Man who shot YouTuber on video at Dulles Town Center found not guilty by jury
Man who shot YouTuber on video at Dulles Town Center found not guilty by jury
Alan Colie admitted to shooting Tanner Cook inside the Dulles Town Center in April, when Cook was filming a prank video. Colie says it was self-defense.
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
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
America is such a fucking insane country.
He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.
What clinical fucking bullshit. He tried to murder a stranger because they annoyed him for 20 seconds.
I think you are more on the clinical bullshit side.
First of all murder requires intend, planning, using the victims helplessness or particular cruelity.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn't have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
Now whether it was appropriate as self defense, or whether people should be rolling around with guns in public in general can be up for debate. But clearly getting robbed and murdered is much more common in the US than in most developed countries, so the driver had more reason to fear for his life if two dudes just jump him. If he had probable reason to fear for his life then using the firearm seems to be an appropriate tool of self defense. And i say that as someone who is against people just casually running around with guns like it is normal in many US states.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn't have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
If he didn't want to kill him, he wouldn't have pulled out a gun and fucking shot him.
It is impossible to live life without feeling fear, if you carry a gun, you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off like a fucking nutjob.
The nutjob is the one accosting strangers in the mall for youtube content.
A situation can have multiple nutjobs.
Yes, yes it can. In this situation, we have one normal guy just trying to live his life in peace. We have one nutjob harassing him for the lulz and giggles from like minded nutjobs. Finally, there's a second nutjob defending his behavior right here on this very forum.
why do you think it's normal to shoot at people in this case?
You're being disingenuous. It's not a normal situation, therefore there is no normal response.
The question you ought to be asking is what makes it normal to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
They asked you a very clear question, what about this makes it normal or ok to shoot someone?
Being confused and paranoid is not justifiable reason to shoot someone.
Honestly, you guys are acting like a fucking old person with a gun is allowed to shoot every trans person they see because it's confusing and scary and they're not sure how to respond.
Sure, then we look at which nut job started the problem, and a jury of his peers figured out that it wasn’t the shooter
If it's before a jury we look at which nutjob escalated the situation from a public nuisance misdeamour to an attempted murder felony.
So how should he have responded to 2 dudes shoving a phone in his face and harassing him repeatedly even after backing away from them and being told to stop several times ?
Do you think that such legal prose runs through the minds of people in the heat of the moment? You really expect people to look at things in such a clinical manner when they're under immediate perceived threat? You think too much of humans and too little of people.
I'm curious to know if more people agree with your view that shooting someone doesn't seem like a proportional response based on what we know, ot if the YouTubers deserves it.
Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.
But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.
It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.
And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.
But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.
And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.
This is very coutry-specific. I think we're seeing some cultural shock on different sides in this thread.
Again you claim that he wanted to kill him, when his actions proved otherwise. That he accepted the death of the guy as a possibility of his actions is not the same as directly wanting to kill him. But thena gain he made it reasonably believable that he feard for his life in that moment, so calculating every possible outcome was not on his brains agenda.
you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off
What about "immediately" after telling the guy to stop 3 times, trying to retreat 3 times, and trying to swipe off his phone off your face?
He didn't immediately do it. He asked them to stop multiple times.
Have you even considered not being an asshole?
Have you considered not defending insane paranoid gun culture?
This is definitionally an ad hominem argument; i.e. you're attacking people in place of actually attacking the argument.
But to refute your attacks on people's character, I'm just going to say, you're from lemmy.ca, so I imagine you're Canadian. sndmn is also lemmy.ca, so I imagine they're a Canadian. If you check @ram@lemmy.ca, the account I've been using until I signed up to my current instance, as well as the content I interact with, you'll see that I'm a Canadian.
As for the idea that maybe I'm some pro-gun PoS, I'm radically anti-gun. I think our gun laws in Canada are much too lax. The fact that pigs walk around with guns means that criminals are more likely to carry guns as well.
Not if I'm to emapthise with the person in the video, instead of making emotional judgements reliant solely on reading articles and a 3rd person video perspective, I can try to understand that people living in the US are painfully aware that those around them are constantly surrounded by guns. I can also try and understand that if you have an easy "fuck off" button that carries big consequences with it, you'll be quicker to jump to it the moment things get dicey.
I do think he was too quick to pull out the gun, but seeing as he's a human, I also understand people make hasty decisions that are suboptimal. So if I look at things outside a clinical perspective and consider how I'd react in such a situation, with at least two much larger men playing something weird in my ear, chasing me, and continuing to play it as I try to disengage - them refusing to allow me to disengage, I can very well see why someone who would go for the big fuck-off button.
Maybe I describe it in a clinical way - that's just what it's like to be neurodivergent for some people. But the reality is that my perspective is defined by my empathy for the person, despite not being someone who's had to suffer living in a gun-happy country, and despite being someone who, based on life experience, would likely die before pulling that big fuck off button on someone.
Try empathising with someone for a bit instead of jumping to "guns are the problem." The only problem with guns is that they were involved at all. Any situation with a gun is more deadly than without, but the reality of the dystopia that is the USA is that situations have guns.
You must be fun at parties.
You my friend are an idiot !
Dude they will never get it because they do not equate these actions with fear and cowardice. They see the man with the gun as the tough guy, not the paranoid weirdo that he is.
Even the sane Americans that back gun control, etc. share this bias. They have grown up round this shit, it’s ingrained.
The problem with Americans, is they live among people who actually are out to get them... and they don't seem to be doing much to try and fix that.
Even scarier, one of those two approached from behind.
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.
I believe you have it backwards. Virginia law has "NO duty to retreat".
If I threaten to harm you, you don't gotta try and escape first, you can strike.
You're both wrong about how the duties arise and come up in court as elements of the charge.
The duty on someone privileged to self defend is to use reasonable force, no more than is warranted by the seriousness of the threat and its imminence. Unless the state has a stand your ground statute, evidence showing the defendant could have backed away or otherwise retreated gets admitted and the jury gets instructed that a threat is not considered imminent the facts prove the defendant could have retreated. It's an implied duty.
In this case, the threat was obviously imminent. The question is whether it was sufficient to justify self defense by lethal force. I think not.
A risk of mere bodily harm is insufficient to warrant countervailing deadly force. There are no facts the defendant can point to, in my opinion, to show his life was in danger.
He testifies that he subjectively felt his life was in danger. I don't think it was objectively reasonable. I think the facts give rise only to an inference that he was in for a beating.
Thanks for the sane reply! But your comments seem all over the place given differing laws in different jurisdictions.
Then tried playing the "I'm not touching you" game.
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 situation.
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.
Follow up question about power difference. What if the defender is say really small or weak. Say a 5 foot 60 year old woman and 1 6canf half feet tall young man. Would she have a fastee right to self defense?