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
Personally I don't care what the law says. I'm happy the YouTuber got shot and I am happy the shooter went free.
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.
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.
law only have to make sense to lawyer and judges not people
The vast majority of people are neither lawyers nor judges.
I think the people the laws apply to should be able to make sense of those laws or the laws are no good.
Agree
Absolutely not. If laws don't make sense then they are inherently unjust.
I agree that that they should, not that they do
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.
If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn't provided sufficiently by the state, I think it's sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don't personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you're fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it's worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don't think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don't think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
Freedom is accomplished through practice 😉.
You don't think that fighting for one's freedom is righteous?
What do you mean? I don't understand how this statement ties in with what you were previously talking about.
I would argue that malicious compliance would be one's best form of resistance in the case where one is not subject to absolute despotism. There is also something called "Jury Nullification" which can be a boon for making these sorts of changes.
If disobedience carried no risk, then we would not live in a civil society.
I don't like this behavior either. But the answer isn't to start shooting. America is gross.
This happened in Dulles--just west of Washington, D.C.--not Dallas, TX.
Well Oops, this my bad. I guess its just america.
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.
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.
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.
He's still going to prison for discharging a firearm apparently.