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.
Hey guys, can we quit with the calls for the deaths of assholes? Lemmy.world's server rules include this:
No links to content supporting, featuring, or promoting hate movements, terrorism, mass violence, or calls to violence.
I've seen that interpreted as including comments that call for someone's death, and I don't want to see this shit get out of hand and draw admin attention.
This particular piece of shit, Tanner Cook, deserves to have his channels shut down, deserves some prison time, and deserves some kind of court order preventing him from pulling stupid "pranks" on anyone ever again. Maybe then he can do something productive with his life, instead of... whatever the fuck it is he's doing right now.
But he can't do that if he's dead.
Being an asshole isn't a capital offense, worthy of summary execution. And the judge in this case apparently agrees.
This case is very local to me so I have been following a lot of the discussion about it.
Way too many people are too quick to call for this guy's death or saying that he deserved to get shot. And I just can't disagree more. But I do also get why people are sympathetic to the shooter though, cause he very much is also a victim in all this as well.
This guy though absolutely deserves consequences for these stupid "pranks" and he absolutely should not be earning any kind of money from this. Seriously fuck that guy.
People only see this with the context that this is a youtuber doing a prank.
This man is 6 fucking 5. Imagine a random giant gets in your face, you think you're about to be robbed or beaten. He advances. You retreat. He advances. You retreat, he advanced. Again, you retreat, he advances, all the while shoving something in your face. How many times do you need to tell someone to disengage and retreat before its okay to consider it a threat?
Just because this guy happened to be a youtuber doing a prank is irrelevant, imo.
Tbf imo while I carry a gun, I also carry mace for shit like this. From the above description it seems normal force was certainly justified but deadly force is questionable, however I withhold personal judgement as I'm not following the case and the details reported could be (often are) wildly innacurate from the facts.
This assumes a level of focus, presence of mind, and training to reliably discriminate between injurious and non-injurious active threats and measure your response with non-lethal force on a gamble that your attacker is non going to be physically violent towards you.
Cops fail at this all the time, it's not reasonable to treat non-injurious threats as acceptable behavior and demand non-police with zero legal protections handle it better.
If you're going to walk up to a stranger in the street and threaten them, then proceed to advance when they respond with "please stop! Get away from me!", you have forfeited any right to benefit of the doubt on their part.
Take away the gun for a minute. Would this guy be on trial if he instead hit him in the head with a blunt object? I’m not a fan of guns, not approving of firing them in public, so on and so forth, but I think this person may have been justified in defending themselves.
Yes, from what is presented here, it sure sounds like self-defense was warranted but the guy needed to try a less lethal weapon. Put them both in jail, plus seize the Ill-gotten gains of the asshole.
I know it’s easy to be brave on the internet, with plenty of time to think about it: I wanted to quip “that’s what I carry elbows for”. I certainly can’t claim to know whether I would react appropriately, but I don’t have to since I don’t carry a lethal weapon. If you do carry, you need to be able to respond appropriately instead of just blasting away at the first confrontation
I think there are maybe two times in my life I've been pro-second amendment, and watching that video just now is one of them.
That guy, threatening multiple people with what anyone with eyes would see as an extremely open murder threat? Often with a fake body to demonstrate their life actually is actively at stake in this moment? You can shoot that guy.
That clown-thing is one of the worst 'pranks' I've ever seen in my life. Someone could easily get PTSD from that, or someone else could easily assault the clown with lethal force because of the threat implied.
Good pranks are along the lines of the Just for Laughs / Gags series, not these dumbass American vigilante pranks, or that miserable 'clown' prank above.
I'm not a proponent of violence, but I think these dipshits need to get their asses beaten every time they do that shit. Maybe, if more of them got beaten or shot, then they would stop being ass fucks.
I shouldn't have to be forced to figure out whether someone is a crazy, drug induced murderer, or just some stupid "prankster" every time I go out in public. Rule number 1 in a society is "don't fuck with strangers".
Hey, this is skirting pretty close to actually being a proponent of violence. Yeah, we all hate internet pranksters who annoy people for views, but that's not a crime that deserves a death sentence.
