YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him
YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him
A Northern Virginia jury has heard testimony from a YouTube prankster who was shot earlier this year by one of his targets. Tanner Cook survived the shot to the chest he received in April at Dulles Town Center in Loudoun County, west of the nation’s capital. Alan Colie, a delivery driver who was the...
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
that we're talking about suicidal people is not irrelevant in considering that guns contribute to elevated rates of death. most people who make a suicide attempt do so within a relatively short time of the impulse to act. the accessibility of something which is likely to be very effective and quick in enabling them to complete the act with lower likelihood that they will be able to seek help if they have second thoughts means more success for those attempts. and while i'm not necessarily a "ban all guns" type it's worth understanding that guns contribute measurably to mortality in this way.
as for rest, i'm a big fan of nuance, but data can illuminate our understanding of complex issues and things we might keep in mind when looking for solutions.
edit - a typo
that we’re talking about suicidal people is not irrelevant in considering that guns contribute to elevated rates of death
They may, they may not. The only people that could answer that are dead. As I said, trying to blame the tool for an action defies logic. My neighbor killed herself by OD'ing on pain meds. Her husband owned gun. Clearly the idea of going to sleep permanently was more pleasant than blowing her brains out. As somebody with a lot of guns, I'd rather take a permanent nap every time.
most people who make a suicide attempt do so within a relatively short time of the impulse to act.
Says who? How many people just say "Im gonna kill myself" totally out of the blue and then do it? Most people suffer for a long time, battle depression, have mental illness etc. Could some? Sure. But lets not pretend tons of (suicidal) people would be alive just because they didn't have a gun, that's insane.
t’s worth understanding that guns contribute measurably to mortality in this way.
Nobody disputes people kill themselves with guns, but to circle back, are you for prohibition because of the 1% that get drunk and kill people with their cars? Banning cars? If you only took the car, they couldn't drive through people with them right? As said, in no other circumstance do people assign blame to the tool, they blame the person. How much comes back to all the mental health issues nobody want to discuss or do anything about? Especially with the scumbag school shooters, in almost every case they were troubled, and people KNEW it! But hush hush, don't want to say anything until it's too late.
you're putting words in my mouth. i didn't say i am fully pro- or anti-gun (much less fully pro- or anti-alcohol). i was challenging your comment that suicides can be disregarded when examining lethality in connection to gun access.
yes, the tool matters.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34953923/ "Results: Of 10,708 studies screened, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the suicide acts that resulted in death or hospitalization, firearms were found to be the most lethal method (CFR:89.7%), followed by hanging/suffocation (84.5%), drowning (80.4%), gas poisoning (56.6%), jumping (46.7%), drug/liquid poisoning (8.0%) and cutting (4.0%). The rank of the lethality for different methods remained relatively stable across study setting, sex and age group. Method-specific CFRs for males and females were similar for most suicide methods, while method-CFRs were specifically higher in older adults."yes, we have a sense of what contributes to more or less successful suicide attempts. (lethal means being a big one). we can study what leads to suicide and to successful versus non-successful attempts by studying not only those who died, but those who attempted and survived, as well as those who are actively suicidal but who ultimately don't act.
when i speak of impulse, i'm referencing the moment of decision. people can have suicidal ideation for a long time without choosing to act, as you implied - some people face depression for decades. but some just lost everything in a bad business decision or a freak accident. either one may act, and if they act with a gun they are more likely to end up dead than if they take a long drive to the nearest high bridge and walk out onto it.
i'm willing to talk about mental health. i work in mental health professionally.
i was challenging your comment that suicides can be disregarded when examining lethality in connection to gun access.
I never said they should be disregarded, or not tracked, playing the game of "gun deaths" vs gun homicide or suicide is just that. A game, a game to twist numbers to justify an agenda. If you're going to assign blame to the tool, again, I hope you're OK with losing your drivers license because of some drunk moron out there, which far outnumber suicidal people at any given time. So justified right? Somebody ELSE is stupid, so you're walking or on a bus.
this particular slippery slope argument is ridiculous to me. no, i don't think considering suicide-by-gun a part of a larger conversation about gun lethality means i'm going to lose my driver's license.
lol
to be clear, my only agenda in this conversation was pointing out that widespread access to firearms does, in fact, contribute to more deaths (via suicide) than there would be otherwise, even considering that other means of suicide would remain without gun access. that's it. whatever agenda you're on? well, i don't think you're much interested in considering data, so i will leave it there.
this particular slippery slope argument is ridiculous to me. no, i don't think considering suicide-by-gun a part of a larger conversation about gun lethality means i'm going to lose my driver's license.
I never said it was "LOL". What I've said multiple times now, is if youre OK taking guns from law abiding people who have done nothing to deserve being stripped of a constitutional right, that I hope youre OK losing your drivers license becuase the 1% drives drunk and hurts people. Not sure whats so difficult about comprehending YOU being punished for the wrong acts of people who aren't you.
The agenda is removing guns from people, Thats it. Using mentaly I'll, suicidial peolple and children is the way to virtue signal that into being possible.