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
I guess there’s a reason Just For Laughs Gags is filmed in Canada.
Paranoia and heavy armament don’t seem to go well together.
Cook’s lack of respect for people and his total disregard of the consequences of his actions is what caused this situation, not paranoia and heavy armament.
I don’t have any sympathy for Cook, nor do i think it’s a bad verdict, but shooting someone is a pretty extreme response to having a phone held near your face/ear for 20 seconds.
It’s a losing battle trying to inject reasonable responses to situations here. Running away is apparently something that is no longer allowed. People somehow think going for violence is always the correct and immediate response to something like this. This place is no better than Reddit for that, there are some bloodthirsty motherfuckers itching to tell someone who is in charge via the point of a gun.
What a sinful murderous culture
What a weird response.
No one was murdered. What “sins” were committed here? “Love your neighbor,” which gets violated everywhere every day. We live in a stupid, decadent, vapid capitalist culture. A worker, making way less than he should so a company can call him an independent contractor, carries a gun so he doesn’t lose his little bit of money, and a twat making peoples lives miserable for money…capitalism is the common culprit. This isn’t “society” rotting. This is your economic system inflicting it’s dominating principles, coldly, on everyone.
Man youre taking literally shooting someone way too lightly. Do you often shoot people with the expectation theyll be fine?
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.
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.
In every other western country a teenage prank usually does not result in attempted murder.
Capitalism may make someone desperate enough to lash out, American gun insanity has evidently lead most of the people in this thread to think that lashing out by shooting someone with a fucking gun is a justifiable response to an annoying prank.
A murderous society is as you described. Life isn’t valued. Delivery drivers feel they should be armed. Shooting kids because they annoyed you is permitted. Everybody is on edge. The sin is attempting to murder, not in defense and having the culture so rotting that there’s no guilt in it. Blame whatever you got to. It is what it is. Its a society that’s so far gone that life is devalued that this happens
Personally I don’t care what the law says. I’m happy the YouTuber got shot and I am happy the shooter went free.
I don’t like this behavior either. But the answer isn’t to start shooting. America is gross.
Correct, people shouldn’t go around shooting people that they don’t like, but that isn’t what happened here – Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.
bUDnRZ0kjJqfm8GENhao9dovO6CydCHTMb8Fz1TYwUic8xy6bD8bTg6VkagwSSwVhltuqEdYkZnT/02TOcKdOJ9VKvL//3scGs/TlSSPZ8LU1SvaoYyb/czu4qi25f6hTh2S8iMkQ7e3bbvlKvnACnsFMZL3afsWICGwXXSZxk5VodS18XZ1m3fUJLxdjMju+M2U0WuXyMVNCP7LI2wQI2gs2SH/LoFZPQLiRvsv6o6ryQyWIp2MlBWbT9oj/wAycuWmPnn3oFTt3xUm7LdSX8kFEArCy44Zv0zyNn1Utyt7AX+KJT3XWgdqTDuC4cBIHOOUhuEzOOoQ89iXs312kA==
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
That’s incredibly reductive.
Sure defending oneself with firearms may be appropriate in some circumstances, simply walking away might be appropriate in other circumstances.
Some would argue the latter was more appropriate in this circumstance, and others would argue the former, but we can probably both agree there would be more people arguing the former in the US than in most other countries.
Hm, one must be careful with such lines of thinking. Self-defense should be protected, and upheld based on principle, and not simply because it was used against someone who may socially detestable.
