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.
If you’re response to a prank is to pull out a gun and shoot someone, you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people bcz that mentality gets people killed.
It’s not like he realized it’s a prank and then shot the person…
He had no idea what was going on and a large man was shoving a phone into his face and following him…
No one thinks a shooting is justified for “a prank” but when all a person knows is someone is shoving something in your face and acting aggressive…
It’s not hard to imagine they panic.
The “pranker” is literally trying to make a person panic.
And when people panic, sometimes they do dumb shit
How does a functional adult not understand that?
I can totally see how one would be freaked out by a larger man acting erratically. Without knowing it was a prank it sounds rather like he was drugged or something. Depending on what drugs he was he could be dangerous.
When you set your boundaries clearly and the person doesn’t respond to it, and continue harassing you while acting erratically… sounds like self-defense to me.
Isn’t that why the amis walk around with guns anyway?
A gun is the only thing that makes 4’9 Gertrude able to defend herself against a 6’11 Hafthor with malicious intent.
Everyone sucks here.
The prankster is harassing and intimidating people in public to make money. I hope he learned a lesson.
The shooter probably did have good cause to use physical force to defend himself. Had he punched the prankster or used pepper spray, I’d call it 100% justified. He used a gun though, and this harassment didn’t justify deadly force.
You cannot know how scared he was when a much larger man kept advancing on him.
I’m not a fan of American gun culture, but in this particular case the prankster got a big cup of fuck-around-and-find-out.
Yeah, the tricky part about the “this didn’t justify lethal force” argument is that it’s impossible to truly justify lethal force unless you wait for them to use lethal force first. You could be getting attacked by an 8’ tall 380 pound giant, but if the attacker is unarmed there will still be someone in the comments going “why not use pepper spray or a taser instead? Getting punched doesn’t justify lethal force.” The goalposts are constantly moving, to the point that you basically need to wait for an attacker to stab/shoot you before you respond.
That’s why the courts don’t use public opinion. The self defense laws are (at least in Stand Your Ground states) written in a way that the victim simply needs to fear for their life, or for the life of another. As long as they can justify that fear to a jury, they’ll be fine. And the jury will constantly be reminded that as long as they believe the shooter feared for their life, the shooter should be allowed to walk.
Agreed, and I do not think that the shooter should have shot the YouTuber, just that the YouTuber (and those like him) are pressing so many buttons that someone is bound to react unexpectedly. Add American gun culture to that and it creates this kind of shit storm.
In the world that has been created in the USA, the shooters reaction was within “reason” and there is a good chance the jurors will agree. That doesn’t mean anyone thinks that anyone deserved to be shot necessarily, just that the shooter was in reasonable fear and that the YouTuber merely faced the consequences of his own actions.
Legal, and I think moral justification is not based on how emotionally scared he was. Legal justification for deadly force requires a belief based on evidence and logic that the defender was about to be maimed or killed, or become the victim of a short list of felonies.
His lawyer will likely try to make that case to the jury, but a size disparity and weird behavior without an explicit threat or actual physical harm is going to be a tough sell for deadly force.
I don’t know American law, and frankly I don’t care because the justice system is shit. But despite that, the jury is urged to put themselves in the shoes of the shooter and use his intent to decide his level of guilt.
Logically and morally, in today’s world the shooter is likely justified in his action but the law hasn’t got there yet. Not that it will with gun culture the way that it is.
Do I think he should have shot someone? No. Do I still think the YouTuber got what he deserved? Yes. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
Weird behavior? Try “overtly aggressive” behavior
The purpose of the prank was to confuse the victim. While he is confused, he is, by the prankster’s intention, stuck in a situation he has never been in before. New situations are hard to assert properly. He was shoved a phone to his face, multiple times, aggressively, not sure why or whats coming next.
You know there are drugs with which its enough to inhale just a few grains of their powder to be affected and controlled? What if the phone was laced with such a drug? What if the words from the phone sounded like a threat?
So many different thoughts run through the head in an intentionally confusing situation that is also aggressive and threatenning. I dont blame the shooter here.
I tried punching an attacker once and ended up with brain damage as a result of losing the fight. Now I carry a weapon and I’m not going back to fists with all the uncertainty their use entails.
Ehhh, it depends.
