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

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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”?

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “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.

      • Daydreamy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one’s rather absurd position.

            Imagine defending such.

        • Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

    • enki@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • fische_stix@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ram@bookwormstory.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.