Posted on 01/11/2022 12:53:34 PM PST by algore
Two LAPD cops who ignored calls to attend a robbery at a nearby Macy's to play Pokemon have failed in their bid to have their firing reversed.
California's court of appeals ruled Tuesday that Louis Lozano and Eric Mitchell were rightfully terminated in 2017 after refusing to go to the scene of a robbery at the Crenshaw mall, with Lozano responding: 'Aw, screw it.'
Instead, the cops decided to hunt down a 'Snorlax' character that had appeared nearby on Pokemon Go, which lets players 'capture' virtual reality characters who pop up on a phone map of nearby locations. Players must then rush to that location in real life in order to 'capture' them.
Different Pokemon are assigned different numbers of points, with rarer characters helping players bag far higher totals.
The pair insisted that they were not actually playing the game at the time, but on Friday a court denied their appeal, thanks to incriminating audio of the incident.
'A board of rights found petitioners guilty on multiple counts of misconduct, based in part on a digital in-car video system (DICVS) recording that captured petitioners willfully abdicating their duty to assist a commanding officer's response to a robbery in progress
Lozano and Mitchell were on foot patrol on April 15, 2017, in what their supervisors termed a busy Saturday.
Calls began coming in about a robbery at a Macy's, with multiple suspects, and Lozano and Mitchell were asked to drive to the area and join the response, but failed to reply.
Sergeant Jose Gomez, their patrol supervisor, asked the pair later that day why they failed to respond, and they said that they hadn't heard the calls.
But Gomez, still suspicious, checked their DICVS.
He found that the pair heard the calls, and discussed whether or not to attend
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
But it’s a Snorlax! C’mon man.
But they got home safely that night right? What’s the big deal?
I can see it. But if they are on Team Instinct... throw the book at ‘em.
What’s the point of responding to calls, given their DA?
This ruling was appealed??? Seriously?? I guess shame it dead.
Around that time (2017) I was opening a new checking account at a bank for my teen son. Suddenly my son leapt up, announced “I gotta go!” and he ran out the door down the street, hunting for a Pokemon.
The banker and I just shook our heads. (He did return promptly.)
I was driving home from work one day, and tuned onto a street. I saw a young man in the middle of the road in a classic Isoceles Shooter’s Stance aiming his pistol directly at me. I slammed on the brakes and ducked behind my dashboard, pulling out my weapon. I peeked over the dash and he was still in position. Something was amiss. Peering closer, I decided that wasn’t a pistol in his hand.
I eased closer, pistol at the ready. It was a phone that he was aiming at me. I drove up and asked if he was hunting Pokémon. He said yes, there was a Charizard behind me. I advised him to get off the road. I didn’t tell him he could have gotten shot.
Well, it could have become a dangerous situation. They could have gotten into big departmental and potential legal trouble interfering with “urban commerce”. And for what? No one is getting prosecuted anyway.
The safest thing possible to do was to get fired.
But how’s that square with the rulings in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278 and DeShaney vs. Winnebago?
First they’re told not to respond to crimes in progress ... and then they’re told they should respond to crimes. I wish the people in charge would just make up their minds.
I didn’t know that game is still going on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.