Second Time Around

For those in the profession of public security when soundness of judgement and reasonable reactions are requisites there should be an inflexible rule of 'one strike' out. When an individual has been accepted into a policing role, trained and presumably become professionally adept at the trade of providing safety and security to the public, that person should be expected to behave beyond reproach at all times.

At those hopefully rare times when police officers trade in their law-abiding status as officers of the peace and opt to become stealth or public law-breakers, they should be summarily removed from office, once an investigation has been concluded that affirms they have chosen to disgrace their pledge of public protection. There simply is no room for equivocation.

Anyone whose professional job it is to protect the public, uphold the laws of the land, must undertake to behave personally circumspectly in the pursuit of their occupation and their personal lives. Those individuals must be held to a standard that reflects the trust in which they are held. Someone, like Constable Griffin Gillan of the Vancouver police, who engaged in an unprovoked assault on a civilian, cannot be excused.

In 2009, Const. Gillan who was 24-years-of-age at the time, and a Vancouver police officer, launched an unprovoked attack on a newspaper carrier, Firoz Khan, in downtown Vancouver. Const. Gillan had been involved in a binge drinking night out with two other police officers. This kind of activity, even minus the attack represents excessively poor judgement on the part of all three police officers.

Const Gillan, who later estimated that he had downed roughly 25 drinks that evening, went on to assault Firoz Khan, outside a downtown hotel, and while he was so engaged, he called for police backup. A professional standards investigation by West Vancouver Police Department Staff Sgt.Paul Skelton had initially recommended dismissal for Gillan.

Staff Sgt. Skelton gave testimony during the public hearing that took place on Friday into Const. Gillan's actions, before police complaints adjudicator Harry Boyle. Mr. Boyle was informed that it was Staff Sgt. Skelton's current opinion that Const. Gillan was redeemable because he had 'taken responsibility' for his actions.

In the end the adjudicator decided for lighter punishment than ending Mr. Gillan's police career. Concluding that a 30-day suspension and one-year demotion was to be imposed. Which was costly to Mr. Gillan, having lost $70,000 as a result of suspension and lost work opportunities, as well as an additional $20,000 relating to his punishment.

Whether the man deserves to be given a second chance to demonstrate his renewed capabilities in self-discipline and sound judgement is now moot. The public, which was ill served by Mr. Gillan's violence inflicted on a victim who happened to raise his ire, will now have the opportunity to either see a repeat of the original lack of restraint and exceedingly poor judgement, or conversely a chastened and restrained police officer.