The dumbass didn't die. Shoving a phone that's playing some dumbass confusing phrase, 6 inches from someone's face, who is just trying to do his job, is assault. Most counties allow you to defend yourself if someone is assaulting you. Most states provide worker protections that provide extra penalties for harassing or assaulting employees. But I guess Uber Eats drivers don't get those protections since they're technically not employees. Weeee.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I am a proponent of violence toward “these dipshits”
I’m not really interested in taking a side here, but if you can’t at least recognize the cognitive dissonance in this statement, there’s nothing anybody can say to you.
You can think that violence is abhorrent and also understand that it might be the quickest, simplest way to settle a matter. Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
Nah. You can be anti-violence, pro-violence, or understand that violence is acceptable only as a means to achieving a desired result, oftentimes as a last resort.
Both the first and third options are not proponents of violence, but the third understands it is a necessity to achieve their goals at times. This is literally heavily discussed now as fascists try to paint anti-fascists as the violent ones when anti-fascists merely understand violence as the means to a goal in this case and not their normal path to a goal.
How much do you think the poor guy makes? And now he has to pay for a lawyer, lose the job, and probably go to jail. Only so this dipshit can get the right "reaction".
And the shooting would've been completely justified for a cop.
The only reason he got shot is because he was physically imposing enough to skip the normal defensive responses that might have come his way (and/or he specifically (or intentionally) chose victims he knew would be physically threatened by him).
Being the subject of a public court case might. I wouldn't be surprised if they terminate his account just to distance themselves from the proceedings.
"The poor guy" pulled out a gun and shot a stranger on the street. Why is everybody defending him? Do people so vehemently hate prank YouTubers that they would rather just see them executed at this point? This thread is wild.
Delivery rep work is pretty dangerous, same with Uber drivers and other gig workers. Since you are not an employee, companies have no incentive to ensure your safety. You go to unsafe neighborhoods all the time, and risk of getting jumped in always present. And as I said, cops get leeway for far more egregious shooting, so why should this guy be hanged dry?
And I'd invite you to watch a few "prankster" videos on YT. Most of these are spoiled brats who are always trying to up the ante video-over-video. There is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and confuse their victims. So yeah, they had it coming.
A doordash driver gets cornered by a large 6 foot 5 man who aggressively shoves a phone in his ear repeatedly calling them a dipshit who thinks about their "twinkle", tries to get away but is followed, explicitly asks the man to leave him alone 3 times but is ignored, and tries to brush the phone away? Yeah that sounds like a situation a reasonable person might fear for their life in, and before anyone goes "well why didn't they use a less lethal self defense method?", the prankster is 6 foot 5 and the victim likely only had his fists or his gun for self defense, one of those two is going to get you out of that situation alive
Just based on the facts from what information we have, I fully agree. The story would have to change significantly in order to show anything other than exemplary display of good self-defence principles:
avoid being in a shady location - check
when getting in a sticky situation anyway, attempt to flee / defuse (good judgement on what to try first) - check
if still in the threats phase: back off a bit to clearly demonstrate that you are not the aggressor, support that verbally - check
If it is clear that the attacker ignores your pleas, do the minimum damage to STOP the attack safely. Based on that principle, he could have pulled & shot a lot sooner, but apparently wanted to be more defensive & nice than most would have been - check
You should not allow a verbally aggressive person to stay at a distance where they could land a punch or use a concealed knife at any time, especially after you backed off already. Try articulating near a cop's face and see what (rightfully) happens.
I agree that Cook is the asshole here and deserves what he got, from a legal perspective though I have to disagree that shooting Cook was proportionate to the threat.
You describe Cook as the attacker, but there was no expressed threat of violence, only that he was big, and aggravated. Cook didn't die but easily could have.
Your honor, we the members of the jury request additional information regarding local harassment and assault laws related to the 6'5" self-described "goon" so that we may recommend charges.
Additionally, we recommend the charges against the defendant be reduced to misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm.
This kid learned nothing from being shot. He still thinks it is okay to bully random strangers, and is already planning his next prank. If your friends like pranks and you play pranks on each other that is fine.
If you get in someone's face and start demanding they stop thinking of your privates, especially after repeated warnings to back up, then you are inciting violence and sometimes it is going to succeed.
