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

  • Johnvanjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 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
      arrow-up
      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.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 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
          arrow-up
          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
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 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?

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Continue to try getting away from them for more than 20s… is this a fucking joke question?

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                1 year ago

                Have you ever been assaulted by someone? It doesn’t take any time at all for the situation to go from what they were doing to violence. At which point he would have been screwed. He gave them ample opportunity to fuck off. 20 seconds of someone getting in your face and being aggressive feels a hell of a lot longer than 20 seconds sitting on your ass arguing with people on the internet.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

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

      • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 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
          arrow-up
          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.

          • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.

              • theluckyone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thank you for confirming you’re just trolling. My days of not taking you seriously have certain come to a middle.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lmao, go ahead and dismiss people who disagree with you as trolling, bubbles are comforting.

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

                    Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact that the victim was assaulted is all that matters, as it legally justifies the self-defense. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with it.