this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
3 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] enki@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] FlashMobOfOne 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] pbjamm 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Punch in the face? Only in the USA would it be OK to shoot someone for being an asshole in the mall.

[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dra@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The entire thread on reddit was shocking. The vast, overwhelming majority of people said it was good. Tremendous respect for being the exception

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] charles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] jarfil 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ericjmorey 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He was found guilty of exactly the crime you're concerned about for the exact reason you're concerned about.

[–] charles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

[–] enki@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] ericjmorey 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's illegal to fire a gun in a mall for good reason. The man was found guilty of doing exactly that.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

We shall see.

[–] MySNsucks923@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] interolivary 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] RickRussell_CA 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

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

[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jarfil 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

Plus, I doubt two things:

  1. I don't think U.S. Justice system would prefer you to shoot people over a non-violent result
  2. 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] enki@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SugarApplePie 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SugarApplePie 9 points 1 year ago

Well here's hoping his last words aren't "I mean, what are the odds it happens again?"

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

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.^[https://newsio.com/2023/09/29/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-prankster-at-virginia-shopping-centre-acquitted/]

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.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VulcanDeathGrip 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What happened to a good ol’ fashioned ass whooping?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It's heavily discouraged by society, but also, the YouTuber was 6'5". That's a pretty big deterrent to an attack.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] marco 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish he would have just broken his nose.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] elouboub@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›