- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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 must log in or register to comment.
In what fucking world does that level of harassment justify possibly taking a life? Yes, fuck these shitty YouTube/TikTok prank content creators, but if someone is harassing you like this you call security, or you call the cops. No reasonable human being should think that level of force is justified for that offense. I say this as a lifelong gun owner and someone who sat on a jury and voted to acquit someone who fatally shot another person in self-defense.
There’s plenty of situations where deadly force is reasonable. This one isn’t it, chief, and it’s a real bad hill to die on for gun owners.
In what fucking world does that level of harassment justify possibly taking a life?
America, that’s where.
Here it seems normal to many to end an argument with a bullet, but I’m with you. It’s absurd. The shooter should have removed themselves from the situation and reported it.
So, I am absolutely not defending the shooting itself, but everything I have read about this is that he definitely tried to remove himself from the situation but the “prankster” followed him and continued to harass him.
And to make things worse, the so called prankster had already been kicked out of the mall the day before and came back and was specifically trying to avoid security.
So yea, shooting was almost certainly an overreaction, but I do then wonder how exactly you are supposed to deal with something like this when this asshole won’t listen and won’t let you leave.
Punch in the face? Only in the USA would it be OK to shoot someone for being an asshole in the mall.
I wasn’t saying it was ok to shoot this guy. But a large guy starts harassing you at the mall, doesn’t listen to you when you ask him to stop, advances on you when you try to leave, could very well have had a gun as well (since this is the US), and you think punching him in the face would have worked? In hindsight, maybe. All that to say is I feel sympathy for this guy even though he escalated it beyond what was necessary.
He’s a delivery driver, so one might assume he has a car that he could get in, lock his doors, even drive away. So no, I don’t believe he legitimately tried to remove himself from the situation.
This is the problem with permitless carry. You don’t need any knowledge of firearm safety or the law, any idiot can freely walk around with a loaded gun in their pants. There are a lot of fucked up people just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Way too many gun owners fantasize about being a hero, but the truth is, especially with owners that have no training or education around firearms, that you’re exponentially more likely to be killed by your own firearm than you are to ever stop a crime.
I stopped carrying years ago and just keep my pistol in a gun safe by my bed now. But I’ve taken the course to get my permit, and it was terrifying how ignorant and even bloodthirsty a lot of the people in that course were. I love going to the range, and I like having a firearm in the home for defense, but we need better gun laws and better mental health care in the US. And while I’d prefer better laws, if the only option was the way it is now or a full ban on firearms, I’ll take the full ban. I don’t want to worry about my daughter being murdered at her school.
The number one cause of death in children in the US every year since 2020 has been firearms.
He was in a food court in a mall, not exactly near his car.
Again though, I agree with the sentiment here. Guns should not be the answer to something like this, and shooting was almost certainly an overreaction.
But since it is the US there’s no way to know either of the prankster had a gun and was potentially ready to use it too.
All of that to say is that while I think shooting was not warranted, I, and a lot of others it seems, feel a lot of sympathy for this guy who was just minding his own business, felt threatened, and has probably had his life ruined because of what he felt he needed to do because of the actions of this asshole YouTuber.
The entire thread on reddit was shocking. The vast, overwhelming majority of people said it was good. Tremendous respect for being the exception
Just to be clear, the YouTuber didn’t die.
The intention of the person with the gun was to kill him. Full stop. Do not point your firearm at anything you do not wish to destroy.
Makes me wonder if he got off because of the specific charges that were levied. Is there not some sort of ‘negligent use of force’ charge that can be used when someone retaliates with unnecessary force?
Far be it from me to defend YouTube “prank” creators, but for all people talk about “responsible gun ownership”, this person was clearly not responsible and should be forever prohibited from owning a gun. If you were in no way touched or threatened, how the fuck can you justify discharging your firearm in a public place?
If you were in no way touched or threatened, how the fuck can you justify discharging your firearm in a public place?