content-signature:Xpto6+CqmztueG93Hr9TWGrFEqsQlphBb5H+B7FKMK9J3SkSqbVdldBh2LPdJCBavk0ovU7/YXTEpWdkHnDRS/suKAKmDKrta0TpDY3CeF7S1iemSZ46Y4xa/texFQluvZ+OC6l6nGrYMoWRLeed/u7hgkD9DRafFiAmgP5uBxQeSAo2lKBQN5usXBJRU/80u7smOdbBj2t6HS/wRu4vkDYXmGpLqjPQvHAxcBvGR+4bDvQ28Df7Qnpea7NkK+gDBHKSMEW58WfdbQZihrwc/1oBGfbPXp2oR9rfPn3at3Ab/67PoyebHxJxvc7Ap7CAJveaSxfL0QCC9wepxo02jQ==
He’s still needing to fight the charge for shooting into an occupied dwelling - judge is hearing arguments in October. He’s also been in police custody since the incident 6 months ago. I hope he wins though. I think the gun was too far, but the increase in lethality in any situation where someone has a gun is well known and documented, and comes down to a policy issue rather than his own personal failing imo.
Yeah man, whatever happened to pepper spray? This seems more like a pepper spray kind of response.
I’m not trying to make a strawman argument with this comment, I would simply like to state the misfortune that some countries prohibit the use of pepper spray for self-defence. Canada is one such example that is known to me.
tshLz68OTxAkqdrN0fsu2PS0B3WTZAEQxH9bUUpQeu0M/piF3foJbme1ziay5+3XkCIyRUqO6fornlpkXdp0QK9/xIIy7Z/vf+NOSZ/NC+hrZsvmplMjNkhRJ3U2kzKEMINpt6NDvnsNrxsHMVO+V/wJLsA2a7sV/WZcrtHaxQmk+n6dATEK1NzGx5Dcl96wsiSTHLI7Y5cXtp7VvzZ4xQ6Vefg1CDf44lQnQcKUWcdY9DeTCksEUzQba0ee/UCO1HaoPhzlYnH4wNLayMOZHjg+l5uRSDFeEzEK8+ElNAQaP9rCG/g/RpvuPrwAkM2I6cCCQkudj1FdGEPSgSzYmQ==
Really he had the right to salf defense but not use a gun in crowned building, what about standing his ground.
This is a perfect example of gun laws not making common sense. You can have your shooting ruled justified and still get a felony on the fact of where it happened. Like you had a choice.
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.
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
You take your robbery and beating, stabbing or slashing, accept the Belfast smile when they decide to give you one, and hope they stop while you’re still able to survive.
I don’t dispute that.
Only question is: what is your plan for when 3 dudes surround you and the first one who is much larger than you makes every signal that he’s about to dominate you?
What are the homicide rates in the US compared to those countries?
What’s the ratio of random attackers to friends and family getting killed?
Why are you burying yourself in macho fantasies?
I have no macho fantasies. More randos could beat me to death with their hands than the ones who cannot. You may have a bit of martial arts training and fantasies of obliterating some muggers with your hands but I have no such illusions. I’ve been the victim of crimes like this and consider myself lucky as I was utterly helpless at the time and survived. So fuck off with that “just run away or fight” nonsense you believe from watching too many movies where good guys always take damage differently from bad guys.
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
I don’t know if you mean that one would lack the means, or that they are simply prohibited by law to defend themself, but, in either case, it is false in that there do exist countries in which one can defend themself, or defend themself and carry the means to defend themeself. For example, let’s look at Canada (do not interpret this as legal advice):
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
So we can see that one is allowed to defend themself. Things do get a little more trick when we are talking about the means to defend oneself. Canada’s criminal code defines a “weapon”, as follows:
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and then further states
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
However, there are some loopholes in this. As long as one states that they are not carrying an item with the purpose of causing harm to another, and that such reasoning could be reasonably justified, given the context, one could, for example, carry a knife. Carrying a firearm, however, is significantly more complicated, and difficult.
