YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him
YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him
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...
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Both parties should be prosecuted. One for reckless discharge of a firearm and the other for harassment.
Disagree. The guy should be prosecuted for harassment and that's it.
If someone walks up on me and gets in my face and I tell them to back the fuck off 3 times and they keep coming, I'm going to assume the have malicious intent and defend myself.
He was warned, he deserved what he got. He's lucky he didn't get killed.
If you get in a cops face like that (not touching them) they are going to shoot you, and you are going to go to jail after after you get out of the hospital. Provided you aren't dead.
It should be no different in this case.
I'm not some staunch 2A nutball, but I do believe in our right to defend ourselves. The dude escalated after being told to stop multiple times.
Also to be clear, I wish we had stricter firearms regulations, and honestly wish we didn't need them at all. Having lived in a country where it's damn near impossible to get a weapon for almost a decade, it was nice to not have to worry about it.
staunch no from me.
IDK if it's a cultural thing, but as a European the thought that it is even remotely okay to take this into your own hands.
if it's this bad, you call the police and they prosecute this behavior from there on.
there is absolutely no space for vigilantism in our society. We are civilized people, not wild barbarians.
You think it's a good idea to call the police?.... In the US?
When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Can't call the police if you're being beat to death. Can't know if you're about to be beat to death by this complete stranger acting aggressive and erratic unless you give them the chance to beat you to death.
I mean you say you are not a 2A gun nut, but you sound like one, or at least like one of those revenge fantasy online-talking redditors, wtf man.
I hope you are just trolling/ragebaiting or just a kid who doesn't know any better, what the fuck is wrong with you?
According to the article the interaction lasted less than 30 seconds, the guy was clearly taking out his frustration with his life on the prankster cunt and you think it's acceptable to shoot at someone just because they are being an annoying cunt? once again what the fuck, it was in a food court, public place full of innocent people, even if you are psychopathic cunt enough that you think it's acceptable to try to kill someone for being annoying do you ever think about others around you? what if the youtuber hit his arm while shooting and he hits some innocent bystander? what if someone gets trampled in the ensuing panic?
you gonna go and tell some child that their mommy/daddy didn't come home, but worry not, some youtube prankster got stopped?
get a fucking grip and touch some grass. jesus christ.
what does lasting 30sec have to do with it? how long would it have lasted if Colie hadn't pulled a gun? how many more times would have have been threatened? And yes he was being threatened by a 6'5" man continually advancing on him.
Remove the gun from the equation; what if Colie had beaten Cook instead until he felt safe again and put him in the hospital ? Would that be justified since it didn't involve a gun? Same result either way.
you need to forget about the fact that this was a prank or what Cook's intent was. They have no baring. Only what the real victim (Colie) perceived; and Colie felt threatened and had every right to defend himself. The fact that the means he used was a gun is an entirely different topic of conversation. He felt under threat as any reasonable person would in that situation.
once again, are you kid?
30 seconds is relevant as it means it took very little for him to snap.
Only what the real victim (Colie) perceived
just because he is bigger and annoying you don't get to shoot him, get a fucking grip, what if he was black and thus made him feel afraid because he was a racist cunt? that's justified shooting in your opinion?
what if Colie had beaten Cook instead
then that would justify self-defense, phone in your face doesn't... jesus christ do you really need this explained to you?
He felt under threat as any reasonable person would in that situation
no reasonable person feels threatened when someone plays weird noises from a phone to them in a fucking food court, certainly not enough to justify use of deadly force, not in a fucking food court, if this was a dimly lit alley where he was alone ans in the "bas part of town", sure it's less black ans white, as it described in the article the guy belongs to prison.
Nope, 51yo average sized male with a military career and enough life experience to know it doesn't take very long for things to escalate very quickly. 30 seconds is an ETERNITY if you feel threatened.
He isn't annoying, he's threatening. Big matters because it amplifies the threat. If Cook was 5' 70lb 16yo female that would be an entirely different dynamic. Of course if a 5' 70lb person had their own weapon then we wouldn't be talking about their size we'd be talking about their weapon. In this case being 6'5" is it's own potential weapon in the eyes of someone who feels threatened.
