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.
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.
Cops have "qualified" immunity, as citizens we are forced to take the threat level into account, or else we end up in court with what was it again? Two weapons charges and AWDW?
Not saying this dude should be charged, but he is, and now his life hangs in the balance of 12 "peers." "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," I know, but still, if you have enough time to back up and say "gtfo" 3x you can look at his hands real fast and see if something looks pointy, shooty, or text-y, and I'd rather mace him and keep rolling, case is easier to beat.
That's not enough to respond with deadly force. You are responsible for your actions and should not carry a deadly weapon if you can't make the distinction. Shouting for help, pushing away, or even a punch in the face are much more appropriate responses.
A reasonable person would not consider a gun an appropriate response to annoying and possibly threatening behavior. Running away for example.
The youtuber fucked around and found out.
When did it become the default to allow harrassment and intinidation just because its being filmed?
The victim was frearing bodily harm and theft, if not other violence.
Justified self defense in response to an assult, imo.
When did shooting someone become the only means of self defense?
When you're facing someone significantly larger than yourself and that is the only tool you have on you to handle a situation where you are afraid for your physical safety. Yes he should have used a non-lethal option, but he didn't have one on him.
Whether he should have been carrying one is an entirely different question to whether he was justified in using the gun in the situation he found himself in.
Not like you can ask the crazy giant continuing to escalate their threat to your safety to wait while you pop on home for your tazer.
I know it's overly reductive, but is your issue with the gun or with this person attempting to defend themselves?
the only tool you have on you to handle a situation
It wasn't. There was running, hiding, asking security for help... plenty of tools before picking a gunfight.
My issue is with this person jumping from 0 to 100 in order to defend themselves. My more general issue, is with people like this person thinking that's the proper way to react.
Yeah, how about taking the phone away? Why does it to be violence?
he tried to knock it away.
i will add here, i'm not keen to scuffle with someone who is 6'5" and hope i don't end up beaten or shot myself. i see a lot of people here advocating a punch, but a lot of us also know that's a potential fight we would lose.
disclaimer - i am not a gun owner. but i can understand some of the reasons why Colie reacted this way.
Let's look at this scenario another way: if a 7 foot tall 400 pound dude goes up to a petite teenage girl and keeps smacking her in the face with a black object after she screams for them to stop repeatedly, she pulls out a knife and put it through his neck (because she cannot carry a gun yet), is she in the right?
Purely from a physical standpoint the FBI did extensive research on this subject decades ago in developing their guidelines for use of force, which reflects both in courts and which you also learn if you get trained for concealed carry.
The justification of deadly force is typically broken down as such: ability, opportunity, and intent. The first two are essentially crossed off in a scenario like this, you simply have no way of knowing if the 7 foot tall linebacker looking dude is a total softie or the 5 foot tall 95 pound granny got her black belt in middle age, and therefore have no way of determining right then and there the ability of the person across from yours ability to kill you with their bare hands or whatever object they happen to have within reach, AND ALSO that this can be accomplished faster than you can react, draw, aim, and fire.
Intent is the only reason why this guy is in court. Right now WE know there was no intent to cause grave bodily harm. But at that point in time, would a reasonable person being rather gently but persistently attacked with some object know this?
America seems fucking depressing if you feel you have to carry multiple weapons on the regular to be safe.
Depends on location, time of day/night, et cetera. America is big, like whole EU big, there are both extremely safe and extremely dangerous places contained within.
It's more than twice the size of the EU.
The EU is 1.6M sq mi. The USA is 3.7M sq mi.
Thanks, I was out and about at the time I saw his question, but realized that while I was unaware of the exact proportions myself he was just as capable as I was of looking it up, so I didn't bother.
Is that the EU now or with the UK?
The entire UK is the same size as 9 US states. The smallest 9, the smallest of which is just about the size of a small town.
Which doesn’t answer my question at all.