RvzKdXmHFIp8J+d3mmGIEyVSdsasZDUWhjSowB0IplIbNNRBto4TzFiKTueEaYakSsSQ9F/KQxtXK5NMbSWgeX3gSXr+ry5KvwAidi/9HxY0NFzHINnJ4682kK7E247jObijihDyootBL9nOMVeqEB0jFaHL5x6aQuNsmmOCmrMpjIeAiCimQXg1PFlEnY83JDLjlInwxh5uH5dnhCupXBpPFzj1dKwk8hsONY40w9wOK8i+3/lhVUMRXm3fwAAAUbuqlaizX9qp8yDrqd868pEbuCvrz6lh5Z4WQAvKkmO+GUWP+O0ARctxoHD5mhjDD/R2O3JVlIwYVf5Cc9PQXA==
The moment a gun is involved, every single confrontation has a skyrocketing rate of lethality.
Do note that this isn’t an exclusive statement; a knife is also extremely deadly.
content-signature:SZvzGdmNHaRH7zTy1xJeSZp30zK/eCLiV+707z3BzZsDQ9rlW/2MgYJBsDgqndz51uKiovW3o3teh1NfzvtbN6n5BFtOSTkIYRazhkkA39WVI7rIikrWVtWvkHkexrdD1JGGJhLnbHrqMfnDfYbGIJbMLGaQ3Va6zSXQGxra1S+oE5sc9ENrOyIk62qpPHJ1MHEb4c7YK+CpVNHe9eZaYIEs8jfipU5vI3ICba3NaqnBj1g3VuJmJUGOGExlZoSi2froXRE4eqNAiSpl41zLfT9OMVJHXnZRUOdySRte8lWfIAkPWt7fxHA5+wTDogxzCNwn4CcQh3DgDyakocV8Fg==
Hey man, if he had to carry pepper spray or something instead how would you know he loves freedome eagle flags and trucks?
Hm, I’m not sure how practical this is. If one must defend themself, would it not be best to always be sure that one has the absolute best means of successfully doing so? I would argue that carrying a firearm increases these odds far more than carrying pepper spray.
Pkr4gZz8OcH+N59ulney/B0zujS5vwLPawRI3io+8XhRumTMIu18/YlBE78Vu4eZpVHvQsNREGoMkkifDySYSSL7yjWE2KO4IKIxPUxQp2uyn2YFAjeX9xVBexuNrg/pL3X7oHhuGXUwy5QCHn7S6H/yXH7q7R0gpvpn1DPfkZYBmw62iMmcSss1lpxxSS5zhyroAjY5dVbCBmzfFUOEkjUi5I2k3MmxpfCTZlvTZvLEJil6lSwum+1H8Q5WDL1HpkuceyOgWAe4ATiB1Yay2056kIQiwrXbLO3EPzX9kW4GZAyYPABGZcjIYM4WlWzrD6wj5blsGFIT00gXckUMVQ==
Your right, it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone you think might be a threat. There can be no better solution.
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.
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.
You state “ended in a fight” as if that implies that the total damage imparted on both parties would be less overall. You completely miss the fact that physical violence can quite easily end fatally.
At any rate, wouldn’t a victim defending themself successfully, efficiently, and likely without bodily harm to themself be preferential to the possibility of a violent and bloody physical beating with odds likely not in the victim’s favor?
content-signature:BQVt7fAQqGvqjdNGUrvFp8iqrLRo8CmbObtXC5hFcYjFf60yg37xh7iyO8+vL4e2+pB5orcuBTuGgk1LMwFlyoDWKLb72FTczTCpRCwI6RoqF6YS1EOOli37Bi2Sod2Za/kjTaP6gijyrKUshxlhXQuiKPDkhGzpVtdKwgLlyziqBJzo3WQ0rIHKh/WWC0fmO6GQySYJQd6KVgDmrhzvIg0JXT7OpPPYM5QjnA+J14PXCqawJPmxmHbOF53MoV8QH8jszAt+ywzdRxI5eeM9aKifkX2+P8MUswT23ql95BEeG1egRAraue4yJ3OjaqeMUNFOPdDTGTguVSDjO1gctg==
Are you replying to the following?