He also fails to recognize how intimidating his height can be to people. I’m not surprised the door dash driver reacted the way he did. This kid is a menace.
Yeah I'm around his height and have light footsteps, I startle people at work accidentally all the time. People don't like being loomed over out of the blue, if you're 6'5 you should already know this.
It's sad that this article reads like advertising for a shit head to attract other shit heads (how many times did they call out his show?). He'll come out of this better off financially.
He eliminated the threat. That I can agree with. Training says shot center of mass until the threat is gone.
Unlike you and all your upvoters, I'm glad the shit bag is still alive.
I'm glad the real victim didn't so something stupid (but maybe understandable in a high-enough threat posture) of shooting again; that would have made his defense much more difficult.
One shot was all that was needed. Heck even if he had missed, that would likely have been all that was needed since I assume (a risk I know) fuck bag prankster has at least enough self-preservation brain cells to un-ass from the scene once the loud bangs start to happen.
For the lazy if people want to report his videos. He literally has shit like "Taking people's groceries", "Aggressively X", "Accusing people of stealing pets", etc. in the titles,
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.
and thats everything thats wrong with society right here.
Him getting shot is just giving him more fame, more money and more excuses to continue doing this shit.
That could be short term. Oftentimes I hear about these people getting more followers, but then I don't hear about them ever again. There are exceptions to that obviously, but I'm not entirely certain on how many retain that fame.
Subscribers is a big number for YouTubers, but if I'm not mistaken, views for videos is still more important. And I wonder how easy it will be to continue making this kind of content a) after suffering an injury like this which will put him out of commission for a while and likely prevent him from doing particular stunts, and b) with the general hesitancy to approach people that this altercation will hopefully instill. So he could be looking at paying actors (would go poorly) or making his pranks more tame (would go poorly).
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.
There wasn't reacting with fear? I guess backing up and saying "stop", while you continued to shove yourself in his face, was a happy reaction?
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance.
He gets off on harassing people just trying to do their jobs or get through the day.
stunts, like pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores
One of the most common ways to become a prank artist is to have some impediment to your empathy. So it's understandable that he couldn't tell what the victims reaction was if it wasn't big enough or obvious enough to bypass his impediment in reading people's reactions.
It's an unfortunate skill to lack, but it's also surprisingly common. Anyone that values money more than what they have to put people through to get that money, usually suffers from the same thing. And I'm sure you can think of alot of people that sound like that.
Past a certain age, it's unlikely that empathy will develop. I have seen it develop as late as age 15 though, so you'd be surprised who is not beyond hope yet. We can only hope for his sake it's still possible to develop after 21 too.
I don't agree that shooting him was the right way to solve that problem, but I do agree there was a problem that needed a solution.
It totally amazes me how stupid this kid is. Scaring people in a country that is known for gun owners shooting people for low-level reasons is not a good survival trait.
This.
We live in a crazy timeline right now. People are stressed, angry, afraid, and it just seems to be getting worse. Couple that with a culture that promotes gun ownership so heavily, and it's a recipe for what we see in this case. "It was just a prank, bro" is no defense, especially when someone has asked you to stop and is backing away from you. He's engaging in risky behavior by acting like a creep. He wants to make people uncomfortable to illicit a reaction? Well, bub, you got a reaction.
Speaking of survival, that made me remember a Brazilian prankster who liked to scare people in the middle of the night. In one such prank, where he was dressed like a killer clown and basically jump scared people in a dimly lit alley, the 4th victim stepped back and immediately drew a gun, forcing the prankster to get on his knees, receive some slaps to the head and hear all sort of cussin'.
I’m reminded of a prank channel I used to watch. He was briefly in jail for a bomb prank and later attacked and beat a woman, seemingly for fun, just a few years ago. These prank channels are nearly universally run by terrible people and there does not seem to be a single thing that will dissuade them from “advancing” their “art.”
This was completely inevitable, I've seen one or two videos of 'pranks' and felt its only a matter of time before someone gets assaulted or shot, now the little shit has more viewers
I mean, people are legit insane these days, and basically everyone has a gun. Like, forget pranks for a sec, I was telling my wife that the cart narc guy is probably lucky to be alive and he's playing Russian roulette and loading another every time...