Alan asked Tanner to stop and retreated several times, but Tanner just kept advancing on him. Alan was just doing his job and was presumably alone, but Tanner was with a group of friends. Tanner was taller than Alan and is a pretty big guy, so it would be reasonable for Alan to feel threatened. Throwing a punch against a bigger guy who’s with his friends wouldn’t be a great move. I watched Tanner’s “I got shot!” video and he was wearing fairly loose clothing; if he were dressed similarly for this prank, it would have been easy for him to conceal a weapon of his own. Even if he didn’t have a weapon, his friends might have had one. So now, even if Alan had pepper spray, it’s not a great option since he could end up getting ganged up on. The text that Tanner’s phone was reading could have been construed as being homophobic (I assume you know what a “twink” is), particularly without the benefit of tone to judge, and even if Alan isn’t gay, he still reasonably could have believed that Tanner thought he was and was targeting him for this. And finally, Tanner’s behavior was probably very suspicious - beyond just what’s described in the article. First of all, he’s trespassing, having been thrown out by security the day prior, and was trying to avoid security. Secondly, in his “I got shot!” video he does this thing where he stares at you slack-jawed. It’s off putting in the video and I’m sure it’s worse in person. It would be reasonable for Alan to believe Tanner was on meth, coke, heroin, etc., and was trying to shake him down for drug money. Note that “twinkie” is - according to UrbanDictionary, at least - slang for a bag of drugs worth a certain amount of money ($20 back in 2005).
On the other hand, Tanner didn’t have a weapon out, nor did his friends; he didn’t touch Alan; and this all happened in a public place.
But if Alan believed that Tanner was on drugs, their being in public doesn’t matter. We know security wasn’t around and drug addicts have a reputation for illogical behavior, so he could have very well feared they might kill him in front of a group of people. And since Alan had reason to believe Tanner or his friends might be carrying, pulling his gun and giving them a chance to respond - possibly pulling their own guns and shooting him - wouldn’t have made sense, either.
Nah there’s definitely people saying that.
No, but I am seeing lots of idiots that think everyone that’s harassed for a “prank” somehow know it’s just a prank…
I think it’s an empathy thing, you idiots are putting yourselves in the shoes of the “pranker” and since that means you’d know it’s a prank, you think everyone would.
Usually people get passed that line of thinking around 8 or 9 years old, but it seems to be taking lots of people longer recently.
All the shooter knew was a large man ran up, shoved a phone that was blaring confusing curse words directly in his face, and kept doing it when asked to stop and advancing when he tried to back away
That is what he got shot for.
He didn’t say “oh. I’m being pranked, I should just cap this idiot”.
That’s called “theory of mind” and, if I recall correctly, it typically develops around age four.
Who the hell is “you idiots”? I don’t condone what Cook did.
If your idea of a prank is to physically intimidate strangers by getting into their personal space and harassing them when they say to stop, then you are an asshole.
If you intimidate strangers for any reason full stop you’re a thug. The guise of “pranks” doesn’t excuse menacing behavior
Sure, but it doesn’t warrant pulling out a gun.
Physically intimidating strangers and not stopping when told to seems like the exact situation that should lead to escalating force, and while something like mace would be better overall for society, using the tools that are available is understandable.
Exactly.
First of all, it’s your* response.
Second of all, it depends of the prank. Did you not read the article? The “victim of the prank” doesn’t have the benefit of knowing it’s a prank while being pranked.
And this is not some silly string prank on your face. It’s some dude who’s taller than you, trying to put a phone on you. You don’t know what people have been going through to just bug them like that and expect no consequence. What if the person received a death threat that very morning, for example?
And the guy being pranked told the pranker to stop, multiple times.
And the guy being pranked tried to move away while the prankster continued to advance on him.
And the pranker had a mob of people with him.
So his options included getting attacked physically and loosing control over his firearm which could have them been used on him.
that’s s really big what if
If your day consists of pranking unsuspecting people, knowingly causing anger and anxiety, then you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people because that mentality gets people killed.
This is exactly what 'Public Disturbance" charge is for.
Why are they not being charged with it?
