LEESBURG, Va. — After two days of testimony, the man who shot a 21-year-old YouTuber inside Dulles Town Center on video in April has been found not guilty on two charges of malicious wounding.
The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.
Colie, a DoorDash driver, was on trial for shooting Tanner Cook, the man behind the YouTube channel "Classified Goons," at the Dulles Town Center back in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook when he took the stand Wednesday but claimed it was self-defense.
The case went viral not because there was a shooting inside a mall, but because Cook is known to make prank videos. Cook amassed 55,000 subscribers with an average income of up to $3,000 per month. He said he elicits responses to entertain viewers and called his pranks “comedy content.”
Colie faced three charges, including aggravated malicious wounding, malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling, and use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. The jury had to weigh different factors including if Colie had malicious intent and had reasonable fear of imminent danger of bodily harm.
Cook was in the courtroom when jurors were shown footage of him getting shot near the stomach -- a video that has not yet been made public. Cook's mother, however, left the courtroom to avoid watching the key piece of evidence in her son's shooting.
The footage was recorded by one of Cook's friends, who was helping to record a prank video for Cook's channel. The video shows Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear and using Google Translate to play a phrase out loud four times, while Colie backed away.
When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.” He also acknowledged carrying a gun during work as a way to protect himself after seeing reports of other delivery service drivers being robbed.
"Colie walked into the mall to do his job with no intention of interacting with Tanner Cook. None," Adam Pouilliard, Colie's defense attorney, said. "He’s sitting next to his defense attorneys right now. How’s that for a consequence?”
The Commonwealth argued that Cook was never armed, never placed hands on Colie and never posed a threat. They stressed that just because Cook may not seem like a saint or his occupation makes him appear undesirable, that a conviction is warranted.
"We don’t like our personal space invaded, but that does not justify the ability to shoot someone in a public space during an interaction that lasted for only 20 seconds," Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Eden Holmes said.
The jury began deliberating around 11:30 a.m. Thursday. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., the jury came back saying they were divided and couldn’t come to a resolution. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating and later returned with the not-guilty verdict.
WUSA9 caught up with the Cook family following the verdict. When we asked Tanner Cook how he felt about the outcome, he said it is all up to God.
"I really don't care, I mean it is what it is," he said. "It's God's plan at the end of the day."
His mother, Marla Elam, said the family respects the jury and that the Cook family is just thankful Tanner is alive.
"Nothing else matters right now," she said.
Here's the video by NBC Washington, apologies that it's served by Discord
I don't have any sympathy for Cook, nor do i think it's a bad verdict, but shooting someone is a pretty extreme response to having a phone held near your face/ear for 20 seconds.
Dishonest minimization helps nobody. It's like saying 'having a toy pointed at you' and neglecting to mention that it was a toy gun.
This man thought he was getting jumped. He attempted de-escalation, immediately, to no effect. These assholes had twenty whole seconds to figure out the guy backing away, yelling at them to stop, and shoving Cook away did not consider the situation acceptable.
This was assault.
You'll have to explain how you can confuse being beaten up by multiple people with having someone put a phone near your face. You'd think it would be obvious as one involves a group of people punching you while the other one doesn't. Using your definition means anyone who makes another person fearful, whether justified or not, deserves to get shot. Someone with paranoid schizophrenia essentially gets a free pass to murder everyone they come in contact with.
As I said, I don't have an issue with the ruling and I think the youtuber is a POS, but you're essentially arguing that killing someone is an appropriate response to just about every annoying/inconvenient situation that may arise in a person's daily life.
Battery and assault are different things.
This thing was assault.
It's not "my definition." It's the definition.
And stop fucking minimizing what happened by repeating annoy when you mean confront, bewilder, violate the personal space of, refuse to back off from, ignore verbal warnings by, etc.
Not sure where your definition is derived from. In Virginia, assault is defined as:
You're minimizing things here by pretending like shooting someone (attempting to end their life entirely) is an appropriate response to someone holding a phone playing some oddball text-to-speech message near you for 20 seconds.
What was the overt act to do bodily harm here? Did this guy ever even touch the shooter? Should any paranoid person be justified in shooting anyone who puts them in a confusing situation? You're advocating that anyone who becomes afraid of another individual, under any circumstance, is justified in trying to kill them which is absolutely insane.
You're talking about getting jumped when nobody even touched the guy. You're attempting to rely on charged language and outright falsities to prove your point.
Placing people in apprehension of bodily harm is this asshole's career. It's what he plainly means he wants, when he says he ignored repeated warnings to stop, because the victim wasn't giving him the reaction he was looking for. He is such a fucking nutcase that he went on to say "there was no reaction." He says this of a man repeatedly yelling "STOP!" and backing away.
You're lying to me about my own claims, because the only way you can defend this is to pretend the victim shot this guy completely out of the blue. You toss around absolutes, as if judging this case means any violence, for any reason, must always be-- shut up.
This was assault.
This asshole's entire career is assaulting people. There's no violence... but people often think there's gonna be, and he goddamn well knows it. He said so himself.