Prosecutor: "we urge you to ignore the behavior of Cook so we can throw another person into prison, and bump up our conviction rate, helping our careers. We're unconcerned with justice, only convictions matter."
I certainly don't condone what the YouTuber was doing, but I'm curious what alternative action/approach you'd prefer to see from the prosecutor in this context? What would it look like?
They shouldn't ask jurors to ignore the circumstances that created the situation that led to the shooting. All of those details are relevant to the shooter's reaction. They're asking the jurors to ignore relevant and vital information, because that information hurts their chances of getting a conviction.
So then you support... shooting mildly annoying people? Just openly and randomly?
My read is more like: "we urge you to ignore the behavior of Cook because while he's an annoying twat, he still didn't deserve to get shot to death in a public space."
I'm sorry to say you will encounter this phrase alot in your life. It's been an incredibly popular phrase for at least 100 years. Not sure what you have against it, but might be worth trying to solve that underlying problem instead of just being mad every time you hear it. You'll be mad alot.
I keep seeing YouTube shorts of dudes like this doing not just stupid shit, but DANGEROUS shit. I saw this one of this dude flashing gang signs in gang territory in LA. You DO NOT do that shit. Any time someone would get aggressive with him he’s go “it’s a prank there’s a camera!” One of these days he’s going to say that and it’s going to piss the dude he flashed signs at off even more and he is going to get shot.
The professional shows are staged. The contestants might not know the exact prank that will be played on them but they usually are aware that something will happen. They sometimes give a rough time frame of "in the next few days" or even an exact time.
ULPT: In places where self-defence is banned, you can do literally anything to someone else smaller than you without fear of consequences, well not until the cops arrive... in 10 minutes, or if at all.
Dude deserved to be punched in the face, not shot. I hate people who do stuff like this and wish they'd stop getting attention. But I can't imagine how you could justify shooting someone over it.
It's more or less assault by Cook. I mean ok in hindsight there wasn't that much of a threat to Colie, but if I were queueing somewhere minding my own business and out of nowhere this big guy was getting in my face about his twinkie it would be... "very intense".
By Cook's own admission he was trying to illicit confusion. IDK if that's really an emotion in and of itself, rather a conflict between multiple emotions. In this case those emotions would be fear, anger, embarrassment, whatever.
If Cook were to say "I was behaving in an intimidating way in order to illicit fear, anger, embarrassment, and a conflict between all of those emotions on the part of Colie" it sounds much more like assault.
Yet the fact remains that Colie's reaction of shooting the guy isn't really proportionate to the threat. Certainly in most places which are not America Colie has broken the law and Cook has not... despite that feeling somewhat unjust.
Rather than changing the law to allow people to shoot youtubers on sight (as appealing as that sounds) - I think it might be better for force platforms like youtube et al to have some social responsibility and at least exclude this type of content at least at a policy level.
I know my views on this are probably abnormal in some way but it just seems way inappropriate to me to use the public even as extras in your social media content. Like if I'm at a cafe or something and someone starts making a video even if I'm merely providing some infinitessimal portion of ambiance I just find that grossly inappropriate. I guess I just have to suck it up as part of being "in public" in 2023.
I think it might be better for force platforms like youtube et al to have some social responsibility and at least exclude this type of content at least at a policy level.
I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me and why I haven't seen anyone suggest it before now. This sounds like a great solution to the problem.
I think it's a classic "Fuck around and find out". I don't like how every idiot can own a gun in the US, but i think it's reasonable for a delivery guy to fear a strange guy putting his smartphone in your face.
What if it's a stupid way to mug you? Distract you with the phone and while your attention is on the phone, stab you with the hand you don't see?
The average person is going to be overwhelmed by his size and even likely his energy, they're not going to be able to punch him and do anything other than injure themselves and/or aggravate him.
Easy for me to think that he could have just brandished the gun to get the guy to back off. But I'm not in his shoes, I'm just some guy on his phone, I don't envy him having to deal with that scenario and could totally see anyone making the wrong decision there
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.
