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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -381 year ago

      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.

    • blazera
      link
      fedilink
      -381 year ago

      Man youre taking literally shooting someone way too lightly. Do you often shoot people with the expectation theyll be fine?

      • @thepianistfroggollum
        link
        English
        38
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          -271 year ago

          I like that addition at the end that just being tall warrants you being murdered.

          • BrianTheFirst
            link
            fedilink
            251 year ago

            They said that tall people are intimidating, which is absolutely true. As another 6’5" dude, I try to be careful how I walk up on somebody, because it is easy to accidentally scare the shit out of people.

            • blazera
              link
              fedilink
              -121 year ago

              Again, do you shoot people expecting them to be fine?

                  • @thepianistfroggollum
                    link
                    English
                    4
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, killing someone is often a successful way to remove the perceived threat to your life.

                    But, you keep conveniently forgetting that no one was killed.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    81 year ago

                    If that person is using the cell phone to assault you and threaten your life, which is the case in this instance, then, yes, they would be legally justified in doing so.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Again, nobody was murdered in this case. The facts of the case are what matter, not your hypothetical musings.

                • blazera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -81 year ago

                  in the cases where people are killed you’re gonna be conveniently absent from discussion. And believe me, there will be many, many more cases of people being killed thanks to people like you.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    91 year ago

                    Since you feel so comfortable predicting the future, why weren’t you there to tell this YouTuber that assaulting this man would get him shot?

                    Or maybe you just prefer to deflect attention from the fact that you peddle is disinformation and bad-faith arguments in order to push and agenda. Either way, considering the facts in the case, what we have is a person legally justified in defending themselves from assault, whether you like it or not. No amount of your hypotheticals, attempts at prognostication, or casting aspersions while refusing to accept the truth will ever change those facts.

                  • ramOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    81 year ago

                    I look forward to seeing more level headed discussion from the beacon of truth you must be to be so confident that you’re correct yet so incapable of adequately describing why to a convincing degree.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -141 year ago

            Guys he this person walked at me aggressively and I couldn’t tell if they’d kill me so I shot them. Bless merica where life doesn’t mean jack shit.

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 year ago

              You can get justifiably shot in self-defense for assaulting a person, yes. Because that’s what happened here.

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  91 year ago

                  Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are what matter in this case, whether you like it or not.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -31 year ago

                    But it’s true though: in a lot of countries the guy would be convicted and it would be classified as too much force for self defense.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -71 year ago

                    The fact is a guy shot negligently at a kid for playing a speaker at him. Its like speaking to a 1900 Arab whose saying it’s justified to cut a criminals hands off because his legal system deemed it so. The country is beyond reasonable and as I said is fairly evil when it comes to valuing life. You’re using a broken measuring stick to measure

          • TheLowestStone
            link
            fedilink
            401 year ago

            By legal definition, assault is an intentional, offensive, or harmful act that may cause reasonable anxiety or fear of expected injury.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                231 year ago

                My definition is that is not an assault

                Are we allowed to use alternative definitions now? My definition of assult is someone contunuing to use previously refuted statements.

              • TheLowestStone
                link
                fedilink
                201 year ago

                Classic willful ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that you’re not worth engaging with in the future.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                191 year ago

                Don’t care what the legal definition is

                When we’re just casually disregarding pesky things like definitions, how can you actually expect any form of genuine conversation to take place? You’re playing pretend from the start.

                  • @thepianistfroggollum
                    link
                    English
                    71 year ago

                    No, you’re using your definition that you’ve pulled out of your ass. The real definition is different.

                    Words have meaning, and hopefully you learn that before you graduate high school and have to deal with the real world.

              • @thepianistfroggollum
                link
                English
                171 year ago

                Well, the good thing is that the judge and jury weren’t wrong like you are.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                I’m just gonna take a different approach here. That’s not a definition. That’s just a statement. You actually have to give a description of the criteria for what constitutes as “Assault” to make a definition. Why isn’t it assault?

          • @thepianistfroggollum
            link
            English
            231 year ago

            A very tall stranger shoving his phone in your face while saying nonsense is inherently intimidating.

            Or, are you confused because, legally, assault is the threat of violence while battery is the actual violence?

                  • @thepianistfroggollum
                    link
                    English
                    141 year ago

                    No, he shot a very large stranger that came up behind him and started aggressively shoving their phone at his head abs kept following him as he backed away. It’s completely reasonable to feel threatened in that situation.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    111 year ago

                    He defended himself against someone who was assaulting him, which he has every right to do. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                121 year ago

                The extent to which you’re victim blaming here is beyond absurd.

          • SaltySalamander
            link
            fedilink
            201 year ago

            Assault is words, you, along with most everyone else, are confusing assault with battery.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -191 year ago

              Not confusing anything. Its not an assault that warrants any kind of violent reaction let alone a fatal one

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Nobody died. You’ve been told this several times, yet continue insisting on using language like “deadly” and “fatal”. You seem to have trouble reading.

                  • ramOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    111 year ago

                    Shooting to end the situation that has escalated to what appeared to be a dangerous degree.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    91 year ago

                    I don’t presume to know what other people are thinking. I suggest you try that.

      • magnetosphere
        link
        fedilink
        36
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ramOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          I added a link to the video in the post. Unfortunately the original was taken down, but I did have a cached version I could save and repost.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          -271 year ago

          Have you never been approached by strangers before?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Everyone who’s ever approached me in the manner of this “prank” has either attempted or done me harm. The dude didn’t know this was a prank. He told them several times to stop and they didn’t. His only safe bet was that the situation would continue to escalate.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “approached” - you seem to be performing Olympic-tier stretching to reduce this aggressive harassment and intimidation to “approached”.

            This is incredibly disingenuous - it’s hard to take anything you say seriously through such. It’s also clear you aren’t actually here for any form of conversation, aren’t here to understand what happened as shown by video and conclude from that, and are instead here to just shill your anti-firearm point of view.

            Beyond disappointing.

          • magnetosphere
            link
            fedilink
            131 year ago

            Not by someone who snuck up on me and played a recording in my ear while his friend watched.

            • blazera
              link
              fedilink
              -231 year ago

              Ah the phone is what makes this a situation that needs a corpse then

                • blazera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -101 year ago

                  When you choose to shoot someone, you are choosing to kill. Hindsight is 20/20, when this occurred this guy chose to kill.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    51 year ago

                    That may be your choice, but that doesn’t mean everyone thinks the way you do.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -481 year ago

      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