U fukken wot M8? He shoved a phone into the guy’s face that repeated the phrase, “Hey dipshit, quit thinking about my twinkle” and when the guy told him to stop, repeatedly and tried to push the phone away, the guy kept egging him on. That’s a threat at that point. If someone is making you feel like you might be in danger, that’s a threat. It doesn’t matter their intent, if they’re making you feel threatened, then they are threatening you.
He was carrying a gun because he’d read about delivery drivers getting robbed, and even if that wasn’t why he was carrying a gun, I’d still be on his side. Someone who’s planning to jump you isn’t going to be nice and spell it out for you. Combine that with an insane rise in anti-lgbt violence and a phone shoved in your face playing, “quit thinking about my twinkle” and I’d 100% believe that I might be about to get killed by some neo-nazi bigot because they’ve decided I’m gay and need to be “taught a lesson”. And yeah it was in public, but considering neo-nazis in the US have been holding public demonstrations recently, the last thing I’d want to do is bet on them not having the balls to murder me in public.
Is that what was going through his head before he shot the guy? No idea, but sorry, the US has gone completely fucking nuts and there are too many assholes with murderous intent to be willing to roll the dice when someone gets in my face and won’t fuck off. They had plenty of chances to disengage and decided not to. If they’d stopped when he said, “stop” then I’d be a lot more sympathetic; but they didn’t. They kept pushing.
If they’d stopped when he said, “stop” then I’d be a lot more sympathetic
The prank guy got what he was looking for… but there is a problem: they were not out in the desert, they were inside a mall full of other people. You shouldn’t go “pew-pew” when every shot you miss can hit an innocent bystander.
Heck, even a shot that you don’t miss, can go all the way through and hit someone totally innocent on the other side.
He was found guilty of exactly the crime you’re concerned about for the exact reason you’re concerned about.
So you agree he shouldn’t ever have a gun again, and probably shouldn’t have had one to begin with. Glad we got to the same result through a different path.
Nobody should have a gun. Period.
I’m with you, but if you say that on posts like this you get forever downvotes.
I’m not scared of being downvoted for being right. Not like we have account-wide vote records anyways.
You shouldn’t go “pew-pew” when every shot you miss can hit an innocent bystander.
Heck, even a shot that you don’t miss, can go all the way through and hit someone totally innocent on the other side.
You seem like someone who has absolutely no understanding of firearms and ballistics.
Assuming one follows the rules of firearm safety, including know your target and what is beyond your target, there’s no risk to bystanders. This person was clearly not firing wildly. This was a 9mm from a short barrel - there’s no real danger of over penetration.
Your fearmongering is ridiculous.
As a lifelong gun owner, you clearly have no understanding of how firearms work and should probably seek out a firearm safety course if you own guns. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation about firearms. The shit that just came out of your mouth would never be said by a responsible gun owner.
A responsible gun owner always errs on the side of caution. They know that discharging their weapon is an absolute last resort. They also know how loud a 9mm is when fired in an enclosed space, and that even if miraculously in a shopping mall there was no one down range of his shot, it very likely damaged the hearing of nearby bystanders.
Ah, the as an [x] / how do you do, fellow kids trope.
As a lifelong gun owner, you clearly have no understanding of how firearms work and should probably seek out a firearm safety course if you own guns. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation about firearms. The shit that just came out of your mouth would never be said by a responsible gun owner.
Given my direct reference to one of the rules of firearm safety - one which agrees with your point of err on the side of caution - I’m interested in how you jump from erring on the side of caution to criticizing a victim for erring on the side of caution in defending themselves.
Feel free to highlight how anything here - in this individual’s situation or otherwise - is dangerous misinformation. Take all the time you need to support such a position.
A responsible gun owner always errs on the side of caution. They know that discharging their weapon is an absolute last resort.
And, as shown by both the video, the arguments in court, and the jury’s ruling, this person acted perfectly in-line with such. And, as highlighted, the individual gave due consideration to the shot taken.
They also know how loud a 9mm is when fired in an enclosed space, and that even if miraculously in a shopping mall there was no one down range of his shot, it very likely damaged the hearing of nearby bystanders.
