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

  • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.

    If he didn’t want to kill him, he wouldn’t have pulled out a gun and fucking shot him.

    It is impossible to live life without feeling fear, if you carry a gun, you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off like a fucking nutjob.

        • @theluckyone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          571 year ago

          Yes, yes it can. In this situation, we have one normal guy just trying to live his life in peace. We have one nutjob harassing him for the lulz and giggles from like minded nutjobs. Finally, there’s a second nutjob defending his behavior right here on this very forum.

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              371 year ago

              Nobody said it was normal. The fact is that it is legally justifiable to shoot at someone, in self-defense, who was assaulting them.

              Whether you or anyone likes it or not is irrelevant.

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  10
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yet another thing you’ve imagined.

                  I suggest you give up. You’re not going to score a “win” here.

                  • @Administrator@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    give up on what? I don’t care about pointless discussions with strangers, but you seem so invested. I only asked a question and you answered. So long

            • @theluckyone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              301 year ago

              You’re being disingenuous. It’s not a normal situation, therefore there is no normal response.

              The question you ought to be asking is what makes it normal to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?

              • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                91 year ago

                to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?

                They asked you a very clear question, what about this makes it normal or ok to shoot someone?

                Being confused and paranoid is not justifiable reason to shoot someone.

                Honestly, you guys are acting like a fucking old person with a gun is allowed to shoot every trans person they see because it’s confusing and scary and they’re not sure how to respond.

                • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  28
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It is not normal to behave aggressively towards someone, get within range to hit them, and then repeatedly close in when the other person tries to backs away. It is not normal for cis people and it is not normal for trans people.

                  When someone does those things, it generally signals they intend to start a fight.

                • @theluckyone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  271 year ago

                  I gave a very clear answer. Perhaps you should spend some time working on your reading comprehension.

                  You’re also building straw men. Nobody’s mentioned age, nor transsexuals, nor paranoia, nor confusing, nor scary… except you.

                  Quit trolling.

                  • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    6
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The literal argument you’re making is that he felt scared so hes justified shooting the kid.

                    Just like that old man who shot the black boy who knocked on the wrong door.

                    What’s different? If all that matters is whether the victim gets scared and confused then that racist old fuck was justified right?

        • @Johnvanjim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          361 year ago

          Sure, then we look at which nut job started the problem, and a jury of his peers figured out that it wasn’t the shooter

          • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If it’s before a jury we look at which nutjob escalated the situation from a public nuisance misdeamour to an attempted murder felony.

            • ramOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              261 year ago

              Do you think that such legal prose runs through the minds of people in the heat of the moment? You really expect people to look at things in such a clinical manner when they’re under immediate perceived threat? You think too much of humans and too little of people.

              • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Lmao, the guy played a cellphone in his face and you’re acting like he pulled a knife on him.

                • ramOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  22
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And you continue to choose to lack empathy and engage in bad faith. Well, I’ll clearly miss nothing blocking you.

            • @lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              261 year ago

              So how should he have responded to 2 dudes shoving a phone in his face and harassing him repeatedly even after backing away from them and being told to stop several times ?

              • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                After 20 fucking seconds? Pick literally anything other than trying to end their lives. Wtf is wrong with you?

                • @lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  231 year ago

                  What option was left to him besides violence? He asked them to stop. He tried to get away from them. What’s left?

              • Drgon
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                You could try walking away, if that doesn’t work try running.

                • @lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  71 year ago

                  What do you think “backing away” means? You expect people to turn their backs on people who’re potentially dangerous to them?

        • @Rice_Daddy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          I’m curious to know if more people agree with your view that shooting someone doesn’t seem like a proportional response based on what we know, ot if the YouTubers deserves it.

          • @brainrein@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.

            But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.

            It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.

            And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.

            But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.

            And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.

    • Again you claim that he wanted to kill him, when his actions proved otherwise. That he accepted the death of the guy as a possibility of his actions is not the same as directly wanting to kill him. But thena gain he made it reasonably believable that he feard for his life in that moment, so calculating every possible outcome was not on his brains agenda.

    • @jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off

      What about “immediately” after telling the guy to stop 3 times, trying to retreat 3 times, and trying to swipe off his phone off your face?

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      He didn’t immediately do it. He asked them to stop multiple times.