The USA is more than twice the size of the current EU. You can assume losing the UK didn't account for a drop in the bucket.
Good question, love your uname.
Brazil is about as big. Nobody with a normal life carries weapons around.
Weeeelll because they aren't* legally allowed to. Besides, we all know everyone in Brazil is already an off duty cop. We just not gonna talk about the RPG-7s in the Favelas though?
*(or is it now "weren't" as of Ballscenario like last year?)
-
You're legally allowed to own and carry most weapons, just not firearms. Also, you can own swords but not carry them, for historical reasons.
-
You have a distorted view of Brazil. Sure, Rio is a shithole, but even there only criminal gangs carry guns.
-
After bostanaro's defeat, the government properly cracked down on "legally certified" gun ownership.
-
So that's a "yes."
-
It's a meme about how every video from Brazil is some criminal with a gun interacting with someone else in brazil who surprise! happens to be a police officer in plain clothes with a gun of their own. This may surprise you, but I'm aware that not "everyone in Brazil" (which would include grandmothers and toddlers and shit) is actually an off duty cop.
-
So yes. "They don't carry weapons" because "they aren't legally allowed to carry the effective ones."
In fact, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1116989125/brazil-firearm-ownership-booms-gun-laws-loosen-bolsonaro
Legal gun ownership boomed with it "becoming legal." This indicates that the reason those people weren't is because it "wasn't legal." Those people want to carry, they just "follow the laws" unlike all those people who actually do carry guns in Brazil that we're ignoring because they're criminals.
Said "boom" was exclusive to rich, already illegally armed people. Notice the total number of registered gun owners doesn't even reach 1% of the population? Again, you have a distorted view on things.
You've got to understand Brazil has some loaded history, despite being a relatively young nation. Between 1964 and 1990, the country underwent a USA-backed coup which, unsurprisingly, tried to americanize its population in several aspects. As a result, you have pockets of people brainwashed to think 'murica is the best and everything they do should be copied – mostly old rich fuckers and their kids, as poor people could see, or rather were forced to see, the reality of things.Tbh I'm not exactly surprised to hear the people who bought guns were the people who could afford guns. The ones who can't afford guns have to borrow a buddy's and steal the one from the guy refilling the ATM.
In 2005, a large majority of Brazil's population voted against banning the sale of guns and ammunition to civilians in a referendum.[1] Executive Order No. 5.123, of 1 July 2004[9] allowed the Federal Police to confiscate firearms which are not possessed for a valid reason; self-defense was not considered a valid argument.[10]
These measures saw mixed results. Initially, the crime rate dropped,[11] but subsequently rose in later years. 2012 marked the highest rate of gun deaths in 35 years for Brazil, eight years after a ban on carrying handguns in public went into effect,[12] and 2016 saw the worst ever death toll from homicide in Brazil, with 61,619 dead.[13] The death toll rose again in 2017 to 63,880, a 3.7% rise from 2016.[14]
Huh, history is interesting.
-
-
If you Mace someone you had better take them down. Without distance the mace may be a danger to you as much or more than the attacker.
Well guess we should just shoot him to avoid overspray huh? Lol, like it or not this is exactly a perfect use case for it, normal force was justified but deadly, we shall see what the court says I guess.
Yes.
Lol well we'll see. Idk about you but if I can avoid the chance at prison (and have the time/ability to realize it's his phone, of course), I'm using the mace which I keep for nondeadly threats on the nondeadly threat. DA in my area (and most areas actually) would definitely bring this case to trial, probably wouldn't if I use normal force but still, if they do, simple assault is better than awdw and two gun charges in my humble opinion.
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
That’s my point though, I think he may have reacted appropriately. If he carried the gun legally and he was within his right to defend himself I can’t fault him for the outcome. More over, if I’m picking incidents to show irresponsible use of firearms, this wouldn’t be high on my list.