Not likely. Here’s a breakdown on how decibel reduction applies over distance - start from the ~160db of 9mm out of a handgun and work down, then compare to the video.
You seem to be talking entirely to baseless hypotheticals, to the complete neglect of the situation at hand. This, entirely aside from quibbling about loud noises when one justifiably defends oneself complete with respect to duty to retreat.
It’s illegal to fire a gun in a mall for good reason. The man was found guilty of doing exactly that.
That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.
We shall see.
9mm can penetrate well into human flesh and beyond, there is a always a risk of that bullet flying out and hitting someone else which I highly doubt this guy took into consideration in the moment.
Nevertheless, I agree with the charges. Not guilty for defending himself but guilty of firing in an occupied dwelling.9mm can penetrate well into human flesh and beyond
So can .22lr - that didn’t mean it’s probable or likely. Even FMJ aren’t likely to over-penetration a center mass hit, and once more, so long as one is observing the rules of firearm safety, even over-penetration is meaningless.
Given the restraint shown, I have no reason to doubt the person took this into consideration.
It’s both very probably and likely. Watch some penetration tests on YouTube and see that 9mm has plenty of energy to rush through someone and continue going. This is true for 9mm FMJ and hollow points.
I’m well aware of the ballistics; that over-penetration depends on incredible assumptions. Try the ballistic dummy tests for a better representation as the factor in the bone. The human body is more than gelatin.
And no, this is not true for hollow points.
A 9mm can over penetrate twelve drywall framed walls.
“If we assume there were no bystanders at risk, then clearly there were no bystanders at risk!”
You are saying absurd things. Follow the other commenters advice and seek a firearm safety course.
I wasn’t aware drywall is exactly identical to the human body. Could you highlight that reasoning?
You are saying absurd things.
And you are clearly projecting your ignorance of firearms and ballistics.
Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration. Feel free to go find sources on no human over penetration, though you’ll find that even .22 pistols have been found to overpenetrate.
It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.
Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration.
Oh, so you’re addressing something other than was actually stated?
You might want to revisit what I had actually said. Run no risk? Hardly.
It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.
I’m not sure I’d consider a handful of randos making absurd, baseless claims to be a thrashing - one could call it dogpiling, sure. Thrashing implies some sort of beatdown, though… and all you’ve brought is nonsense. If you’d been able to back up that misinformation nonsense in any way - say, by addressing and refuting points made - you may have had a point.
the US has gone completely fucking nuts and there are too many assholes with murderous intent
You’re obviously one of them if you think this incident was worth murdering someone over
I’m trans and living in the south. I have a very good reason to be afraid for my life. You’re looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. You know it was a harmless “”“prank”“” but can you really tell me that if someone came up to you looking like this (supposedly that’s a picture of them right before the shooting happened) and started harassing you without stopping when you try to push them away, that you wouldn’t be scared too?
He tried to disengage but they didn’t let him. That’s fucking terrifying when you don’t know what is going through the other person’s head.
Edit: to explain why me being trans is relevant: I’m putting myself in his shoes. I’m pretending I’m a delivery driver, I have a gun for self-defense, I show up to deliver something and two guys who are taller than I am start harassing me while playing a sound clip that mimics the kinds of phrases homophobes yell before beating the shit out of someone. You’re damn right I’m going to shoot them. I don’t know if they’re white supremacists or a dumbass “prank” YouTuber, but from my perspective, the risk is that if I guess wrong then I’ll probably be in the hospital with significant medical bills or dead.
If someone is making you feel like you might be in danger, that’s a threat. It doesn’t matter their intent
That’s a risible argument. The standard is what a “reasonable person” considers dangerous.
Whether an action is criminal can’t be based on each individual’s personal opinion of their own behavior. The perpetrator believing that they are right does not make it legal.
Yes, and in this case the jury decided that a reasonable person in like circumstances could have felt threatened to the point where they feared imminent bodily harm, thus justifying the self defense
I first heard this trial while I was still on reddit and I was sickened by the comments there. Most people seemed to feel that the shooting was fully justified and that they’d wish the shot had been fatal. A site that claimed to be progressive was openly arguing for escalation and killing. Just because the person is a shitty prankster.