Ok, but how would you know it was a prank? If you have someone who has suddenly entered into your personal space exhibiting erratic but persistent confrontational behavior, I think there’s some justification towards reacting with violence. I dont think most of us are conditioned or trained to react to threatening behavior in the most effective way, like cops and military are. So that means flight, freeze, or fight. You don’t have the benefit of knowing it was a prank, you just have a situation rapidly unfolding in front of you. Unfortunately in this situation Colie was armed, and responded with that measure. I think most of people would be ok if the response was just a phsyical fight without a gun, but then again how many people have the capability to “win” that way?
I agree with you but find it funny you included cops in the “conditioned or trained to react to behavior in the most effective way.” An American cop would have also shot the prankster and would probably have emptied his whole clip into him as well.
Lol yeah had to throw them in, because I guess essentially they DO get the training. They prob get de-escalation training too, but why bother when as a cop you get a few free oopsies a year.
So throw a punch, or shove him. You seriously think shooting someone is an acceptable response?
That’s actually the last thing you want to do if you’re armed. You want to avoid physical confrontations, because it vastly increases the chances of them being able to take your weapon and use it against you. You want to keep them at a distance whenever possible, which is exactly what the shooter tried to do. They retreated and told the prankster to stop harassing them multiple times. It was only when the prankster followed them that they opened fire, because it became clear that he had no intention of stopping.
Whether or not the shooting is justified is up to a jury. But I just wanted to point out that your “just punch them” response is… Just wrong. Pretty much any concealed carry instructor will tell you that step 1 is to deescalate. Step 2 is to try and get away from the situation. Only after you’ve exhausted those should you consider lethal force. And that’s exactly what the shooter did.
Crazy idea, but you could just not bring a gun into a mall…
Crazy idea, but read the article. He’s a delivery driver there to pick up an order. Probably enters high crime areas on the regular and kept it on his person where it would be most needed.
Yep that’s what I was thinking, too. He’s probably seen and encountered some shit. Some gig work like Uber Eats allows customers to pay in cash so there’s a fair chance that he is a natural target for theft through armed robbery or assault. If I had to do this work, I would want to be armed as well. Nobody in their right mind wants to do this kind of shit work though.
So, if the person who is attacking you is much larger, or there are more of them, even if it’s a prank, you’re going to just throw a punch or shove them? What a privileged position you must be in to think you can simply punch or shove an attacker. Say that to the 100lb woman a 250lb guy is advancing on, she should just shove him, right?
Look, I don’t know if you’re ignorant or trolling, but if someone is acting like they’re going to attack someone and they have justifiable reason to fear for their life, then deadly force is a reasonable response. I’m not going to get the shit beat out of me, or killed, because “hey, it might just be a prank.”
Did you read the last sentence of the post you replied to?
The guy is 6’5". I could shove him all I want, he’s not going anywhere.
I haven’t watched the video, but I bet it’s fairly clear if the target of the prank felt threatened or just annoyed.
Either way, crazy gun owners exist. It’s one of the many reasons you should not try to prank or annoy strangers for fun and profit. You might get shot, and nobody is going to feel sorry for you.
deleted by creator
Sure, not saying what the prankster did was right. But pulling a gun on him is escalation beyond what a reasonable person would do.
*Flailing their little noodle arms at a guy who’s much bigger, with his buddies, and acting threatening and unpredictable is beyond what a reasonable person would do. Especially if they have any sort of weapon that would level the field.
Lmao, if you think my 120lb ass wouldn’t have seen the writing on the wall. I sure as shit would have gone so far as to pull it and if he didn’t stop in light of a gun (not in any way a certainty), we would have assessed our options, wouldn’t we? I’m not being handed a choice.
He has almost a foot on me, definitely more strength, way more backup than I do (they are each also individually stronger), relying on bystanders to help is less likely to pan out the more bystanders there are, and various people in this thread have explained very carefully they’re not trying to get murked. Yes, that would cross my mind, absolutely.
Hate to say it. Not a fan of guns and a huge number of those who are seem to think it’s a toy instead of a killing weapon. And he really shouldn’t have had one in a damn mall.
But he did have one, the situation would have come through to me as a very likely bodily threat, and I’m not terribly judgemental about the self-defense in that specific moment. He could have run. They just would have chased him down for the fun of it.
While I wouldn’t have been so quick to actually fire, this is also just sorta what happens when you continue to advance on people in a manner that’s meant to induce fearful uncertainty. You don’t know who has a weapon and the trauma to use it.