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.
This is just harassment since Cook wasn't battering him. Perhaps assault (not battery). Lethal violence wasn't warranted. You'd probably need to call the police. There isn't a good answer for the "I'm not touching you." level of harassment this asshat was exhibiting. You might have been justified for violence less-than-lethal but that's probably going to be iffy in court. Lawsuit after the fact would be feasible as well.
That's all rational, but all he needs is a psychiatrist to say that he was confused enough by the behavior that his rational brain shut down, he only saw aggression, fight or fight kicked in and he defended himself against a perceived threat of unknown severity, which prompted him to go for a defense he knew could protect him, his gun.
The real difference here is that the cops would have aimed center of made and put the kid down permanently... fewer lawsuits that way.
Not a US resident, but I'm not sure that the jury has a very difficult decision. The US has a strong pro gun culture and you could predict that victims of pranks would be scared and that the prankster would be shot eventually.
The guy might have felt threatened, but he was not in any sort of actual or perceived danger. Pulling the gun as a deterrent would have been more than sufficient, but he shot without hesitation, in the middle of a mall during rush hour.
They might have a case of self defense here, but need to convince the jury that he absolutely, genuinely felt threatened, and that's not as straightforward given the setting than in an abandoned parking lot at midnight or some back alley.
Pepper spray is better in this situation anyway. Far less likely to accidentally seriously hurt or kill someone, but still incredibly painful enough to drive the point home. And if you do end up having to fight them you have an advantage.
Nah. As much as I hate the prankster bros, a death sentence is not justified. I just hope the case will be tossed out, leaving this idiot with the hospital bills.
It sounds more like he was scared for his safety than merely irritated. Given that the "prankster" is 6'5" tall, it's really easy to understand why his erratic and confrontational behavior would be scary.
It's amazing how everyone is calling for the death of this guy when they have no idea what happened. You just hear "Youtuber" and "prankster" and have already plugged the electrical chair in. You're all a bunch of old, boomer, whiny, unhinged, histrionic, virtue signaling fucking idiots.
The prank was stupid, but in no way does it warrant being killed. The man just held a phone to his ear and stood near you. Was moving away from him not an option? I assume he had a vehicle since he was doing deliveries. Maybe go to it and leave. Hell, just run away from him if you're really scared.
I guess you didn't read the part in the summary above (no link clicking even needed) where it says the victim (yes Colie is the real victim here)
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.
Does Cook "deserve to be killed"? No, but "deserve" is not the right word here. "Expect" is more like it, and yes he should expect to be at risk of serious bodily harm for approaching a stranger, with unknown intent (to the stranger), and a failure to back off when clearly told to stop and retreated from.
In an ideal world Colie wouldn't have had a gun and Cook would have just been beaten until the perceived threat was eliminated. But regardless of your political/philosophical feelings about gun ownership in the US, it is the current fact of the land and if you Fuck Around you better be prepared to Find Out. Then again, at 6'5" Cook probably feels like he's safe from a beating and I'd be very surprised to find out he's tried these stunts out on grown men of equal size; even this dolt can do that math.
I am glad he's not dead. I hope he has learned his lesson to not be a piece of shit human being too selfish to understand we are not here for his amusement. My hopes are likely to be left unfulfilled.
at 6'5" Cook probably feels like he's safe from a beating
Probably... and also seems to be asking to get proven wrong. His kidneys and balls are at about half that height, it's hard to believe how many people underestimate those.
Horrible people on both sides of the Isle here if you ask me.
This "pranker" is godawful and should have his channel demonetized.
The shooter is yet another example of "I'm uncomfortable, so I will kill the cause", not that different from "a stranger calls at my door, let me kill the cause"
Where do you live? If you want I can hire a 6'5" goon to get in your face, refuse to back off, and continue perusing you as you repeated tell him to get away and see if you feel safe.
Uh huh, and then I simply try to murder an annoying asshole in a public place. I hate those "prank" assholes as much as the next guy, that doesn't make it okay to just shoot assholes. This kind of behavior is scarily close to "yeah this unknown black guy knocked at my door and I feared for my safety so I shot him in the head"