Of course, I don’t know the full details of the case, but I find it so difficult to sympathize with the shooter here. They had options, but instead chose to pick the deadly last resort. They could have run or even pulled out the gun as a deterrent if they were really desperate, but instead jumped to lethal measures.
even pulled out the gun as a deterrent
Afaik that’s actually illegal. You don’t brandish a firearm unless you’re ready to shoot someone. Additionally, I’d highly recommend looking more into the case. The short of it is that their “prank” was shoving a phone into his face that played, “hey dipshit, stop thinking about my twinkle” repeatedly. He told them to stop repeatedly and tried to push the phone away, but they continued to push it into his face.
Furthermore, keep in mind that the US is going fucking insane. We have public demonstrations by neo-nazis. The KKK’s membership is increasing and klansmen have been seen waving their membership cards at pride parades. Now, I don’t really know what was going through the shooter’s head, but personally? Personally I wouldn’t roll the dice and bet that someone who’s shoved a phone into my face saying, “stop thinking about my twinkle” and won’t back off when I tell them to isn’t about to murder me because they think I’m gay.
Pulling a gun as a deterrent, would be “threatening with the use of deadly force”… which could be legal if you were being equally “threatened with the use of deadly force” against you.
someone who’s shoved a phone into my face saying, “stop thinking about my twinkle” and won’t back off when I tell them to isn’t about to murder me because they think I’m gay.
IANAL, but I think… that would require a jury to decide. If you (or rather your lawyer) convinced them that you saw it as being threatened with the use of deadly force, then brandishing a weapon as a response could possibly be seen as fair and legal.
Plus, I doubt two things:
- I don’t think U.S. Justice system would prefer you to shoot people over a non-violent result
- I don’t think the victim went through the mental process of “I’ll get in more trouble if I don’t shoot this guy, so I’d better just ice him”
Victim had a gun and so their first idea was to use the gun
deleted by creator
If the report is accurate, there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person could see that level of force as justifiable. You walk the fuck away, you go to security, or if none of that works, you call the cops. Imagine thinking that possibly taking someone’s life is a reasonable response to them waving a phone in your face and making pretty soft insults.
The person was attempting to walk away and was repeatedly headed off by the friend of the assualter, per the trial.
Imagine assuming the worst of a victim and blaming them.
He’s not a victim, he’s a snowflake that responded to someone being an asshole with deadly force. His life was never in danger. If you believe this was justifiable self-defense, you’re a fucking sociopath.
Yikes, dude.
At this point you’re just repeating yourself with additional hyperbole and insult; it looks like we’re done here.
Spare me the fake offense. I’d wager my house that if this didn’t involve a gun, and this dipshit prankster posted a video of him harassing this guy and the guy getting upset, you’d be calling the shooter a pussy and laughing at him. But the second a gun is involved the 2A jerkoffs begin Olympic level mental gymnastics to justify the most ridiculous bullshit. Miss me with your bad faith bullshit.
Comments about this case are always wild, you can tell what commenters are American from the argument always being the same gist of “People in America are crazy bro! I wouldn’t risk NOT shooting either”. This country is so fucked we have fast food delivery drivers carrying pistols on them for safety and unloading on some obnoxious asshole blaring stupid bullshit in their ear, and people will hear that and think “Honestly a very fair and measured response IMO”. Worse part is those comments aren’t even entirely wrong! We are NOT doing okay over here y’all lmao
If only incidents like this put a stop to all the annoying “pranks” on YouTube and the people that make bank off them. How many more moronic pranksters have to be seriously hurt before they realize they should stop, or at the very least stage the videos with some friends or some people you pay on Craigslist? It’s not like the 12 year olds watching are gonna be able to tell the difference anyways.
In later interviews, this guy says he’s gonna keep doing these “pranks”. Getting shot won’t even stop him, so there’s no hope that it’d stop potential copycats.
Well here’s hoping his last words aren’t “I mean, what are the odds it happens again?”
