511
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ram@bookwormstory.social to c/news@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 158 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, "shooting in an occupied dwelling" shouldn't be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.^[https://newsio.com/2023/09/29/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-prankster-at-virginia-shopping-centre-acquitted/]

Also, dude's now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he'll get for those missing months of his life? He's already been punished, and yet he's still presumed innocent.

[-] radix@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago

It is certainly a weird conclusion. You CAN defend yourself. You CAN defend yourself with a gun. You CANNOT defend yourself with a gun indoors?

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

No no. You can defend yourself with a gun indoors. You just can't shoot it. Perhaps a pistol whipping?

load more comments (25 replies)
[-] Endorkend@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He'd probably need to file a suit against the state or the YouTuber.

If he's only cleared on 2/3 charges in the end, they'll just slap a minimum of 6 months on him and call it time served.

He probably doesn't have a leg to stand on suing the YouTuber if only cleared on 2/3 charges.

If he is cleared of all charges, he can sue the pants of both.

But lawsuits are expensive.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 127 points 1 year ago

I think the key here is the fact there were 2 people who approached Colie. That substantially shifts the power balance. Its one thing when its 1 on 1 alone and the other person isn't directly harming you yet, but acting threatening.

When you add a second person who is also engaging in your personal space though, the balance shifts and I think thats what completely justifies a preventative self defence, because when it comes to 2 on 1 you're margin of safety thins dramatically.

To be specific:

If a single person is threatening you, then abruptly shifts to try and attack you, you have a fairly decent window of safety. You can turn and flee, you can push them away, etc etc. You're ability to defend yourself after attacked is still quite reasonable.

If two people are threatening though, those options shrink down a lot. The second person can block off your escape, they can both grab you, etc. Once any of that happens you're ability to defend yourself after attacked is very very unlikely.

So when its 2 on 1, you are a lot more justified to just shoot the person before they actually attack you, because you likely won't get the chance to shoot them anyways after they attack.

In other words, if Cook hadn't brought a friend along I think the outcome would have been very very different.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 139 points 1 year ago

I think also a big part of why Colie was found not-guilty is that he disengaged, said 3 times "stop" including attempting to swipe away Cook, and only then did he take violent action to end the perceived threat. He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.

The argument at hand isn't whether or not he was acting in self defence, but whether he used proportional force to justify it as such, and the jury found that it was proportional, likely due to the factors you described.

load more comments (60 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even scarier, one of those two approached from behind.

[-] Trebach@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago

Which radically shifted the balance in his favor when in court. Virginia is a "duty to retreat" state and having the other guy behind him meant he was surrounded.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

Then tried playing the "I'm not touching you" game.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For context, I'm a liberal gun owner who doesn't carry all the time.

At first, I felt the shooter was on very thin ice. Your comment completely shifted my view on the situation. I might well have taken the shot myself, given the 2 on 1, and one coming from behind.

And remember kids! This is why we wait for a court of law to bring out the evidence before forming a solid opinion!

Thanks you so much for changing my mind, and doing so in a sane and logical manner.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 93 points 1 year ago

When "it's just a prank bro" goes too far. Imagine having consequences to your actions.

[-] brainrein@feddit.de 53 points 1 year ago

Just another reminder how stupid American laws on weapons are. In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place. It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 35 points 1 year ago

The moment a gun is involved, every single confrontation has a skyrocketing rate of lethality.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[-] torknorggren@lemm.ee 51 points 1 year ago

I'm really surprised the DA took this to trial. I can't imagine a jury in the US that would have returned a conviction.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Chunk@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Personally I don't care what the law says. I'm happy the YouTuber got shot and I am happy the shooter went free.

load more comments (27 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

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.”

What was the phrase? That’s kinda important. “Have a nice day” and “I’m going to skullfuck you” are not equally threatening.

[-] IdyllicOptimism@kbin.social 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cook testified in court Wednesday, saying he was playing a Google Translate prank on Colie where he would play "goofy woods." Colie's defense lawyer later said Cook was playing the phrase "hey dipsh**, stop thinking about my sparkle."

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/man-accused-shooting-prank-youtuber-appears-court/65-01e49f74-ed60-476a-96de-3e3e13deff82

Also

Colie said despite backing away, yelling “stop” several times, threatening to call police and pushing the phone back, Cook refused to answer him and kept moving forward.

“In my mind, I registered that he was a threat to me, and he was going to harm me,” Colie told the jury. “I saw his left hand down in his left pocket. I didn’t know if he was concealing a weapon. For the sake of my safety, I took out the gun from my right pocket and I shot him in the stomach. At that time, I was fearful that my life was in danger.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/suspect-on-trial-for-shooting-youtube-prankster-says-he-felt-his-life-was-in-danger/65-a3d59b60-da15-4b3c-9fa1-c7c6a9efee40

[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 58 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the links. If what he says is true, it seems like Colie handled himself responsibly, and didn’t use the situation as an excuse for excessive force. There are cops who could learn from his example.

[-] IdyllicOptimism@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago

Also found this pic, assuming it's from the video of their prank. That looks pretty threatening to me.

pic

[-] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It was, "Hey dips, quit thinking about my twinkle" or something along those lines. A nonsense phrase intentionally chosen to be confusing.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was Google translate reading out “Hey dipshit, stop thinking about my twinkle" in English then again in Spanish. It's mostly harmless and just confusing, but Cook following after Colie's definitely what forced the situation to escalate, as he held the phone uncomfortably close to Colie's ear.

[-] BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

People keep saying that's phrase is harmless. To me that sounds like the type of confused and stupid thing Maga people would yell while committing a hate crime. That combined with two people not taking no for an answer while advancing on you? It sounds like a threat.

When I was living in Virginia I was in a pretty rural area so my view of Virginia might be colored. I found it to be a really red state ( at leadt the part I wan in, not sure about the part this took place in) and yelling at someone there for thinking about your twinkle sounds like a prelude to bigoted violence to me.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago

I agree. this is exactly the kind of behavior I got before getting the shit beaten out of me in school in the 80s/90s for not covering up my sexuality well enough (bi), nearly lost a thumb in one incident, nearly lost consciousness from being choked in another.

Took me 20 years to work out my trauma and internalized homophobia — and still can't watch TV shows that feature high school bullying.

This would trigger me (no pun intended) pretty hard.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
511 points (98.3% liked)

News

23376 readers
1808 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS