not provide justification for other criminal offenses. Link to post Share on other sites
Pinches Monos Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Not necessarily. A stop found not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion could get recovered evidence thrown out but it would not provide justification for other criminal offenses. Since we are all speculating here of what could have happened........ sure it can justify other criminal offenses --- , the supreme court has upheld the right to resist and flee an unlawful arrest. Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 Link to post Share on other sites
TabbyCat Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Strangest. Subtitle. EVER. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now