But it's great to put on a list of reasons for gun control! Most seem to agree that him responding to a perceived threat violently was acceptable, but he shouldn't have used a gun. But if he's legally carrying, then it sounds like the biggest threat here was the access to firearms. Maybe access to a pocket sized kill button is harmful to society?
This guy felt threatened. If it's any of the gun-owners in this thread and they have no context and feel threatened, I'm sure they'd hate having people call for their imprisonment because they thought they were doing the right thing to protect themselves and it turns out they made the wrong call.
I agree with you. This is responsible use of firearms. This is just what responsible gun ownership looks like. It's a machine who's only purpose is to kill. The best outcome is trying but failing to kill someone. The most likely outcome is someone is dead. That's how guns work.
If you’re having the debate about having guns vs not, this is not a great example of either side.
This is the problem with US gun laws; so he's carrying legally, gets in a situation where self defense is warranted, and does...
- ask the other guy to stop
- back away
cry for helppush the guy awayshove an elbow into guy's gutknee him into the groinpush fingers into his eyesshove keys into guy's kidneys- pull a gun and shoot the guy... because, y'know, can never be sure whether the attacker is going to shoot you first or not
I really wouldn't want to live in a place where the only options for self defense are to either back away, or shoot someone.
What? This was a fucking 6ft 5in giant of an attacker. I suppose I'm happy that you never seem to have taken a sucker punch, or any serious strike to anywhere vital, but that sort of shit is a momentary action for the attacker that can easily leave the victim reeling and unable to react for literal minutes after.
The attacker doesn't need a gun to permanently injure you, and only needs a moment to strike you when you attempt to do any of the options you crossed out as things that should have been attempted first. Plus it's a hell of a lot easier to say any of those options you listed than successfully do them (besides crying for help of fucking course), especially when you have no training in self defense, you're already intensely off balance, confused, scared, and tense because some random stranger is acting confusingly aggresive towards you.
You go to push him away. He elbows you in the face and proceeds to beat the ever loving shit out of you as you flail to block your vital organs, crying for help where you'll be lucky if anyone responds at all, let alone fast enough to do anything to actually help you before you end up with broken bones and permanent brain damage (it doesn't take much to do if someone's going apeshit on your head once you're already on the ground).
The unfortunate reality is that any threat to your physical safety by someone larger or stronger than yourself is inherently an existential threat to you unless you rely on your attacker not having lethal intent. You've been accosted by a complete stranger. You don't know shit about their intent. You can only hope. This is true regardless of how each party is armed, guns, knives, or only with their fists. If they truly want to kill you and you have no way to equalize their advantage over you, you're probably just fucked.
You can argue that people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns and should be restricted to non-lethal options, but given the situation and the tools this guy had available, the gun was the only option that would guarantee his safety against unknown intent.
I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to risk their own life just so they might allow an unknown aggressor with unknown intent the opportunity to live at the potential cost of their own life. The only way to know if you are in lethal danger in this situation is in retrospect. After the altercation is over, and the victim is potentially dead.
The aggressor is the one that chose to initiate the aggression. If the situation is a question of whether the victim ot the aggressor has more of a right to live, and it is a binary choice (as it has every potential to be), I don't think it's a hard call.
I wish that it didn't have to be reduced to a kill or be killed judgement, but humans are far more fucking fragile than any of us like to admit or think about, and again we can only know if the attacker had lethal intent in retrospect.
only needs a moment to strike you
The shooter gave the attacker plenty of moments:
- asked him to back out
- backed away
- asked again
- backed again
- asked again
- backed once more
- pushed the phone out of his face
According to your logic, he could've died 7 times that day.
And only then pulled out a gun. 🤦
That's assinine. If he was so unsure about the threat level, then should have tried to run away and hide from the start; they weren't out in the desert FFS.
Instead, he acted all sure of his own superiority with his gun, waiting for an excuse to use it. That's closer to premeditated intent to kill, rather than self defense.
Yeah I figured this would be the outcome