I guess I do need this explained to me. I need it explained to me how you don't understand "phone in your face" is not all that happened. Cook was told to stop, didn't. Cook was retreated from, for THIRTY FEET (from the news video), and continued to approach Colie. How do YOU not get that can be very threatening to someone? Cook's own admission that his goal is to "confuse" people is an admission that Colie could have been confused about what was happening and what Cook's intent was. At that point self-defense = what's needed to eliminate the threat.
Yes any reasonable person can feel threatened by a 6'5" adult male approaching them, being told to stop, not stopping, and continuing to be pursued while trying to back away from the situation.
But here's the good news. You and I clearly disagree about what can reasonably be considered a threat that warrants self-defense to eliminate the threat*. And it doesn't matter. A judge and Jury will get to decide which one of us has the more cogent argument.
- note that I am intentionally not naming the method used to eliminate the threat. The fact that a gun was used is actually not the point here. If Colie picked up a baseball bat sitting on the floor and beat Cook to death with multiple strikes while he lay on the ground I'd be agreeing it was excessive force and might need a closer look. Just like if he had taken a 2nd shot while Cook lay on the ground. But he didn't. He fired one shot to eliminate the threat. That might not have been a rational thought in his mind at the time, but it's what happened. Odds are he scared himself from the actual shot; but I don't know.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
note that I am intentionally not naming the method used to eliminate the threat. The fact that a gun was used is actually not the point here.
well it really doesn't matter, you are right, the big distinction is "deadly force" as seen below in the proportional response part of self-defense.
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.
Duty to Retreat
The original laws about self-defense required people claiming self-defense first to attempt to avoid violence before using force. This is also known as a "duty to retreat." While most states have removed this rule for instances involving non-deadly force, many states still require the person to attempt to escape the situation before applying deadly force. It's important to know the laws of your local jurisdiction to decide whether this duty is required.
Lucky for him it seems Virginia doesn't have this law.
here is your stupid feels threathened argument:
Imperfect Self-Defense
Sometimes, a person may genuinely fear imminent physical harm that is not objectively reasonable. If that person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the legal situation is "imperfect self-defense."
Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime but can lessen the charges and penalties involved. But not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense as a reason to lessen a sentence.
Nope, 51yo average sized male with a military career and enough life experience
guess that explains a lot about your takes here, lol.
he said stop 3 times
my bad, that means he is allowed a fucking murder attempt, it's stop 3 times for 1 murder attempt, 6 stops for 3 murder attempts, there is like a bonus.
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.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...
Permanently Deleted
Nothing is wrong with me. You've just probably never been beaten half to death or shot at unprovoked.
I have.
I hate feeling that sentiment, but having experienced thing things I have in the US, and having lived in other countries and felt safer than ever. I truly wish we didn't have the problems we have today in the US, but we do.
30 seconds doesn't sound like much, but it only takes a few seconds to lose your life. Cops likely aren't going to be there fast enough to save you if something actually goes wrong.
I don't really have much else to say. I have personal experiences to back up my reasoning for self defense.
nothing is wrong with me
proceeds to described exactly what's wrong with them...
have you been shot at from a phone? in a public place like a food court?
have you been loomed over by a 6’5” man
I think they would find it hard, given that I am 197 cm tall. I have experienced needless insecurities from regular height guys around me, like a ton, though.
as for your previous comment
I don’t really have much else to say. I have personal experiences to back up my reasoning for self defense.
you don't have reasoning, you have past trauma causing you a colored view of things.
In a normal country (so not a shithole like the US) the idea that you are justified deadly force in a situation that poses no reasonable threat in a public place like a food court is fucking laughable.
wasnt me
poses no reasonable threat
how do you know that he knew
what do you mean reckless
shooting a gun with no good reason in a highly populated place risks otherwise avoidable injury or death of innocent bystanders
Sounds like he had a pretty good reason
harassment isn't a good reason to take somebody's life or the life of a bystander
Assault is
maybe brush up on your definition of assault
Seems like you should. Let me help:
The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed or offensively touched. The accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear. No physical contact or injury has to actually occur.
Sounds like assault to me.
Playing a weird sound clip and looking at somebody is weird as fuck but does not threaten physical harm
I guess we'll find out in this trial if you're right
I'm sure the victim would love to be charged with a misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm instead of the three felonies he is currently being charged with.
there you go. im not a lawyer just glad he's getting charged