oc'er sues Hazleton

[Rosco the Iroc]

Anyone we know?

http://www.poconorecord.com/article/...NEWS/150529506

HAZLETON (AP) — A Luzerne County man who claims police and prosecutors have targeted him for prosecution because he wears a gun on his hip and is outspoken about his right to do so, has sued the city of Hazleton, its police and county prosecutors.
The (Hazleton) Standard-Speaker reports George Irizarry contends his problems began the day he moved into the city in August 2008.
That's when he was put in a chokehold by an officer. Irizarry claims he was wrongly restrained on that occasion and three others, and wrongly charged with crimes on two other occasions, only to later be acquitted once and having the charges dropped on another occasion.
Police Chief Frank DeAndrea says he can't comment on the lawsuit filed last week because he's yet to see it.

[Deleted]

That article is fail... (not your fault Rosco) I remember a thread or two about this a while back.


Hazleton man seeks $400G in police harassment suit
BY KENT JACKSON
Published: May 27, 2015


George Irizarry said in a lawsuit that police started harassing him for wearing a gun on his hip the day he moved into Hazleton.

It was Aug. 21, 2008, and Irizarry said he was unloading a truck in front of his new home on West Maple Street when someone behind him placed him in a chokehold.

Irizarry fought back before realizing that he was in the grasp of a police officer.

His lawsuit filed on May 20 in Luzerne County Court seeks in excess of $400,000 and claims that the police targeted him because he exercised his right to openly carry a gun and educated people about their gun rights.

Irizarry said he was falsely restrained on the day he moved in and three other occasions. The lawsuit also details two times when police arrested Irizarry, but he was not convicted either time.

In the lawsuit, he accuses the police of prosecuting him maliciously, wrongfully detaining him, using excessive force and seizing his guns.

The police treatment caused him medical impairment and to lose earnings and the enjoyment of life’s pleasures, according to the lawsuit that he and his wife, Tina, filed.

Their suit names as defendants: the City of Hazleton, former Police Chief Robert Ferdinand, Police Chief Frank DeAndrea, officers David Rodick and Anthony Panzarella, other unnamed officers and Luzerne County prosecutors Michele Hardick and Michael Sowinski.

DeAndrea said he could not comment on the lawsuit, as he has yet to receive court documents in the matter.

In a Standard-Speaker article from Jan. 30, 2012, Irizarry described why he wears a gun in a visible holster and, later, he was among the subjects interviewed in an article about vigilantism.

The lawsuit describes occasions when people called police after seeing Irizarry wearing a gun in plain view, such as when he was delivering lunch to his wife at the store where she worked in spring 2010 and while he walked along Wyoming Street with a friend in summer 2012.

When the officers recognized Irizarry, they were exasperated and said the calls wasted their time. They also warned Irizarry that some day he would meet the wrong cop who would act first and ask questions later, the lawsuit said.

Police arrested Irizarry in October 2012 when he was working as a bouncer at a night club.

The arresting officer, Panzarella, had been at the bar a few hours earlier after receiving a call about an unruly patron, the lawsuit said. He told Irizarry to call 911 if the patron returned.

The patron returned and made threats with a golf club before police arrived and detained a bystander, whom the patron pointed out to them.

While Irizarry was explaining that officers detained the wrong man, Panzarella struck Irizarry in the throat and slammed him to the ground before charging him with obstructing a police investigation.

A jury found Irizarry not guilty in the case.

On Feb. 3, 2013, Irizarry detained a man at gunpoint whom he found walking his property, according to the lawsuit.

Police arrived and arrested the man for shoplifting, but two months later police started investigating Irizarry, and on May 13, 2013, they charged him with unlawful restraint, terroristic threats and recklessly endangering the man whom he detained on Feb. 3.

Those charges were dropped.

“The defendants maliciously prosecuted Mr. Irizarry in direct retaliation for his decision to speak to the local media and to discourage the public from openly carrying a firearm by making an example out of Mr. Irizarry,” the lawsuit said.

[HKusp 45]

curious to see how this plays out

[Deleted]

curious to see how this plays out

I will put on my Carnac The Magnificent hat and say that they will settle with him for $20k to make him go away. He's not suing in Fed Court under a 1983 suit.
...

[The Unknown 1087]

http://lancasteronline.com/news/loca...0ff37f1e7.html

Lancaster Online has a story about it.

Also talks about some residents of Lancaster county who open carry.

[poconojoe]

I hope he gets all of the 400k.

[alpacaheat]

I hope he gets all of the 400k.

Ditto.

[Deleted]

Why do you guys hope he gets $400K? Do you know something about the facts of the case not presented in the news article?

If you do.. Did he have his ACT 235 when he was acting as armed security? If you don't know, that's ok, I was just curious.

[twency]

Why do you guys hope he gets $400K? Do you know something about the facts of the case not presented in the news article?

If you do.. Did he have his ACT 235 when he was acting as armed security? If you don't know, that's ok, I was just curious.

I see at least five separate police-contact incidents described:

•unloading a truck in front of his new home
•when he was delivering lunch to his wife at the store
•while he walked along Wyoming Street with a friend
•when he was working as a bouncer at a night club
•detained a man at gunpoint whom he found walking his property

Only one was while he was working security. In that case there's no indication he was armed.

[GunLawyer001]

Why do you guys hope he gets $400K? Do you know something about the facts of the case not presented in the news article?

If you do.. Did he have his ACT 235 when he was acting as armed security? If you don't know, that's ok, I was just curious.

I think that someone can be a bouncer and decide to carry his personal gun, without an Act 235 card, just like you can stand at your employer's exit and check receipts and decide to be armed without an Act 235 card. As I recall, the question is whether the employer requires the employee to be armed. Of course, if the employer is winking about a "personal choice to be armed", but in practice requires it, then that's different. If all the bouncers "happen to be" armed, a case can be made that it's a job requirement; if only 1 out of 3 is, and nobody is armed when that one guy's not working, then it's just a personal choice.

I'm not familiar with the facts of this case, but it's my understanding that a standard LTCF can suffice for your personal decision to be armed, or you can OC like anyone else without either the LTCF or Act 235 card. And concealed carry at a place where you work, where you aren't the business owner, is not an exemption; the courts have held that "your" place of work means that you literally own that place of work, not that you're just an employee.