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

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man youre taking literally shooting someone way too lightly. Do you often shoot people with the expectation theyll be fine?

    • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, you shoot people because you believe they pose a legitimate threat to you. Cook was assaulted and defended himself.

      This is a case of, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

      It’s also important to note that the scumbag that was assaulting him is 6’5", so he’s automatically intimidating just by existing.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like that addition at the end that just being tall warrants you being murdered.

        • BrianTheFirst@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They said that tall people are intimidating, which is absolutely true. As another 6’5" dude, I try to be careful how I walk up on somebody, because it is easy to accidentally scare the shit out of people.

                • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, killing someone is often a successful way to remove the perceived threat to your life.

                  But, you keep conveniently forgetting that no one was killed.

                  • blazera@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Usually, and very regularly, people are killed by being shot. Sometimes they survive. That doesnt change the fact they intended to kill someone.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If that person is using the cell phone to assault you and threaten your life, which is the case in this instance, then, yes, they would be legally justified in doing so.

                  • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Lol no its the case here. The mental gymnastic used to justify shooting people in America is fucking bizarre

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Again, nobody was murdered in this case. The facts of the case are what matter, not your hypothetical musings.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                in the cases where people are killed you’re gonna be conveniently absent from discussion. And believe me, there will be many, many more cases of people being killed thanks to people like you.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Since you feel so comfortable predicting the future, why weren’t you there to tell this YouTuber that assaulting this man would get him shot?

                  Or maybe you just prefer to deflect attention from the fact that you peddle is disinformation and bad-faith arguments in order to push and agenda. Either way, considering the facts in the case, what we have is a person legally justified in defending themselves from assault, whether you like it or not. No amount of your hypotheticals, attempts at prognostication, or casting aspersions while refusing to accept the truth will ever change those facts.

                • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I look forward to seeing more level headed discussion from the beacon of truth you must be to be so confident that you’re correct yet so incapable of adequately describing why to a convincing degree.

                  • blazera@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Confident that…more people are going to be shot to death in the future???

                    How disjointed from reality are you people?

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guys he this person walked at me aggressively and I couldn’t tell if they’d kill me so I shot them. Bless merica where life doesn’t mean jack shit.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can get justifiably shot in self-defense for assaulting a person, yes. Because that’s what happened here.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are what matter in this case, whether you like it or not.

                • Microw@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But it’s true though: in a lot of countries the guy would be convicted and it would be classified as too much force for self defense.

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What might happen in other countries is irrelevant. It happened here and was a legally justified response to assault, no matter how much you don’t like it.

                • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact is a guy shot negligently at a kid for playing a speaker at him. Its like speaking to a 1900 Arab whose saying it’s justified to cut a criminals hands off because his legal system deemed it so. The country is beyond reasonable and as I said is fairly evil when it comes to valuing life. You’re using a broken measuring stick to measure

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Except that’s not what happened. Your entire argument hinges on your persistent mischaracterization of events, yet you accuse me of using a “broken measuring stick”. Even you can’t meet your own silly standards, lol.

    • magnetosphere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not going to defend the shooting, but I think you’re taking the idea of being approached by two strangers (one of whom is behind you) way too lightly.

      Without seeing the video it’s hard to say, but the situation sounds absolutely terrifying.

      • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I added a link to the video in the post. Unfortunately the original was taken down, but I did have a cached version I could save and repost.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Everyone who’s ever approached me in the manner of this “prank” has either attempted or done me harm. The dude didn’t know this was a prank. He told them several times to stop and they didn’t. His only safe bet was that the situation would continue to escalate.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “approached” - you seem to be performing Olympic-tier stretching to reduce this aggressive harassment and intimidation to “approached”.

          This is incredibly disingenuous - it’s hard to take anything you say seriously through such. It’s also clear you aren’t actually here for any form of conversation, aren’t here to understand what happened as shown by video and conclude from that, and are instead here to just shill your anti-firearm point of view.

          Beyond disappointing.