A YouTube prankster who was shot by one his targets told jurors Tuesday he had no inkling he had scared or angered the man who fired on him as the prank was recorded.
Tanner Cook, whose “Classified Goons” channel on YouTube has more than 55,000 subscribers, testified nonchalantly about the shooting at start of the trial for 31-year-old Alan Colie, who’s charged with aggravated malicious wounding and two firearms counts.
The April 2 shooting at the food court in Dulles Town Center, about 45 minutes west of Washington, D.C., set off a panic as shoppers fled what they feared to be a mass shooting.
Jurors also saw video of the shooting, recorded by Cook’s associates. The two interacted for less than 30 seconds. Video shows Cook approaching Colie, a DoorDash driver, as he picked up an order. The 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
Cook, 21, testified Tuesday that he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience. He said he doesn’t seek to elicit fear or anger, but acknowledged his targets often react that way.
Asked why he didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
“There was no reaction,” Cook said.
In opening statements, prosecutors urged jurors to set aside the off-putting nature of Cook’s pranks.
“It was stupid. It was silly. And you may even think it was offensive,” prosecutor Pamela Jones said. “But that’s all it was — a cellphone in the ear that got Tanner shot.”
Defense attorney Tabatha Blake said her client didn’t have the benefit of knowing he was a prank victim when he was confronted with Cook’s confusing behavior.
She said the prosecution’s account of the incident “diminishes how unsettling they were to Mr. Alan Colie at the time they occurred.”
In the video, before the encounter with Colie, Cook and his friends can be heard workshopping the phrase they want to play on the phone. One of the friends urges that it be “short, weird and awkward.”
Cook’s “Classified Goons” channel is replete with repellent stunts, like pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores. At a preliminary hearing, sheriff’s deputies testified that they were well aware of Cook and have received calls about previous stunts. Cook acknowledged during cross-examination Tuesday that mall security had tossed him out the day prior to the shooting as he tried to record pranks and that he was trying to avoid security the day he targeted Colie.
Jury selection took an entire day Monday, largely because of publicity the case received in the area. At least one juror said during the selection process that she herself had been a victim of one of Cook’s videos.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.
And I’m not sure why you’re coming at me for, I very clearly wrote that comments in this post are really pro use of deadly self defense, and how they try to justify it
good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.
Because it’s not in context, it never is. But tell ya what, since you (seem) to not be the standard troll that is the majority here, I’ll put it in context.
We have the right to use lethal force to defend ourselves when necessary if we “fear grave injury or death”. Feeling a “bit threatened” isn’t enough. In this case, that guy absolutely had that right. If a 5’2" 150lb guy was doing that to me, that’s a 5"10 220lb guy, I wouldn’t really have that excuse in most cases. But it totally depends on the context. The guy verbally yelled STOP, which is what any police officer or lawyer will tell you, you must make it clear they’ve been instructed to stop, he continued after him, that’s very much an attack at that point. People like to pretend that they know it’d all work out fine, until it doesn’t and it’s too late.
It’s not about being “pro” deadly self-defense, that’s the political mindset, it’s just about self defense. That moron put himself into this situation, that was incredibly stupid and dangerous, and it didn’t end well for him. Other countries and even our news when left leaning politically would have you think we live on cowboy times with shootouts in the street daily, do you think anybody would want to live here if that’s what it was really like? The overwhelming majority of the country is safe for the residents, tourists, and everybody else.
The problem is the major cities with terrible areas in them and gangs most of the time. Even then, selective reporting on that can make it look way different than it is in real life. Same goes with categorizing suicides as gun deaths, instead of gun suicides. A suicidal person is going to wind up dead, gun or not. Again, people have political gain from blaming the tool for the deed rather than the common sense of blaming the person for their actions.
The reason people are so pro, is because of the history of terrible things happening to people in states that heavily restrict gun use, and those people being killed probably because of that. Would a gun guarantee them being alive, no. Would it greatly improve that chance, yes. Even if assholes in a home invasion were also armed, I’ll take 50/50 odds over 100/0 any day.
Now if you go to a complete warzone shithole like L.A., Chicago, parts of NYC, ya, it’s not good. But show me a country with places people shouldn’t stay away from. Given our size, and that the overwhelming majority of the country is statically very safe, don’t believe what you read.
Americans are always going to be quick to get pissed off with this shit, because we’re relentlessly attacked from foreigners with no clue what it’s like here, and our wonderful America hating Americans that hate our constitution and are trying to eradicate it. That one doesn’t stop at guns either.
While I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, I take issue with this point:
A suicidal person is going to wind up dead, gun or not
I work with a lot of suicide survivors and I can tell you for a fact that a lot of people (I’d argue the vast majority) who attempt suicide but survive are not guaranteed to die by suicide later. Oftentimes an attempted suicide is in reaction to an event or circumstances, and once those are resolved the suicidality abates. Removing guns from the equation reduces the chances of completing a suicide, and therefore increases the chances of a suicidal person receiving the mental health care they need after an attempt.
okay, i was with you for the first couple of paragraphs. but it’s worth pointing out
a) people with access to guns are significantly more likely to find success in suicide attempts, and reducing access to lethal means does make a difference.
b) even big cities are, on the whole, safer than a lot of people imagine. i say this as an american in a massive city, in a state with very liberal gun laws. but when you have millions of people in one place, statistically speaking you are going to have more crime. i don’t think most american cities are some kind of purge-like shithole, they’re mostly comprised of ordinary people doing their thing.
edit - formatting, spelling
a) people with access to guns are significantly more likely to find success in suicide attempts, and reducing access to lethal means does make a difference.
That’s completely ignoring that we’re talking about suicidal people, they’re irrelevant. Suicidal people have a million ways to kill themselves, and they if they’re serious, they will, gun or not. Which is why they need to be categorized separately.
By that logic we should put the law abiding in jail, because if we’re not in jail, we’re statistically more likely to commit a crime. See why that doesn’t work?
b) even big cities are, on the whole, safer than a lot of people imagine. i say this as an american in a massive city, in a state with very liberal gun laws. but when you have millions of people in one place, statistically speaking you are going to have more crime. i don’t think most american cities are some kind of purge-like shithole, they’re mostly comprised of ordinary people doing their thing.
I come from one with very strict gun laws, and last time I checked, every criminal that wants a gun has one. That’s because laws don’t stop the lawless from getting them, only the law-abiding that go through the process. As you said, mostly ordinary people doing their thing, as in not shooting other people.
The problem with statistics is they’re black and white, which has it’s place, but real life has nuance, and ignoring nuance can have very negative consequences.
