A Northern Virginia jury has heard testimony from a YouTube prankster who was shot earlier this year by one of his targets. Tanner Cook survived the shot to the chest he received in April at Dulles Town Center in Loudoun County, west of the nation’s capital. Alan Colie, a delivery driver who was the target of the prank, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding and two firearms counts. He has pleaded not guilty. Cook told jurors Tuesday that he had no idea Colie was scared or angered by the prank until he was shot. He said he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks more than anger them.

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.

  • jumperalex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    Yup, you figured out the math. That’s what we’re all saying.

    Wrap it up everyone, we’ve been outed.

    Or maybe, and I know I’m a broken record at this point, but maybe it’s one threat for one attempt to eliminate that threat.

    You REALLY need to stop focusing on the intent of the fucktard prankster and put yourself in the shoes of the victim threatened with assault.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

    ASSAULT

    Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

    “Intention” in the context of assault, means that the act is not accidental, but motive is immaterial.
    It does not matter if the goal of the tortfeasor was merely to scare the victim or if the act was meant as a joke.
    The tortfeasor need not have intended for the contact to be harmful or offensive, only to have intended the actual contact.
“Reasonable apprehension” in the context of assault, refers to the victim’s reasonable belief that the act will lead to imminent harmful or offensive contact.
    The victim does not need to prove fear, only that they were aware that such a contact might occur. If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.
    If the victim and tortfeasor have special knowledge of each other, this special knowledge may be considered when determining whether the victim’s apprehension was reasonable.
“Imminent” in the context of assault, means the threatened harmful or offensive contact must be certain or likely to occur very soon.
“Harmful or offensive” in the context of assault, is an objective standard referring to touching that is likely to or capable of causing harm or offending a reasonable person by violating prevailing social standards of acceptable touching.
    However, an otherwise inoffensive contact may be deemed offensive if the tortfeasor knew the victim was unusually averse to such a contact.
    There is some disagreement among jurisdictions in regard to the role of consent.
    • kameecoding@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

      Courts struggle with determining an appropriate level of force or violence when a person defends themselves. In reviews of what is such appropriate levels of violence, courts often consider the following:

      • What if the victim of a violent crime provoked the attack?
      • Did the perpetrator threaten the use of deadly force or non-deadly force?
      • Was the victim obligated to retreat from the violence or threat of imminent force?
      • Did the victim have a reasonable belief or reasonable fear that the use of force against them was imminent?
      • Did the victim use reasonable force in response to the attack?
      • What protection exists for victims who feel, on reasonable grounds, that a threat exists when it does not?

      Proportional Response

      Self-defense law requires the response to match the threat level in question. In other words, a person can only use as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, their claim of self-defense will fail.

      do I really need to quote more shit for your?

      he fucking fails the proportional criteria and fails it hard…