"*A woman also testified that before the shooting, Collins and his accomplices. Allegedly tried to kidnap her on Cowpen Road. She believed her assailants intended to rape so she screamed for help, scaring them away.*"

Is it normal to include that evidence? Seems weird. Does it have any bearing on whether a shooting miles away was justified?

Obviously the jury wasn’t buying the police story and they let their emotions be known. So tge ly brung in the story with the alleged attempted rape and kidnapping to try win the jury back. Not unlike in the Trump trial when the court heard all the sordid details of an apparent hotel sexcapade with Trump and a porn star who could remember every detail from 16 years ago. And she sells sex for a living.

Isnt the entire trial about him paying money to silence her talking about the *sexcapade*?

Exactly! It is about the falsification of records. Not about hotel sex, which is not illegal. But the intricacies of tge event was brought in and let in as a ‘name and shame’ tactic

Regardless of how anyone feels about the evidence or potential outcome. Is there any basis in law for the judges ruling?

Good point. But now precedence has been set and In know how to get out of jury duty. Just laugh when the police show where they took it upon themselves to add a sentence to a witness statement based on a call from the witness a few days later.
Everything about our criminal system is lone jokes!

One would think that after the last screwup (wherein the court failed to ascertain the most basic information from jurors before they were seated,) that in this case now some five years after the fact, the court would show a stronger commitment to show justice being served!

It seems that justice here seeks to serve only the accused former Supt Collie, and the jurors not only realized such they allowed their opinion of this bias to show.
So what now? Collie’s lawyers get another kick at the cat in order to get their poor showing remedied…after five years time??

I am not a fan of bad bos or rude boys, or "rapaH" bull. However If the Police are going to be Judge Juror and Executioner for crying out loud,
Dont do it in day time.
Don't do it around people
Most importantly, the perp must be found with an unlicensed firearm or else......

The country's ONLY saving grace is the fact that our criminals *tend* to be more stupid than our police force. And... several of our top attorneys fall somewhere in between them.

Well Wayne Munroe’s stance is ‘ a police should not have to hesitate to think ‘what will happen to me if I shout this ( criminal)? Will I have to face a coroner’s court and possibly be found guilty of manslaughter?’ That is true in the general scheme of things and police should be able to execute their duties unhindered. But unfortunately, some of the coroner’s bfases have shown that not all police officers were acting in good faith or in the execution of their duties when they executed a police-involved shooting. There have been cases where it was clearly exposed that police officers tampered with evidence, planted evidence and even removed and repositioned the body of shot victims. So no I don’t agree with Wayne Munroe that police officers should be given Carte Blanche to shoot at will. The fact that there has been only one police involved shooting some five months into 2024 compared to a high of sixteen in a single year shows the coroner’s court is effective. And police officers must be accountable and that a good number of police shootings were outside the scope of ‘police officers doing their job.’