I’m glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, “shooting into an occupied dwelling” shouldn’t be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.[1]
Also, dude’s now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life? He’s already been punished, and yet he’s still presumed innocent.
his lawyer argues that the third charge, “use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding” shouldn’t be applicable
It says he’s been found “not guilty” of that one. The charge he’s been found guilty of is “malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling”, which… well, he did.
It’s like the laws against shooting bottles in your suburban home backyard: without the right precautions, those bullets can travel a long way, and what goes up ultimately comes down. There have been cases of stray bullets hitting someone totally unsuspecting a block or a few away.
My understanding is that the reason why it’s odd is because they found him not guilty on the other two charges on the grounds of self-defense. If I understand correctly, “self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how. If the jury rules self-defense in one instance, it should logically be applied to all charges related to that instance. Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?
“self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how.
This is the problem with American mentality…
No, “self-defense” does not give you a free pass, it only gives you the right to defend yourself against a single specific threat, and only that threat [in more civilized countries, it also requires “with the minimum amount of force necessary”].
You don’t get to mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto, or to nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it, just because of “self-defense” against a single guy.
Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?
Because they were specified as “aggravated”, which is kind of like saying “without reason”. Self-defense was the reason there, so he wasn’t found guilty of the aggravated charges.
The “non-aggravated” one though, needs more justifying than just “I was afraid”… and I think it should stick, because he should have known better than to start shooting in a mall.
mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto
That’s a real jump there friend
nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it
Now you’re just getting out of hand.
Imagine taking obvious hyperbole at face value.
Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one’s rather absurd position.
Imagine defending such.
The argument that it’s impossible to be liable for putting others in danger if you’re defending yourself is just crazy.
If you can understand why it would apply to those exaggerated examples, you can understand why it COULD apply to this situation.
Now, you can argue that they DIDN’T put others in danger by discharging their firearm. But that’s a separate argument.
The jump was at “regardless”.
You can’t have even an appearance of civilization if you go “regardless” of everything.
“Everyone’s rights end, where everyone else’s begin”. Don’t they teach that in school anymore?
It absolutely does not justify that. You are not suddenly immune from the damage you cause because you were defending yourself. If you don’t pay attention to what’s down range and put a bullet through a kid’s head, your negligence caused a death and you will absolutely be charged with manslaughter at the very least. Most people don’t realize how loud firearms really are. Discharging a firearm inside an enclosed space without hearing protection can permanently damage hearing, so he could have easily permanently injured a lot of bystanders.
That’s the logic that’s being used in the defense but it’s not necessarily true. If I were to engage a legitimate threat with a firearm but do so in a reckless manner, I would be justified in the shooting but not justified in the reckless Manor in which I discharge the weapon. That’s why carrying a firearm is such a responsibility and liability. In addition to having to determine what is and what is not a deadly threat you also have to know your surroundings and what is past your target. Generally, a bit more leeway is given once the shooting is justified, but in acquittal on criminal charges doesn’t justify the shooting. You acquittal on the other two charges just means there’s insufficient evidence to prove the crime. Having insufficient evidence to prove one crime does not mean that another cannot be proven. For those of you not in America who are trying to follow along, just don’t. It’s not worth the the headache.
The crime is proven. He admitted to shooting Cook. The crime occurred and that is accepted legal fact. The acquittal was a result of a plea of self-defence.
He’s clearly guilty of discharging, but it may not be found malicious, given the other verdicts.
If it’s self-defence to an extent where use of a firearm is “proportional force,” I fail to see how the venue comes into play.
The charges were:
- aggravated malicious wounding
- use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding
- malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling
The “aggravated” charges seem to have been decided as “not guilty”; the remaining one is not aggravated, just simple trying to shoot someone when there are innocent people nearby in range of the shots.
I bet the lawyers are going to dissect the meaning of “malicious”, but as I see it, he did intend to shoot someone; he didn’t fire a warning shot into a flower pot, the gun didn’t discharge accidentally. I’d say that qualifies as “malicious”.
I agree we’ll need to know how malicious is defined so it can be applied to this situation. He didn’t get to choose the time and place it took place. He didn’t go to the mall looking for trouble, it found him.
