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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    39
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, you shoot people because you believe they pose a legitimate threat to you. Cook was assaulted and defended himself.

    This is a case of, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

    It’s also important to note that the scumbag that was assaulting him is 6’5", so he’s automatically intimidating just by existing.

    • blazera
      link
      fedilink
      -271 year ago

      I like that addition at the end that just being tall warrants you being murdered.

      • BrianTheFirst
        link
        fedilink
        251 year ago

        They said that tall people are intimidating, which is absolutely true. As another 6’5" dude, I try to be careful how I walk up on somebody, because it is easy to accidentally scare the shit out of people.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          -121 year ago

          Again, do you shoot people expecting them to be fine?

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Again, nobody was murdered in this case. The facts of the case are what matter, not your hypothetical musings.

            • blazera
              link
              fedilink
              -81 year ago

              in the cases where people are killed you’re gonna be conveniently absent from discussion. And believe me, there will be many, many more cases of people being killed thanks to people like you.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                91 year ago

                Since you feel so comfortable predicting the future, why weren’t you there to tell this YouTuber that assaulting this man would get him shot?

                Or maybe you just prefer to deflect attention from the fact that you peddle is disinformation and bad-faith arguments in order to push and agenda. Either way, considering the facts in the case, what we have is a person legally justified in defending themselves from assault, whether you like it or not. No amount of your hypotheticals, attempts at prognostication, or casting aspersions while refusing to accept the truth will ever change those facts.

              • ramOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                81 year ago

                I look forward to seeing more level headed discussion from the beacon of truth you must be to be so confident that you’re correct yet so incapable of adequately describing why to a convincing degree.

                • blazera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -51 year ago

                  Confident that…more people are going to be shot to death in the future???

                  How disjointed from reality are you people?

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    51 year ago

                    That can be avoided by not provoking people into self-defense by assaulting them, as is what happened in this case.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, killing someone is often a successful way to remove the perceived threat to your life.

                But, you keep conveniently forgetting that no one was killed.

                • blazera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -21 year ago

                  Usually, and very regularly, people are killed by being shot. Sometimes they survive. That doesnt change the fact they intended to kill someone.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                81 year ago

                If that person is using the cell phone to assault you and threaten your life, which is the case in this instance, then, yes, they would be legally justified in doing so.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -71 year ago

                  Lol no its the case here. The mental gymnastic used to justify shooting people in America is fucking bizarre

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    41 year ago

                    The only mental gymnastics present here are in your repeated twisting of and denial of the facts. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -141 year ago

        Guys he this person walked at me aggressively and I couldn’t tell if they’d kill me so I shot them. Bless merica where life doesn’t mean jack shit.

        • gregorum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          You can get justifiably shot in self-defense for assaulting a person, yes. Because that’s what happened here.

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              91 year ago

              Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are what matter in this case, whether you like it or not.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -31 year ago

                But it’s true though: in a lot of countries the guy would be convicted and it would be classified as too much force for self defense.

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  What might happen in other countries is irrelevant. It happened here and was a legally justified response to assault, no matter how much you don’t like it.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -71 year ago

                The fact is a guy shot negligently at a kid for playing a speaker at him. Its like speaking to a 1900 Arab whose saying it’s justified to cut a criminals hands off because his legal system deemed it so. The country is beyond reasonable and as I said is fairly evil when it comes to valuing life. You’re using a broken measuring stick to measure

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  8
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Except that’s not what happened. Your entire argument hinges on your persistent mischaracterization of events, yet you accuse me of using a “broken measuring stick”. Even you can’t meet your own silly standards, lol.

      • TheLowestStone
        link
        fedilink
        401 year ago

        By legal definition, assault is an intentional, offensive, or harmful act that may cause reasonable anxiety or fear of expected injury.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            231 year ago

            My definition is that is not an assault

            Are we allowed to use alternative definitions now? My definition of assult is someone contunuing to use previously refuted statements.

          • TheLowestStone
            link
            fedilink
            201 year ago

            Classic willful ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that you’re not worth engaging with in the future.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            191 year ago

            Don’t care what the legal definition is

            When we’re just casually disregarding pesky things like definitions, how can you actually expect any form of genuine conversation to take place? You’re playing pretend from the start.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                71 year ago

                No, you’re using your definition that you’ve pulled out of your ass. The real definition is different.

                Words have meaning, and hopefully you learn that before you graduate high school and have to deal with the real world.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -61 year ago

                  Yes I am using my definition. Are you saying speech is violence? This was playing audio next to someone. Nothing physical. You’d have to argue that playing audio is some kind of violence that justifies killing

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    51 year ago

                    Alright, if it was just playing audio next to someone, I’d agree with you. You’re intentionally leaving out important details to the situation.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            I’m just gonna take a different approach here. That’s not a definition. That’s just a statement. You actually have to give a description of the criteria for what constitutes as “Assault” to make a definition. Why isn’t it assault?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        A very tall stranger shoving his phone in your face while saying nonsense is inherently intimidating.

        Or, are you confused because, legally, assault is the threat of violence while battery is the actual violence?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                141 year ago

                No, he shot a very large stranger that came up behind him and started aggressively shoving their phone at his head abs kept following him as he backed away. It’s completely reasonable to feel threatened in that situation.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -101 year ago

                  Not life threatening. Completely reasonable to feel threatened in many safe situations. Which is why walking around armed leads to this negligence and the devaluing of human life to justify it.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    8
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You weren’t in the situation, so you have no idea how Cook felt. It’s easy to look back after the fact and say that things should have been done differently.

                    Luckily, a jury disagrees with you.

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    6
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Murder is defined as the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another.

                    That is not what happened here.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    51 year ago

                    No, murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another person. Killing someone isn’t automatically murder.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    51 year ago

                    No, murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another person.

                    Murder does not mean killing someone in self defense.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 year ago

                He defended himself against someone who was assaulting him, which he has every right to do. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            121 year ago

            The extent to which you’re victim blaming here is beyond absurd.

      • SaltySalamander
        link
        fedilink
        201 year ago

        Assault is words, you, along with most everyone else, are confusing assault with battery.