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.
content-signature:MPvnKfx103YjaEk1xAXkZad4N/0g8T26skCzlxub/U2C7YlNL3ycnBO+T9uLoaM1EJ93KjJxWFjisQOWL6sw6znCkte+v0HXg6SP1KewjQGthXuEwCkFNvbmgNMs/yB9UCnqHQA94fdb1NKgi6NpZqh/Ja6cn6B/fsLAyOtMSAEtmYJWG/Dqa3I9p5GdHXUlMsWpKpZrd4oQ8qxDIDZPYgApZPhNKLHJijZK0lrsj91HbSapgCPY9gGVwT758MnEQ4MdgmywfwFlXxhzPU3qDLu6J/tqjNAPNiPdadE9VN9H/Oj5C2I235zLgmk9TCdMoNz1ZwjpXfg566OZxsjWog==
My brother had a gun pulled on him while delivering a pizza. I don’t blame delivery people for arming themselves with the unfamiliar situations they have to put themselves in regularly. So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.
Also, in this specific situation where someone comes up behind you and gets in your face something like a knife would be just as deadly.
So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.
I don’t fully understand – are you stating this as a counterargument to allowing citizens to arm themselves?
content-signature:B1AXrZBd/7FJJsrZK3eAstCO4snSAUMFuDO1KjwEAJU3xxtP0d7KJD2oTd9vS/0UHABSsREV9mDuethUyiv+QH++uWOlCvc2jVHOX6Q9UMN2QcAPbJm6hbqGQLMpJNjI2F94IPu8iZa6tnyAsagUQHbx6T8WBAlnv7nl5ukmUfFwtl6CP/lobNteFBlMKXOCRV+mJTbWq02L71ZA6EyfD2EUyLVb1iJ/NoDWOnI9whAoUHRHSOzLldEd/AoQ0/8HjvKsnFT+EAeqh7KEBYaMcKdduA3U2hqaIo5tIUpDOmCG9QGtbJq7m4Oo6Hxt95qxvBuRRiEzQ6rRPmVPsoKIIg==
No, the opposite really. If you are delivering things alone to strangers, it makes sense to arm yourself. You are putting yourself in vulnerable position frequently and can’t expect others to be unarmed. Otherwise you’d be the loser in the prisoner’s dilemma a society of guns creates. Things might be different if guns weren’t widespread, but that genie’s out of the bottle.
I don’t own a gun, but I might if I didn’t feel safe in my day-to-day life.
Yeah, instead we get the guy being shot but continuing to do his stupid bullshit. That laws in the US are broken.
I don’t understand your point. Are stating that if the victim didn’t have a gun – meaning that the shooting didn’t happen – then the perpetrator wouldn’t be continuing this behaviour?
content-signature:ZXco0T3+z6ff9K0rbQCt+9w2lDEe4GHy9QuxOgIiJqKWfcGoazURsZea+8i/5DrTIHihOUN4GEY9HlHfzoEQCGLqZaby4yj+t0yUbP08HVgwPi1mV19bbieDKMJeXhNkpDwgqjc8rDcnyMgaPhlAY/W+nS6xWgIcrTMrf9H5LbhtZqIwHvo4kFgUz87mrt21L8rlOpvbiodZrrLx/1mHGXd3cdJJP92W1Z3x7t4E7NjKgstCnyCXtILMpejJkQH4cEPv1pdlHRQdjOrG32ZmyFWWn+LruZW+Xj4Vx5ueu87UupLpCPbTD5FWMGX/HTfBxR5XQs0oRYO8Eh1q8WY2Tg==
Yeah. I mean, this happened in a mall? With hundreds of people around? It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it. Files lawsuit, judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.
The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.
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.
Well that’s called cognitive dissonance. You can believe it. It happened. It only seems unbelievable because you don’t really know what the law is.
If you did, you’d know why the person was arrested, prosecuted, and why the case made it all the way to a jury without being dismissed along the way such as at a probable cause hearing or on a motion for directed verdict.