I’m also not fully sure how many shots were fired. The few articles I read before didn’t mention it, but assuming it was 1 and done. It hit the intended target to neutralize the perceived threat, using a caliber that most likely wouldn’t fully penetrate. I would say a he didn’t act with neglect for other’s lives that were not a part of the situation. If he wildly fired his gun and somehow managed to hit the guy, then yeah I could easily see how that could be malicious/neglectful.
I’m also not fully sure how many shots were fired.
There’s a link to the video: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/671126887598129152/1157686515187593401/downloadfile.mp4
It was a single shot, almost at point-blank, but kind of backwards and without proper aiming. It’s kind of how they tell you not to use a gun. It isn’t obvious from that video whether he had a clear shot; there were at least 2 other people around, who arguably could’ve been considered part of the threat, but also any number of workers at the food stands, and an unknown number of clients, who could’ve ended up being shot had he missed.
I’d say there was “some” neglect on his part… but how much, and how does it translate to the law, is hard to say without more data (and IANAL anyway).
What the hell kind of 9mm ammo you using that would barely penetrate? There are so many types of deforming rounds made for 9mm because it’s actually really good at penetrating humans, walls, cars, you name it. If this idiot loaded FMJs, a single round would easily go through multiple people before stopping.
Correction: may over-penetrate, given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.
This, even side from jumping to alarmism regarding projectile without a reference to the actual projectile used. It seems you’re just fearmongering.
given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.
Except for the parts where the guy shot almost backwards, with barely any aiming, at an angle, nowhere close to center-mass, and with a bunch of food stands with workers on one side, plus an unknown number of clients on the other.
Did you even watch the video?
deleted by creator
It’s too bad someone had to get shot, but on balance I think this was a good outcome. There has to be the potential for serious consequences for being annoying and disrespectful of people’s personal space, especially if it’s for creating content.
What happened to a good ol’ fashioned ass whooping?
It’s heavily discouraged by society, but also, the YouTuber was 6’5". That’s a pretty big deterrent to an attack.
We stopped doing it because we know better now.
That’s work.
I wish he would have just broken his nose.
Same, it’d make the whole thing way more clean cut
As a non-US citizen I have come up with this spontaneous question. If guns are permitted so that they can fight a tyrannical government, why are people allowed to carry them to shoot other citizens?
If guns are permitted so that they can fight a tyrannical government
There is no “only” in play here; “fight a tyrannical government” is just an extension of self defense.
why are people allowed to carry them to shoot other citizens?
Self-defense.
Not a US citizen, and very much in favour of gun control, but I don’t think this argument holds much water.
Consider yourself a wannabe tyrannical dictator, but your population is heavily armed and might rebel against your takeover. How do you go about preparing your takeover? The answer: you slowly restrict gun usage. You make purchasing a gun more difficult, restrict the spaces you are permitted to carry a weapon, introduce buyback schemes to reduce the number of guns on the streets, etc., to ensure you have a monopoly on violence.
If you look at it from this standpoint, then the response is obvious; as a gun activist, you must vehemently oppose all restrictions on gun purchasing, because any restriction paves the way for yet more restrictions.
Because the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 “a well regulated militia” apparently means nothing and normal citizens can essentially have whatever gun they want: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.[2]
Peak USA
Here's a short summary of the linked article
Alan Colie was found not guilty of malicious wounding charges for shooting YouTube prankster Tanner Cook inside Dulles Town Center mall in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook but claimed self-defense, saying Cook approached him from behind and played a phrase in his ear multiple times using Google Translate. Security footage showed Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear for around 20 seconds before Colie backed away and fired his gun. The jury acquitted Colie on the malicious wounding charges but found him guilty of discharging a firearm in the mall, a verdict that was later set aside. While the prosecution argued Cook never threatened Colie, the jury sided with Colie’s self-defense claim.
Notably, the case gained attention as Cook filmed prank videos for his YouTube channel at the time of the shooting.
This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.
Disappointed in the hospital bed photo.
