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
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.
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.
Have you seen the video? The shooter getting "pranked" had both hands occupied carrying a paper bag and was being followed and harassed for over 10 seconds while repeatedly telling the prankster to stop.
It does seem like an overreaction to shoot immediately instead of trying to threaten first but I'm not sure.
I would've fully sided with the shooter if they're weren't in a mall with other people around and probably security right around the corner, because then he would've been much more at risk if he doesn't shoot and the prankster tries to rob him or w/e.
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.
It entirely depends on context.
For one, YouTube isn't directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.
Do you mean Section 230...?
That is a rather reductive statement -- you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.
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.