A detective corporal, who is the second witness in the murder trial of six cops, told the seven-member jury on Wednesday that, based on the Constabulary Force Act, police are required to defend themselves with deadly force if they come under attack from gunmen.

On trial for murder are Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton and constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch. Corporal Fullerton is also charged with making a false statement to the Independent Commission of Investigations.

The six cops are on trial in relation to the January 12, 2013 shooting deaths of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer on Acadia Drive in St Andrew. It is alleged that the motor vehicle in which the men were travelling was signalled to stop by cops. It is further alleged that the men alighted from the vehicle and opened fire at the police. The lawmen returned fire and three of the men were killed. The fourth man fled and was chased by the police, but they were unable to capture him.

One Mac 10 light semi-automatic gun and a magazine loaded with four 9mm live rounds as well as an Arcus 9mm pistol and a magazine with six 9mm live rounds were allegedly taken from the men.

Under cross-examination from defence attorney Hugh Wildman on Wednesday, the witness, who was the first responding investigator at the scene in 2013, said that it was correct for the police to respond with lethal force if gunmen fired at them.

Wildman asked the witness if there was anything in police training that “tells you to make the gunman shoot you and you say, ‘Oh Lord, my God’ ”.

The witness responded saying that there was “no such thing” in the training.

Wildman went on to ask the witness what should happen if men alight from a motor vehicle opening fire on the police while they were on patrol.

“We would respond equally,” the witness said, agreeing with Wildman that deadly force would be an appropriate response as stated by law.

The witness told the court that at the time of the incident he was aware that Ucliffe Dyer was reporting to the police on a gun-related charge and was a known don in Grants Pen, St Andrew.

The witness said he did not know Matthew Lee. He also said that he did not know whether the six policemen were on a special assignment when the incident occurred.

He accepted that it was customary for the police to have spot checks in Acadia and other areas surrounding Grants Pen. Wildman suggested to the witness that Grants Pen was “notorious for having a lot of gunmen”, and the detective responded saying, “That’s correct.”

Wildman asked him if it would be correct to say that he was contacted at the beginning of this year by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give a statement. The attorney also asked the witness if he was encouraged to say things in a statement that he did not want to say.

The witness did not get a chance to respond to that question as prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke, who had called in the witness for the second interview, raised an objection, saying, “What my friend is doing is most improper. The Crown is entitled to interview and expected to interview witnesses. That is what we do. What my friend is suggesting is leading to something that is far different.”

Wildman sought to pose his questions differently to avoid more objections.

The witness told the court that he wrote two statements in relation to the matter. The first, he said, was written in 2013 and the second was written in January this year.

“Who requested you to write that [second] statement?” Wildman asked.

The witness said it was Pyke who requested the second statement to get clarity on the first statement. The witness said it was his opinion that the first statement was already clear and that he simply repeated what he previously wrote and agreed with the suggestion that events were fresher in his mind in 2013 compared to 2026.

The trial continues Friday.