Like all tired "it's just a prank bro!" types, he has no idea what a prank is, besides making people angry and laughing at them. As an actual fucking jury at an actual fucking trial found - his actions made a man reasonably believe he was about to get jumped. And your ass wants to scoff 'he hadn't been jumped yet,' like you don't know what ability and fear mean. Like you're struggling with the words - about to.
When did this occur? Did he state that he was going to harm Cook at any point?
I literally just repeated exactly what you stated in your comment.
Nobody has stated this. I stated that this was a response to having a phone held up to their face/ear for 20 seconds. You seem confused about the details and would benefit from reading the article.
It was not and I quoted the Virginia statute on assault. You don't seem to be able to defend against the wording without stating absolutes while ignoring the text of the statute.
Well at least you can admit the truth finally. Previously you stated "he thought he was being jumped."
Like I stated, paranoia. Are you arguing that any person with a heightened level of paranoia is justified in shooting someone? Can you answer this question without deflecting onto something else? I don't believe you can. People with all sorts of mental illness believe others are out to get them. If I believe in "gang stalking" should I be allowed to shoot anyone near me without question? Why or why not? How about making a legitimate argument rather than grand standing with little more than charged language. This verdict was decided by a hung jury that likely wanted to go home and do something other than debate on some dipshit youtuber and the guy who shot him..
I'm not wasting any more time on someone who's gonna lie to me about their own words in black and white.
You might fail the Sally-Anne test.
Lmao don't bother. Mindbleach is just a dishonest troll who peddles whatever crap advances his agenda.
It’s a losing battle trying to inject reasonable responses to situations here. Running away is apparently something that is no longer allowed. People somehow think going for violence is always the correct and immediate response to something like this. This place is no better than Reddit for that, there are some bloodthirsty motherfuckers itching to tell someone who is in charge via the point of a gun.
You don't have a monopoly on reasonableness. Twelve jurors, not Redditors, agreed that the YouTuber was behaving aggressively, and violence is a common response to aggression.
And the YouTuber's entire shtick is to make people think they might be in danger, by not letting them back away. Because that's how fights commonly start. If he did the same routine ten feet away from his victims, the whole shtick would fail.
And that's the thing about US legal law: the active support for violence in response to aggression.
Most European countries have a clear legal principle of not allowing violence in response to aggression.
Most European countries allow the use of force in self defense.
Proportional force.
For example:
The main difference, is most European countries have a (mostly) functional police force you can expect to help you deal properly in most conflict situations.
Still, this case "could" be considered proportional if the guy saw the prankster and his friends as potentially assaulting him as a group.
Laws vary by country and state, but some European countries are actually more permissive than the US in the matter of self defense.
For example, Germany allows you to use deadly force to protect mere property, this is not allowed in many US states.
Germany allows you to use "up to" deadly force... if you can argue there was no other way to stop the attacker... and basically with your bare hands, because guns and weapons are way more controlled than in the US.
To have a gun you need to pass not just a criminal check, but also a proficiency test, a fitness test, and then justify a "special need" to own a certain gun. Even carrying a foldable knife can land you in jail before you get a chance to use it for "deadly force".
On the bright side, you could probably legally run over a thief with your car.
Most Germans have easy access to a kitchen knife, especially if they are at home. And those can readily be used to kill someone.
You can have a lot of stuff at home, like a katana, a crossbow, a nail gun, or any sort of airsoft replica gun. You can also carry it in a bag, a backpack, or anywhere else out of easy reach.
The "out of easy reach" part is especially important for paintball, airsoft, archery and hunting enthusiasts; you better make sure that weapon is well packed and hard to reach while carrying it around in public, unless you want it confiscated and land your ass in jail way before you have a chance of using it for self defense.
Within a narrowly defined scope, yes. Pretty sure that with how the case is described here that he would be convicted in a lot of European countries for overstepping the amount of force he's allowed to use in self defense.
Depends on the country, of course. Some European countries are actually more permissive than the US.
For example, in the US you must have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to use deadly force. Reasonable means an average person would feel the same way.
But in the UK, any actual fear of great bodily harm justifies deadly force, even if it is not reasonable, ie even if an average person would not have that fear.
Furthermore unlike most US states there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in the UK, France, Spain or Sweden. This means you can immediately use deadly force when threatened, you don't need to reserve it as a "last option."
12 jurors agreed that they couldn't agree on a verdict and the judge told them that wasn't an option so they came back with a not guilty verdict.
Yes, they agreed they couldn't agree and then they agreed they could agree. And the verdict they could agree on was not guilty.
You’re reading into that the wrong way. There was one incompatible charge about firing indoors. Somehow you can be guilty of that without being guilty for shooting someone? That’s almost definitely what the hangup was about and the judge is going to hear arguments for it next month even though it was the only charge they found him guilty for.
And that result proves that society is too quick to use a gun by deeming potential lethal force so acceptable.
Or maybe it proves that society has deemed intentionally menacing bystanders, particularly for money, to be completely unacceptable.